tml12

The Liberals believe...sadly, too correctly, that when they go negative they gain ground.

Still USA_Liberal, corruption over conspiracy theories doesn't cut it for me. Also, Canadian values? That is a Liberal Party phrase, remember Chretien (Liberal values are Canadian values)? Your values are based on your upbringing and where in the country you live. I don't know where you live but I am assuming it is in a Liberal province? The Liberals in Canada are looking to create a Canadian myth in this country, much like the Republicans are trying to create an American myth in the States. I don't think it will work because our countries are so vast and spread out, it is unlikely they will succeed past Ontario in Canada and Middle America in the States.

You make some good general points. However, the CPC made some great second place comeback finishings in some Quebec ridings last year. If they remain competitive, there could be a great chance for them.

River, Would you mind just debating issues on the table rather than conspiracies theories? You don't hear Martin bringing these up at the debates? You think he's in on this too? After all, we are making most of the bullets currently used in Iraq.

I think #3 makes the most sense Bakunin. A rise in Conservative support here will definitely affect the Liberal vote but also hurt the Bloc. I think we can expect Duceppe to really go after Harper tonight...

the logic is quite simple. separatism apart, the bloc, ndp, and liberals share a left leaning view of canada. that's what sets the conservatives apart as the odd ball. the liberals are telling quebecers that in the middle of harpers "right fury", they'll be hapless. by voting liberal, at least they face no threat to their social beliefs. I don't mean to scare you but the Liberal Party of late has been campaigning on the left and governing from the right. Martin is a fiscal conservative, as is Harper. Martin is probably a centrist socially, and Harper is a bit more to the right on social issues. That is what separates these two.

Major parties (Liberals and Conservatives) probably do not support the PR system as these parties generally benefit from the "first past the post" system. The Bloc would most certainly oppose it because the Bloc is based solely in Quebec. With PR, they would get at least 40-50 less seats than they'll get in this election with their national percentage. The NDP, of the big four, have been most supportive of PR. It would benefit them, and the Greens, who I think also back PR, the most. The likelihood is that we'll either have a Liberal or Conservative minority one week from Monday. Maybe the NDP, if they hold the balance of power will make an attempt to introduce PR legislation in the House. Your question: would it make sense for the Tories to embrace it with NDP support? My instant response would be "no." However, I would first have to see the results of the election first. If Alberta and the Prairies continue to be a Conservative bastion with little support in Ontario, I would argue no. However, if the Tories can make a significant degree of progress in Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces, then maybe it wouldn't hurt for them. I am not a huge supporter of PR, but that being said I do not oppose it. The problem for me is twofold: 1) There are several versions of PR out there including one proposed here in Quebec. 2) I think the democratic deficit, which PR is usually classified under by its proponents, includes several issues like set election dates that would not benefit the incumbent and an elected Senate. ...would be first on my list of reforms. That being said, I think you'll be hearing about the issue for awhile.

I don't know but that would showcase CBC's Liberal bias.

In other words, strong central government all the way...

Mulroney was far more nationalistic than Harper. Considering the risks, and the evidence, this should be investigated immediately. It would be extremely imprudent not to force Harper to provide full disclosure on who has been financing his campaign. All dealings with fellow Strausians Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfwittz, and other US conservative extremists should also be publicly scrutinized and disclosed. If Harper reveals that, do you think the Liberals should reveal which ridings they fixed to win a majority in the 1997 election?

MARTIN- SPECTACULAR DUCEPPE- N/A LAYTON- LOST HARPER- MYSTERIOUS my take USA_Liberal, Can you provide some detail as to why you think Canada is more democratic than the States?

I think we need to re-evaluate aboriginals and their relationship with the federal government... "On aboriginal affairs, the Conservatives are adamant that self-government should fit within the structure of the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The party doesn't want aboriginal government to be another level of government outside of existing government structures." Source: CBC Care to debate their stated policy?

I think that is a good assessment...

From the Liberals themselves: http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11350 -k Thanks Kimmy... "The Prime Minister’s proposal would guarantee that every Canadian could rest assured that the federal government would never infringe the rights and freedoms everyone deserves." But what about the Supreme Court? This looks cleverly designed as a SSM issue. What if the Supreme Court ruled against the will of the people and there is no nonwithstanding clause so that the ELECTED House could defend the will of the people? How can we check the power of the Supreme Court?

Hey Kula, This sounds interesting but I would like to see a story on it...can you post a link? Thanks

America1, I do not consider your views to be extreme at all but you really need to work on your deliverance.

I was particularly irritated when he attacked Harper on an old speech rather than answering a question about using the Notwithstanding Clause. I think he said the word "American" about ten times during that rant - another desperate, anti-American effort at portraying Harper as unpatriotic because, apparently, he doesn't hate the United States as much as Martin does. I did see that too Argus. Very sad coming from a man promising to improve relations between us and the States.

OK Pocket, I do appreciate your willingness to debate the issue with me and I will most certainly respond now. First, your position is respectable and I most certainly think you have made many valid points. Marriage, to me, is an issue of religion. Just because I am Christian, I am not saying that marriage is a Christian institution. It is not...marriage, rather, can and should be performed by all religions, Christian, Jewish, Arab, etc. This includes ancient ceremonies you speak of. I neither support "legalizing" or "prohibiting" SSM. Because the state is not a religious institution, I do not believe the State can take a position on that issue. If the Anglicans, say, want to legalize SSM then that is fine with me. Yet, the state "legalizing" SSM is not something I understand. SSM is now to be performed by the state? To me, that is more of a civil union. The state is involved with civil affairs. Again, I think we disagree on who can "perform" marriages. My friends on the left say anyone can get married anywhere by any person. I just don't see it that way. If I were PM, I would make it an issue of provincial rights. If I were a Premier, then I would intepret the law as per the values that I have. I realize my position is rather "archaic." When you consider that I am in my early 20s, it is probably even more archaic including people in my age group. My parents agree with me...only 2 of my friends do. Maybe I will change my position one day. However, in the meantime I will attend my friends gay marriages and support their decisions, even if I don't see it the same way. I respect all different opinions (left, right, and centre) because these are the cornerstones of democratic society. If I can clarify anything else for you, I would be glad too...

My point is that, while the Liberals sign Kyoto and do nothing, the Republicans in the States leave it up to States' Rights and more gets done when the blue states with the biggest cities put their own plans in place. I would give both the Canadian and US government grade F when it came to the environment. But at least the US allows plans to take place there and doesn't deny their position, here our government tells us everything is OK when we sign Kyoto and then procede to do NOTHING. I recognize, Speaker, that the environment represents more than just greenhouse gases. Yet, they represent what we need to be worried about as a nation. Many of those other issues represent issues which may be important to certain Canadians (i.e. from PEI). No party is best when it comes to "distinct recognition of the problems." Yet, the Conservatives offer a solid plan to combat environmental problems. They have my vote.

Sadly, I must concur... :angry:

The problem with PC people like Clark and to a lesser extent Mulrooney is that they were the same as the Martin Liberal Party. After all, it was the Trudeau wing of the party that is left-wing. The Liberal Party has shifted several degrees to the right-wing since then. Harper is slightly to the right of Clark and Mulrooney.

Because he has scary eyes? This is the only thing which came to mind, meaning your "outright horror" is as senseless and shallow as your post. Wow that was unbelievable.

Look for any Chretien quote when dealing with the Americans, especially that 1997 one when he didn't know the microphone was on... How about Carolyn Parrish? :angry: No specific poster has had to make any comments, the Chretien Liberals provided plenty of ammo... I'm more upset about the Liberals that hate Canadians. How about the "Alberta can blow me" comments from Scott Reid. I'll tell you one thing, Albertans will be telling the same to the Liberals when they give Landslide Annie the boot, the last semi-Liberal in Alberta. I'm sure the rest of the west feels equally upset about being second class citizens to the Liberal Party. True Geoffrey, I'll tell you what. My friends in Edmonton tell me that some of them vote for McLellan because they know the Liberals will win anyway and they want SOME Alberta representation in the House. With Harper maintaining a solid and consistent 3-point lead then maybe they'll vote Conservative. I really want her to lose too. The hatred coming from some of these Liberals is amazing... :angry:

I think the issue here is politics. The Liberals are going to say that Harper has not listed every single donor even though large donors have been accounted for but smaller ones are not. Harper's situation is very far from the donors to a Liberal campaign which included many companies enjoying government contracts. Agreed.

My thesis is both sides played dirty...remember Parizeau and the union intimidators? Landry said he wanted independent oversight at the next referendum. We'll see if Boisclair plays up on this...