tml12

What have you seen? It's the old gateway drug myth. I believe that weed is the least harmfull of any recreational drug, alcohol included. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marijuana is not only less harmful than alcohol but also less harmful than nicotine. So why does Harper think that marijuana possession should result in young people going to jail while possession of a substance far more harmful to society and the individual, alcohol, is perfectly acceptable? Here's my theory and it's just that, a theory. Conservatives are not huge proponents of social change. Here's one dictionary definition of conservative, "...tending or disposed to maintain existing views, habits, conditions, i.e., traditional." Canada criminalized marijuana in the 1920's and while criminalization was not based on any scientific or medical evidence, it's become a tradition. Previously various provinces prohibited the sale of alcohol but the alcohol prohibition laws were repealed in the 1920's. The US did not repeal prohibition laws until 1933 which meant that Canada supplied illegal US alcohol in the interim. So in Canada, alcohol was legalized and coincidentally, marijuana was criminalized in the 1920's. What if it had been the other way around? Marijuana would today be legal but alcohol possession could result in jail sentences. What would conservatives and traditionalists be saying today? That alcohol is a far more harmful substance than marijuana , that it's a gateway drug, that it's linked to organized crime etc., etc. My point is that Stephen Harper's position today is based on conservative traditionalism and has nothing to do with reason or scientific evidence. If his position is even remotely rational, can a CPC supporter explain it? It's an irrational position based not on reason, not on evidence but merely on random and arbitary tradition. Even on opposition to same sex marriage, I can see rational reasons why some might have this view. I may not agree with those reasons but at least they're explicable. But who, other than Harper, can possibly explain why he wants to throw people in jail for possession of a substance less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Probably because they see weed as a gateway drug.

Trusted them so much they wouldn't vote for them. The party was walking dead, on the verge of bankruptcy, without ideas or support. If it hadn't merged with the Alliance when it did it would have been destroyed in the last election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I stand by my point that the PCs were trusted. The party was dying because many small c-conservatives thought the Alliance could better defeat the Liberals. The alliance could not defeat the Liberals. Neither could Reform. Had the Alliance disappeared and the PCs survived, the Liberals today would be facing a trusted conservative party untainted by extreme positions like opposing marijuana decriminalization, opposing inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation, etc. Joe Clark, like the Liberals, NDP and BQ, were not opposed. Quebecc has elected PC governments in the past but they won't elect a Harperite party with socially intolerant Reform/Alliance views. If "uniting the right" was a clever move, why is the combined Alliance/PC vote higher than the CPC vote? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What about unite the right with a former PC leader?

Almost 50% of Americans Believe the U.S. Is Winning The War on Terror. 30% of Democrats agree as well. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/War%2...thly_Update.htm It is good to see Americans optimistic, regardless of how one feels about W.

May I ask what party you're voting for?

I cross various Quebec-New York State borders approx. 12-15 times a year. Canadian customs are always more interested in alcohol/tobacco, etc., whereas the U.S. officials are more interested in food products (like beef) and the purpose of your trip. The U.S. also makes sure if there are non-U.S./Canadians that they have a passport and a travelling visa if necessary. The U.S. is less interested in tobacco/alcohol because, as they understand, the U.S. is less of a tax tax tax society and their personal exemptions are higher I think. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Also alcohol and tobacco aren't as deadly as al-Qaeda...

I cross various Quebec-New York State borders approx. 12-15 times a year. Canadian customs are always more interested in alcohol/tobacco, etc., whereas the U.S. officials are more interested in food products (like beef) and the purpose of your trip. The U.S. also makes sure if there are non-U.S./Canadians that they have a passport and a travelling visa if necessary. The U.S. is less interested in tobacco/alcohol because, as they understand, the U.S. is less of a tax tax tax society and their personal exemptions are higher I think.

Who does the GST cut really help anyway Scriblett? Martins idea for cutting the income tax is a much more solid plan. Ask all the economists who agreed with him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't you know that if you ask 5 economists 1 question about tax cuts (or anything) you will get 5 VERY different opinions? And why was scrapping the GST so good when the Liberals proposed it and won a majorityon it, but now it isn't?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, my question too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Scrapping the GST was never a good idea. The Liberals realized this. As a potential Conservative voter, I want to trust Harper's proposal. At least it would be consistent with a smaller government platform. I don't know if it will work...economically the Liberal plan makes more sense but after all these promises that were broken who knows if they even mean what they say anymore.

Goodale is probably still the front runner there but the CPC's have a good canidate. He screwed his own province in the energy accord that was given to the maritimes and promised to Sask......not delivered.... I also think that the conservitives actually have a shot at a seat or two in Quebec. ( I'll get jumped on for that one) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mean the Liberals don't take care of their own? You won't get jumped on...in Montreal, the Bloc has a hard enough time jumping on Liberal government who govern by divine right (my MP doesn't even live in my riding and she's never here. She sent us a 2006 calendar but that's about it.) I live in a riding that has the potential to go Conservative one of these days.

Yeah, but Clinton went in with NATO and was successful. On June 30, 1999, the UN Security Council approves a resolution that authorizes the plan for peace in Kosovo by a vote of 14-0. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kosovo-timeline1.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> June 30, 1999? A little late, no? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some people celebrate Christmas all year...

Excellent point Norman.... The example provided is an excellent illustration of Harper holding a position that he's temporarily keeping in the closet. This deserves a thread of its own. And if Harper's keeping this (position on hate crimes) in the closet while on campaign, it makes me question how many other things he's "just not mentioning". And what would he do about Iraq if elected on Jan 23???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct me if I am wrong but aren't hate crimes verbal crimes that encourage racism? I am sorry but while people say "that's so gay" it is inappropriate but not a hate crime.

Charest Can't BECAUSE: 1) He is a former PC guy and I think he supports Harper. 2) He is a Liberal now but QLP usually remains neutral because they are usually more conservative in policy than the federal Liberals, 3) Charest is damaged goods. His daycare Bill 124 is a PR disaster.

Great Posts Guys: Leafless Wrote--"I think national representation as always been a part of federalism but with the case of Quebec national representation has been tilted to include as heavy emphasis on regional representation meaning Quebec nationalism." You may be right...I can look at it best from a Quebec point of view. But it seems the Liberals have done a good job with it. I would actually like to see a Conservative MP from. There were some ridings where the Conservatives came in second near Quebec City. August Wrote--"How about this idea: if we took Quebec out of this federal election, how would the rest of Canada vote? Would the Liberal Party even exist? Would "Canadians" vote along regional lines, along urban/rural lines or along ideological lines?" Without Quebec, there would probably be much more close elections and more diverse political backgrounds. French would still be important because there are French communities in other provinces. I still think ideological lines would be important. As for Charest, man is he ever damaged goods. They cringe in Westmount when you talk about him. And the West Island is hush hush hush. Cartman Wrote: "Just so you know, there are more "agitated" provinces. Here in Saskatchewan, we came one seat away from kicking the Liberals out. We did manage to get rid of the NDP......(I hope that doesn't sound to much like Gille)." Sorry I didn't know. Bet you're happy you did (how are Goodale's chances in this election). After 2006 if there is a province without the Liberals, I think the Conservatives could really start using the national representation card.

At this point going anywhere near Iraq would be a PR disaster and impossible in a Conservative minority. My personal view? Since we are already in Iraq I don't think there is much else we can do. Martin made sure to send assistance there as soon as Chretien left (although I think he...hush hush ...had people there to). Let us just stand by and see what our US and UK friends need us to do.

SOCIALLY: I am moderate, right-leaning (by Quebec standards). I am pro-choice, favour marijuana decriminalization, but believe state cannot legalize gay marriage, etc. Strong military and tough on serious crime approach VERY important. ECONOMICALLY: I am moderate, left-leaning. I favour a strong community and social programs BUT also a flat, progressive tax and not such a huge emphasis on universiality. Sorry folks, communism can only work on an island of 20. Tests tell me this means I am centrist/moderate communitarian. That's fine, because I am emphasis the community as long as individual rights are respected. What federal party does this translate into? I dunno but I will probably vote Conservative...but in my riding that means nothing. Cons came in fourth (I think last time) and my MP is a four-term Liberal.

True but why does Harper want to put public money into the hands of private corporations? I stand to be corrected but didn't Harper say last week that if public wait list times are too long, those on the lists would be sent to private health care including private, corporate-run US hospitals? Those outrageously expensive US hospitals, run by US big busniess, would essentially be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Healthcare was supposed to be fixed for a generation. Still waiting for the results...

The other night, August titled his post on Buzz Hargrove's announcement "Buzz Hargrove Appointed to Senate," and my initial reaction was to assume August was serious... I guess that's a statement about how much faith I have in politics in this country. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So did I!!! But for the record I have no doubt he probably will be if the Liberals get in again. Or maybe Federal Ethics Commissioner? Shapiro is in a bit of trouble (He should come back to McGill...he was a great president!!!)

Martin has turned into (or perhaps always was) a complete buffoon, and Harper doesn't exactly ring of nationalism. Layton is a non-player, so he isn't even worth mentioning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dunno. Sure they are not francophones but I would at least hope people off this island of Montreal would listen to them. Otherwise it would be a shame.

Why could neither Martin nor Harper campaign for Canada?

Why shouldnt the top 20 percent earners rake in the most, they have the most to lose. Your top 20 percent are the ones that employee most of america. How many people did bill gates put to work with Microsoft? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I believe it...

You have to give Stronach credit for having gall: Yes Ms. Young, you are correct. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah Belinda Belinda Belinda, Yeah she did...power hungry is as power hungry does. And she stole my MP's portfolio!!!

I wouldn't be too quick to discount this. I live and work in the suburbs of Vancouver and interact with many new Canadians. I do agree that many I have spoken to do not vote, but those that do, do vote Liberal and the reason being a sense of gratitude / loyalty to the party that they perceive to be responsible for bring them in. I know it is anecdotal, but this is what I've experienced. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Liberal Party has recently been more supportive of immigrants, if only because they have written the last few immigration acts.

I cross the border many times a year...you're right!!!

Sun Life was 1979 (I said early 80s, my mistake). And you're right eureka, Quebecers did not take over those businesses. The "Masters In Our Own House" strategy was from Lesage's Liberal government, not any PQ government.

I agree, the BQ would find it advantagous. The CPC has a good chance of getting a minority, Harper has done well in uniting a party, bringing the more radicals into line and modifiying his and the party's position. Good forum here by the way, diverse and not too many rude posters. Good stuff. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Frankly the BQ is so happy they could care less. But I really think they could use a Conservative minority most to their advantage...especially with no seats in Quebec.

This is what ppl used to say in the 60's, sure, many ppl & business left quebec but the quebeckers took their place and remplaced those business. Quebeckers passed from cheap labor to owners. Some may say Montreal lost its place to Toronto but what place was that ? They lost the english business community to gain and build a french business community wich was a necessity to attain a better and more representative economic system. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah Bakunin, We lose a lot in the early 80s to Toronto. Remember the Sun Life move when Parizeau was Minister of Finance? Yeah, that was nasty. Hell, even Bank of Montreal is based in TO. It isn't right...we lost too much.