speaker

I don't agree that basing ones opinions of someone on their appearance or demeanor in public is necessarily a superficial approach. At least it is equally as superficial as making the same decision based on the words of the person or his party. If a person has difficulty making eye contact, appears uneasy in an open forum, is lacking social skills when under the eye of voter scrutiny, it is likely that he/she is going beyond what they are comfortable with and probably can't handle the stress of the job itself. It is true that the candidates go to candidate school to try to polish them and a PM candidate has gone through a lot of it so it's generally harder to see, but all the more reason to watch for that kind of behaviour or appearance. Anyone who has accepted party policies as indicative of particular party actions in the future is naive, and superficial. The best option is to vote for the person who is the best candidate, no matter what party they are running for. Perhaps,,,, Perhaps if we all did this all the parties would take a little more time picking their candidates and would weed out the ones who are obviously a little too self-motivated.

I think that if they paid for their education completely themselves then let them go free and clear. that kind of brain drain I can live with. however if the public paid for their education all or part of the way through then that charge should go against those who leave so that we can cycle the money back into our own young doctors.

Wilbur you wrote that our public system doesn't even know what particular surgical procedures actually cost. Knowing how much care is put into budgeting in the system now I find that hard to believe. What gives you that impression?

One thing our public helth care system could do is ease doctor shortage by increasing the number of students enrolled in medical schools. Doctors are on average as greedy as anybody and if the shortage means they can demand better pay, better conditions, the ones that make it through our current med schools are going to want to make big bucks and live where the amenities suit their families best. With more doctors around more would see the benefits of living and enhancing the lifestyle of rural areas. I disagree with our health care providers searching for immigrant doctors only because for the most part those doctors are needed in their home countries far more than they are needed here. It is beyond selfishness.

Whose hands are in whose pockets? When we give tax cuts to businesses that currently operate in Canada the benefits to society are split between those companies that are too small to do their contracting out to third world slave masters and those who are big enough to benefit from these tactics. This is where jobs? are being created. In my experience the bigger the business the bigger the share of the governmental benefits.

It absolutely rocks. absolutely, it is so much fun that it should be illegal. so I guess it is actually. Which unfortunately doesn't stop one whole wad of corruptable goofs from trying to bring it back, PMO: P*** me off. I have to agree that by the time any party can become government it has to have sold itself so often that its members are looking for the means to buy. The Liberals/Conservatives being more into the commercial buy/sell world from the outset are more likely to fall.

Unfortunately this is the kind of partisan bile that locks people into denying facts when a party gets into power and ends up having a wreck because of the inability of it's members to see anything but their ability to profit from their position. It happens. When it happens who among you will have the courage to stand up to it? After all you've invested a significant portion of your self esteem in this kind of promotion/defense. What, is it possible you were wrong? Were misled? Naahhh. We've seen it too many times folks, get over it. Unless you stand to personally gain from partisan party politics there is no percentage in developing such an attitude. Lib, Con, or NDP, if you do stand to gain then you sure as aitch shouldn't be involved in politics because sooner or later you're going to be one of the ones we love to hate.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and project a landslide victory for the Cats.

Americans have always wanted to be friends with everyone? That's good to hear, next time they decide to invade some poor country that they are being friendly with we can send our troops to reassure everyone that it's merely the Government of the USA expressing their puzzled love. The Americans have divisions within themselves. I agree with that. Each state has significant power in Washington DC. Electoral Politics. The corporate sector has significant power in Washintongton, DC. Finanancial Politics. It's easy to see why poor George, who seems to have trouble putting two and two together, has difficulty hearing anything from as far away as Canada. Between the CEOs of the American Forestry industry, and the Agribusiness sector, and the Senators who see the extra money coming into their states coffers he must be almost deaf. Something about the lumber dispute that is perhaps not noticed is that the lumber is still flowing out of Canada into the States, like it's on the old style river runs. The difference is that the money coming back for it is significantly less than it was before. So who is really suffering, A good portion of our forest companies are American owned, so they could care less. The people who work or rather worked in the industry here, loggers and mill workers, are the people who have paid for Bush's support from the above mentioned lobbyists. Residents of the provinces that have some export are also making their contributions through relaxed logging rules, reduced local jobs in the economy, damaged environments because of less government control of the forest giants. It isn't so much that we don't want the Americans to stop buying our forest products, or that we don't want them to buy our water. It's that now we are subsidizing the destruction of our forests for American benefit, and water is not going to fall into the same trap.

It might be a mistake to jump to conclusions about what votes means, for example maybe the votes that count are the ones that keep Quebec in Canada. If Quebec were not a province of the country then the constitution we have would be somewhat irrelevant. Doubtless the anglos that left Quebec have some of the same feelings as the Palestinians who were forced out of Isreal, Palestine, just not as traumatic. Perhaps closer to the way the Cajuns felt in their first generation or two away from the bay of Fundy. Or maybe the way the French of New France felt when told that they would have to speak English if they wanted any jobs. Let's try a little patience, Quebec is a fine place, almost as beautiful and wealthy as Alberta. It would be a shame to lose either one from this truly great country. A sense of history, learning from our mistakes, and being willing to give a little to keep things going. Some sacrifices are going to be bigger.

"Ultimately the economy will do what a bunch of liberal dogooders never could. Reduce fossil fuel emissions." Okay, the old economy is an intelligence unto itself, and if we but let it happen all will be good, without the dogooders. Well that certainly makes life easier, we don't need to worry anymore about our Grandchildren not having fish to eat, when the sea level rises there will be more room for fish to evade the fishing nets, so the stocks will go up so we'll be able to catch more. Right on. Unless of course we have already caused extinction in some of the best fish stocks. Heck we don't even need to think about alternatives because when fossil fuels get to expensive then we will wean ourselves off of them., Do you have any idea how much coal there is out there? If we don't break the habit of using the cheapest, financially not economically, alternative, ie, oil and gas, what is to stop us from saying coal will be next. There are times when I think if the Liberals and Conservatives had an ounce of foresight between them it would throw them of balance and they would crash into each other forming the conlibs. Of course as it is they are options for us now in elections. lol

I've asked conservative candidates, I've been to the conservative website, as far as I can see there is no environmental protection policies concerning these issues. These issues are more relevant to all Canadians than one might think. Downplaying them as regional issues is an indication of shortsightedness on the conservative side. If anything else affects our long term economy more, our recreational opportunities to the same extent, or our social fabric as much, it isn't evident to me.

Duceppe, on his toes Martin, on his heels Harper, smarmy Layton, desparate none of them were honest often enough to get me to vote for them. Hopefully one of the people running where I actually get to vote will have a better attitude.

I'll point out that while there is somewhat less increase in green house gas emissions per capita than in Canada, this does not make the American Administration any better than the Canadian. I have not seen any factors which explain why the increase is lower south of the border other than that there may be a better record of volunteerism amongst major polluters. This is very commendable but hardly evidence of American Government being better than the Canadian Liberals. I have asked questions of all party candidates, and it's the same thing, Environment equals ghg's. Talk about head in the sand. There is soil degradation, endangered species, deforestation, loss of fisheries, water pollution, oil and gas depletion, chemical pollution of air and soil. Show me the party with the best policies concerning each of these as distinct recognition of the problems. It isn't the conservatives or the liberals, given who contributes to each of them we do understand where their priorities lie.

hahahahahaha politically induced undemocratic republic Canada hahahaha wtf

My perception has nothing to do with Scott Brison, but a great deal to do with the loss of social liberality. For argument sake you might google national progressive party of Canada. I would argue that changing the name does change the truth. The CCF does not exist now, nor do it's original ideals. The combination Progressive Conservative Party does not exist any more, or the Reform, Alliance, Progressives, now we have only the Conservatives which this party becomes each time it eats it's own arms in an effort to get itself elected into power. Each time it gets to power another protest party has to form because of the betrayal of the decent people who got tricked into supporting the old power base that controls the Conservative party. When will they ever learn.

The French were in Alberta first, and are still here. Check out some of the french sounding place names. I can see the frustration that comes out of a situation where you aren't understood, or can't understand what's going on. This same problem has affected the original peoples, and in more ways than simple language. The French and then the English used their dominance to try to force the natives to speak their respective languages. The French imposed French while this was a French colony on the English, Scots, Irish, and others who came for the fishing and furs. That was reversed when it was an English colony, Then an English Country, As you say, it goes back into history, like the Isreali/Palestinian conflict in the Promised land. two wrongs, three wrongs, four wrongs,,,, maybe we'll get it right next time.

have you ever heard the expression, "I never met an American I didn't like, It's the Americans I can't stand" It emphasizes a couple of points. Americans actually are people, similar to Chinese, Guatemalans, Nigerians, Jordanians, and Khazaks, and yes even Canucks. still one shouldn't get carried away with a generalization like this because what those peoples believe will get them to the same goals does differ considerably. The Americans have gone beyond being the spoiled rich kids who believe in Manifest Destiny and have gone right over to Devine right. And I'm not talking about Grant, though he may have had similar illusions.

Canada=A country that has two official languages and isn't bilingual. Quebec=A province where you are discriminated against if you don't speak French. As far as I am concerned, the Quebec government isn't willing to accomodate anglophones, so why should anglo provinces be willing to accomodate francophones? As an anglophone Quebecer, I learned French to be able to participate more fully in Quebec society. Francophones in other provinces would be wise learn English and do the same. No one really believes the bilingualism myth anymore. Why should anglo provinces be willing to accomodate francophones? because two wrongs don't make a right.

There are people out there running in this election who are worth voting for. unfortunately because it makes it more difficult for people, they aren't running for any particular party. They are running for reasons that include making Canada a better place. There is no such thing as a corrupt party. however there are parties being handled by people who want to get near power for their own purposes. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But more insidious is the notion that Power attracts the corrupt and the corruptible. go out and ignore the parties and vote for the best person, the least dishonest appearing, the one with a vision beyond his/her own nose, watch who is supporting the various candidates and try to figure where there allegiances will lie if they get to power. And have fun, it only comes along every 18 months or so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Poor choice of phrasing I guess. What I meant to say was that the list while funny was pretty repetitive. It was Kula who suggested that the list was Brilliant, and I assume because of this we should vote conservative, therefore I meant that I would not vote for the conservatives because of the list. This post isn't to cast aspersions on people who might find it brilliant but only to point out that repetition isn't as useful in politics as it is in grade eight math for example.

This is pretty funny, no doubt about it. I can see pauls smilin' face as he produces each priority with an exhibition of deep sincerity. Really you should ralize that Mr. Martin only had a few priorities at any particular point in time. By the time he got to the next group of voters he had already gotten a different set of priorities. The conservative website would have more weight if it didn't feel the need to exaggerate the already ridiculous by being so repetitive. It's probably not necessary to say but I won't be voting for the conservatives because of this, even if it is funny. There are after all the conservative priorities to worry about.

Could be I'm showing my age, or my bitterness about the loss of Progressive in progessive conservative. I understand that you think it applies to liberals now. I guess the next question is ,, Is there room for liberals, progressives, in the LIBERAL party?

It'll be interesting to see if any elected Liberals actually had the nerve to profit after all their other "mistakes". This thing called reasonable doubt is such a tough one for the police to overcome in a situation like this. Plus there is so much money involved in white collar crime,(and the liberals are seriously white collar nowadays,) it has to be tempting for some cops to misread evidence. That's the difference between a kid on the streets with a gun and Conrad Black for example, or Paul Martin if you like in this great land of opportunity some of us are more likely to be able to capitalize on that opportunity. Let's not forget the poor hoodlum but let's see which party has a serious attempt to tighten on the white collars .

I think that this is essentially correct as far as it goes. Progressives were the left wing of the Conservative movement. The Red Tories put up a pretty good fight trying to keep the PC party from becoming totally irrelevant and completely out of touch. Unfortunately there weren't enough people willing to put up with the ultra right within the party. There's another thread on here that describes Harper as being just to the right of centre, this is probably true within the conservative party. If Progressive has been liberated from the conservative party I suspect that these wild and crazy "moonbats" are still to the right of the political spectrum, but likely close enough to centre to understand that there is more to life than tax cuts.