captaincanuck

"The Dominion of Stress Ball is a tiny, socially progressive nation, remarkable for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 5 million hold their civil and political rights very dear, although the wealthy and those in business tend to be viewed with suspicion. The tiny, corrupt government juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, Education, and Healthcare. The average income tax rate is 5%. A small but healthy private sector is dominated by the Retail industry. Crime is a serious problem, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. Stress Ball's national animal is the human and its currency is the dollar."

website for this game? linky? anything?????? closest to that i have played was superpower (and super power 2) not bad games, supposedly backed up by CIA and Nato military estimates for equipment/size of each nations military, and at the start of the game at least the governments in every country are close to what they really are. but not realistic. in 50 years i (using Canada) had taken over the planet, and nuked the US and Russia at the same time.

Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41 yup.

I think we should appoint a dictator for life. That way we won't have to bother with elections and compromise and can just focus on getting things done. In 2004, the Liberal got 22 per cent of the vote. In 2000, 20 per cent. In 1997, 24. In 1993, 25 per cent. With the exception of their 13 per cent showing in 1988, the Liberals have held strong at 20 to 25 per cent support in Alberta since Diefenbaker. So 15.3 per cent is not "high for them". It's low. I also apologize for my facts being out of whack. The only ones i have pulled today from memory without double checking first. Aside from that, if we say the liberals generally receive between 20% and 25% of the vote, yet in 2004 they took 2 seats (kilgour and mclennan - for 7% of the seats) and this time they had 15% of the vote for 0 seats, then the statement is still valid. However, i agree that PR would handicap parliament to a large extent.

Oh, I completely agree. Then again, Canada has never let democracy get in the way of its desires either. Nor has any other country. My point was that Canada remaining a democracy does not insure that the US will never decide that their need for our resources far outweighs our rights as a sovereign nation. However, having a visible military presence in the areas we claim, and pulling our own weight as far as our own national security, and our foreign policy and contributions goes, will leave the Americans feeling far less entitled to our piece of the pie (the "we defend you, you owe us" mindset). That being said, do we need to spend 5.3 billion to beef up (or create) a military presence in the second most desolate, second least populated area of the planet? probably not. There should be a compromise in there.

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?" Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it. If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive. I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty. I do not disagree. However, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. wants to negotiate, then we negotiate. If they are being unfair, we retaliate. Of course past considerations should be kept in mind... If a president wanted to invade canada id be the first one to take a shot at him with my .308. Canada has nothing to fear militarly from the United States as long as we are still a democracy. Yank, i think what you mean is we have nothing to fear as long as we keep giving the Americans what they want. Democracy has nothing to do with it. The US has not let democracy get in the way of their desires, and inversely, they have not let extreme fundamentalist monarchies stop them from having great relations.....as long as the extreme fundamentalists give them what they want (hello, Saudi Arabia? we need oil. and we need a place to drop a few military bases. really? of course you'll give it to us? wonderful. oh no, stoning people? never heard of it.)

I am undecided at this point - On one hand, the total seats won by the conservatives and the liberals reflect rather fairly their respective percentage of total votes, nationally. However, when you consider that the Bloc only had 10.5% of the vote, but won 51 seats, yet the NDP had 17.5% of the vote, and only won 29 seats, it makes a better arguement for PR. Again, if you look at the distribution of votes/seats in Alberta alone, the Liberals had 36% of the vote, yet didnt win any seats. So on the national level, at least the conservatives and the liberals came away with a number of seats which is (key word here) close to reflecting the percentage of the vote they received. Based on those two results alone, I wouldnt be for completely changing our electoral system. But for the smaller parties, and for some specific regions, the current system does seem to ignore a large percentage of the population.

On the same topic of how easy it is for people to vote in ridings they dont live in, how about the american who voted in trinity-spadina? Linky! student id was all he needed.

To me, anyway, the same sex marriage issue should be over. Any opinions now are not political ones, but personal ones. I believe Martin is right when he says that its a charter issue, concerning personal rights and freedoms, it shouldnt be something up to a vote based on personal opinion, it should be something covered and protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. The free vote that Harper is calling for isnt a free vote, and nobodys personal opinions (even those of elected officials) should threaten someones basic freedoms (freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation). Any vote that overturns the current position will simply happen again under the next new government, and if it sounds like everyone is beating a dead horse now, imagine what it will sound like in 4 years, or 8, or 12. I think any candidate should be allowed to express their opinions, contradictory to their party policy as they may be, as long as everyone knows its a personal view, and not one endorsed by the party. But the SSM issue isnt a political issue anymore, or at least it shouldnt be, its a charter issue now. I hate arguing from work. so distracting.

Gomery Inquiry - Came about of the liberals own accord, and then promised to call an election as soon as the final findings were released. Now, if you are really really guilty, and you set up an inquiry that you know will find out for sure, and release, as facts, a list of names involved, would you promise to hold an election when it was done? I know a lot of people have a hard time believing that Paul Martin was not directly aware of a large portion (or any at all) of what went on, but you have to admit its possible. The liberals did all they could short of falling on their swords, which, if you believe yourself innocent, you are not going to do. (flame on!) Second, i dont know how anyone can think that the economy has gone to pot, that it isnt doing well, and on any given day i have an employee deficit that i just cant solve. Shortage of jobs? Hardly, a shortage of people willing to work. If anyone in this country who is of sound body is not gainfully employed right now, they are either waiting for the perfect job, or are lazy. My father (a ticketed tradesman) went without work for 14 months under the last Conservative government, and finally had to pack up his family and move from northern Ontario to northern BC in order to find work. Since then, under the liberals, he has not been unemployed, and has not been scared for his job, and, like i mentioned, i would give my left foot to have people beating down my door looking for a job. Now, personal experience aside, we can bring up the points already mentioned - huge debt repayments (didnt happen under the last conservative government), balanced budgets (again, didnt happen under BM), lowest unemployment rates in ages, a strong dollar, economic growth (at the top of the G8 nations), and all the conservatives can really find to blast away with is adscam? Does anyone remember the airbus affair? There are no perfect governments, they are, after all, made up of humans. Nobody is perfect. Now, when given the choice between adscam, strong economy, low unemployment, unprecedented growth, debt repayment, and balanced budgets OR an as yet unknown scandal (every government has them, its a given) and a huge deficit, no debt repayment, high unemployment, low growth, etc., my choice is clear, and if Canadians could get over the soundbites and really think about how good it is now vs. what it was like in the late 80s/early 90s (and there were still scandals then), then the polls would be a lot different. We are seeing what a conservative, right wing government does to a country right now and all we have to do is look at the US. Huge (mind boggling) deficits, low growth, high unemployment and to curb some of that they are shafting their largest trading partner by adopting protectionist measures (violating NAFTA at the same time). Hard line right wing government good? not in recent memory. If the liberals can give another 2 terms of growth, low unemployment, balanced budgets and can repay another 38 billion (pretty sure thats the number) towards the national debt, then they can burn 300 million for all i care. The alternative isn't even remotely appetizing at this point. and with that, im going to bed. ill bring the fire extinguisher in the morning.

Unfortunately, the general public is not as well informed as they should be, and anybody watching these debates must either assume everyone is lying, or take everything as pure fact. However, when the leaders disagree it leaves the general public either lost or turned off - an example of this was when Harper was first to respond to a question about wait times and family doctors (access to health care), he started his response by saying: "There are 1.3 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor." Layton was next to respond to the same question, and he also decided to spew "facts": "There are 5 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor." Now, given that the sentences were worded exactly the same, except for the number, its hard to suggest they may have been talking about different things. So that explanation is out. So where does that leave the public? Which number is it? the difference between the two numbers is huge, 1/30th of the country not having access to a family doctor vs. 1/6th? It was certainly enough for me to do a double take and then let out a long groan. The only person who won in response to that question was Mr Duceppe. The first two responses made both the NDP and the Conservatives look foolish, both having such wildly varying figures, and both responses were designed to heap blame for the lack of funding upon the Liberals. Mr Duceppe just said that healthcare is a provincial responsibility and the federal parties should stay out of the details and simply provide funding. Aside from that example, I found Layton to be the most endearing, he is generally the best speaker, and the most charming. Mr Duceppe comes across as being very smart, and if he had a complete mastery of the english language i think he would have won hands down last night. His responses seemed to be the least vague and the most direct. Mr Harper bored me to tears. In trying to avoid looking like the facist bush-prodigy he is often portrayed as, he has mellowed out to the point of not being effective. No passion, no anger, no feeling, no anything other than the same line over and over and over (the line "our top priority" or "our first priority" was repeated regarding 4 different issues that i can count, how many firsts can you have?). Mr Martin is in a bad situation no matter what he does. If he seems genuine and sincere, people think he is lying. If he comes across as being cold or unfeeling, well......its a no win for him. His answers were better than most, but unfortunately he has to fight a war on 2 fronts, putting him at a disadvantage. Harper doesnt seem to care about the bloc's seperatist agenda, or about keeping canada whole, and Duceppe doesnt care about the west (traditional conservative canada), but Martin has to take it from both, and contend with both, with Layton being an opportunist, picking up whats left over after Duceppe and Harper are done pulling Martin apart. Im still unsure about the format. I think it dumbs it down a tad too much, i would have liked hearing Harpers response to Martins challenge in the first hour, and the other way around when Harper challenged Martin. But, again, for the general public this might be better. Just have to take each candidates "facts" with a grain of salt. (if this post seems to jump around a lot, im sorry, im at work and writing in short bursts between phone calls)