AusKanada

I am almost starting to think the NDP leadership contest is so low-key to stop Tories from having their attack ads loaded with bad blood expressed in the race. The Tories had tons to use from the last Grit leadership convention and used it in their attack ads (e.g., Ignatieff attacking Dion on the environment). It's also true part of their political culture to present consensus, but regardless it's probably a good idea for them to be tight-lipped then present their candidate so Conservatives cannot make dictate the conversation about that person. I am assuming Mulcair, but Nash or Topp seem possible.

If I were a prime minister with a majority government these would be the changes I would want to introduce to make the electoral playing field even: (1) Enforce the same strict contribution guidelines to party leadership races as well. (2) Re-instate party subsidies, reduce tax exemptions on political contributions slightly to give a balanced mix of public/private subsidies (again the public contribution is less than 30 million...) (3) Abolish/reform the Senate, adopt the German Bundesrat style (Provincial government send delegates, larger states get a slight advantage in rep.) (4) Introduce Mixed Member Proportional Representation (again see Germany) (5) Promote coalition governments/interparty co-operation

I also doubt this study. I am sure that they are explaining a coincidence more than a causation... as most studies take this with a grain of salt. As partisan as I can be, I doubt that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals simply because of their politics... just as many loony leftists as crazy rightists... And as American Woman said, life experiences are a HUGE influencing factor. It's harder to be very open to other races when you live in Little Bay, NFLD. and you have seen two non-white people in your life (hyperbole but still, you know my point).

I think having deals with China, including for our energy sector, are forward-thinking. We do have to consider that many government-owned Chinese corporations have billions in stock and investment in the Alberta Tar Sands (which again is not inherently bad). What is however that these corporations that own stock in Syncrude for example have made clauses that say Syncrude CAN NOT refine that oil in Canada... they want it refined in China so they can have more high paying jobs there. I don't think Canada should relegate itself to a colonial offshoot of the U.S. or China. To be fair though, it would take billions to invest in refineries here and it'd take years to get them ready so it's not so cut and dry either. Manufacturing has been dead in Canada and the U.S. ever since corporations could freely move their capital to the Third World. They have been on life-support for decades.

Isn't the new Obama Doctrine cutting only the army and marine corps?? I am POSITIVE the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Panetta both said, as well as Obama, the airforce was not being cut at all as it's integral to their leaner armed forces capable of packing the same punch. Am I wrong?

Right, completely devoid of any economic rationale, like your arguments whose origin, this Bush dogma actually created this great recession. Keep playing that tune buddy. I apologize,I worded it properly. They gleefully paid far less than their due to society, while reaping billions in profits. I am sure they were crying about getting a multi-million tax cut from the feds... I am glad people like you are going to get voted out of the U.S. House in 2012 and the House of Commons next sweep. And quit with the personal attacks, can you not point out the actual problems? You just fling mud. A business doesn't "earn" money, they hire workers, the workers produce the product and they gain profit. You're totally overlooking, like most rightists, the fact that business is a relationship. It shouldn't be run like a dictatorship simply because the CEO and Board of Directors legally can do so. That's not justifiable. Wow, complete rubbish. So the workers "priced themselves out" by not accepting a 50% pay cut??!! I'd love for you to have your job sent to Vietnam unless your current wage was split in half, maybe then you could talk all about "non-ruthless" capitalism. Typical garbage from Neo-Cons.

Good article, but I am not sure if the closure itself is the real centre of the outcry. This was a company that gleefully took millions in tax cuts before throwing a great number of workers out into the cold. That's capitalism, but I think tax cuts are a privilege that a corporation or business receives from we, the people. If they want tax cuts, they should also be accepting them in good faith. Caterpillar clearly didn't, it's ruthless capitalism at its best. Sharks in suits.

I think hiring tax credits, or small business tax incentives are the best idea to encourage job growth quickly. Corporations like Caterpillar are modern day pirates, they'll sell their goods to Canadians no matter what, but they won't think twice before closing down their plants here when they can make more money in the U.S., or Mexico or wherever. It would be nice if the "Made in Canada" label actually meant the good was produced in Canada, not that just 51% of the costs of production were paid in Canada. That way consumers could actually decide to shop for Canadian goods if they so wish.

Following a rejection of accepting a 50% wage cut, Caterpillar has closed one of his Ontario plants, bringing forth a debate whether corporate tax cuts should be re-worked (e.g., like Layton via a hiring credit insisted in 2008) or is working fine as is. Your take?

For Conservatives.

Absolutely. I am not against licensing, I am for a gun registry or at least a thorough licensing process.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I said I am against making it easy, not "just because." I think that if you want to own a firearm, you should bear the expense of the rigorous checks that should be enacted in your case. I don't want someone who is mentally unbalanced to get easy access to firearms, so you can have 3 pistols as show firearms...

To be fair, no real candidate to the White House in recent memory has been anything close to comparable with the average voter.. Obama is a millionaire author, Ivy League lawyer, Hillary Clinton's husband makes millions in speeches and book deals, same with Gingrich now. I think Ron Paul is the only presidential nominee close to being "average" and even he makes good money compared to your typical Joe. Romney just has a knack of showing how out of touch he is when it comes to finances, offer to bet 10,000 against Rick Perry during a debate. Not caring about the very poor, etc.

I've never used my breadmaker in my kitchen before, does that make it a toaster?? I never said firearms create the violent tendency, I said they enable one to easier enact them.

I am not arguing against the possession of handguns, feel free. I am however against making the process easy. Huge difference.

First off, big government does not lead to higher CEO pay, not sure what the heck you are talking about there at all. Who said we have a small government or a completely free market? I am arguing against those things, but I am not admitting we have those things in Canada yet. I would say your limited view is the problem. Ron Paul 2012!! w00t!

They actually have alternatives, they can farm and exist as they always have. Or they can choose to industrialize however they find best, in a more responsible and egalitarian way, where you don't get Carlos Sims and then hundreds of millions of people working harder than you ever will every day for a shack and enough food to survive. Actually, I concede. You're right, the governments in the third world typically give tax exemptions, subsidies and low corporate tax rates to entice business, then lower/abolish safety and labour standards to make their costs virtually nothing. It's really just corporate slavery.

I call for registration because I know exactly what a human being with a handgun has: an opportunity. I could hardly call myself a forward-thinking person if I didn't come to the logical conclusion that someone with a weapon might use it. If I have to register my car, why not my handgun? No one is asking for DNA databases or GSP trackers. I think also since a weapon is plainly an instrument of death, it's a tad different then you stabbing someone with a pen. The intent to kill will always be there, but enabling an easier manner of enacting that will is hardly wise. I think if you have a knife, versus a pen, you might be a tad more ready to do something with it. Your total notion of justice is reactive, not preventative. It will do absolutely nothing to stop justice, as most right-wing Texans have come to admit. If all you're doing is punishing once a crime is committed you aren't preventing anything... by combating inner city poverty, increasing employment, funding anti-gang community policing and so forth you are actually reacting to the CAUSES of crime. You can throw every criminal that gets caught in a jail, but wait and tomorrow there are thousands more... if you don't actually correct the situation you're actions are futile. Criminals are have an ingenuity that law enforcement does not and will find ways to go around legislation, so unless you help keep citizens as lawful members of society you aren't actually preventing crime. You're just cleaning up the mess. I think if everyone is legally allowed to vote and only 49.5% choose to do so, they have no right to complain at all. If your taxes are being used in ways you disagree, I suggest you form a party or influence one to advocate your position. Don't just go on forums and whine to get your point across.

I was once a fierce Tory loyalist, but have since lost total faith in the hyperpartisanship of the Harper government, their lack of action on the senate, unwillingness to co-operate with provincial governments and hypocrisy with the budget (big jails and pricey jets while seniors, the ill and everyone else but corporations pay for it).

Wait for Quebec and Ontario to come out with an official report, last I heard from their justice departments on CBC's Power and Politics it's roughly 700 million each.

This aged old belief that somehow limited government will shrink the influence of the rich is a complete joke. No offense, but you are all very naive. We live in a world of capitalism, the dollar bill means infinitely more than the signature of the Governor General on an Act of Parliament. As a student of history, I'd love any evidence that limited government has ever curtailed the influence of the wealthy. Please cite. I am of the school that a powerful democratic and responsible government is a needed safeguard of the people against the excesses of the market. The market may indeed generate wealth, but it does so very unevenly and gives far more money and therefore power to an incredibly minute faction of society. I see no reason why a CEO should make 150x the salary of an average worker, not including generous bonuses and retirement packages. If our politicians made millions each, we'd be pointing out the complete nonsense of it all. Again, all you rightists are missing the point (not too shocking of that). So you're against the public subsidization of parties but are for the tax exemptions for donations??!! It's the same thing.. only in one, your vote equals a puny 2 dollar donation to the party. The latter allows the rich to donate even easier, despite already being more than able to do so. Just so you realize too, these tax exemptions equal FAR MORE per year than the party subsidies, as roughly 2/3 of your donation is a write-off... so you can take of your fake fiscal conservative hats now. If you weren't blinded by partisanship, you would see this is Harper's Machiavellian attitude at its finest.

Well, tickets typically revolve around the presidential nominee (despite past moderate or conservative/liberal tendencies) moving to the centre, while the vice presidential nominee stays quite rightist or leftist to assure the base that all is well, allowing the presidential nominee to court independents that comprise a large and powerful chunk of the U.S. electorate. Most states tend to be dominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties, but still have a significant portion of independent voters. In the battleground states, if you do not have a presidential nominee to win over independents and a vice presidential candidate to collect the base, you're probably going to have trouble. It's mostly just a slugfest for the centre, give or take a few token leftist/rightist positions as always.

Who's legislating morality? I am calling for the registration and regulation of firearms. No, just no. Organized crime is not a system of the drug trade, it existed in as far back as Republican Rome, long before narcotics. It won't be stopped by something as counterproductive as legalizing all drugs (something that would undoubtedly turn Canada into a backwater internationally). Likewise arming the populace excessively is an excellent way of encouraging violence, robbery and assault. You don't make any sense in these forums, you decry democracy as "rule of the mob," i.e. the people cannot be trusted, but then support them having handguns and rifles?? Had a few cold ones tonight?

Hard to be against an invasion that crushed the Taliban and installed a democracy in Afghanistan...

I suggest you brush up on more recent history.