Hydraboss

Let's try something just for the hell of it. Make up your own government, and no following party lines unless YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN YOUR CHOICES. Who would you want where? Assume that these people cannot be re-elected after their term. PM - Preston Manning (very statesman-like) Finance Minister - Stephen Harper (knows his numbers) Ethics Commissioner - David Kilgour (Tory turned Liberal turned Independant turned 7-Eleven clerk; excellent representative of his constituents) International Affairs - Carolyn Parrish (just kidding!) Social Development - Jack Layton (mostly heartfelt guy) Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - Paul Martin (will balance out Steve-O) Any others?

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it also rocks absolutely too." Steve-o will have to be a little more accountable than most. Minority or majority, he does not have the complete trust of even HIS party. Remember, CPC MP's will most likely vote their concience more often than not, or the people that elected them will turn on them instantly, and harshly. Stevie will have to be VERY CAREFUL not to do anything TOO dramatic or his caucus will turn on him like fat kids on a smartie.

But who will remember Pauly? I would guess that the majority of the electorate will not remember him at all. Most of the people I know don't remember when Kim was the PM, or when Joe Who was the PM, or anything other than the high points. Paul Martin is not a high point. To the point: Paul Martin won't BE remembered.

"why do people always have to make it "us vs them"?" Because it's more interesting, and talking heads must talk. Private health care? Hell ya. Completely for-profit? Hell no. Comfortable mix? Where would the fun be in that? There is so much private health provision out there, that it's hard to tell why this is being argued. There is a PUBLIC hospital in Edmonton that has a PRIVATELY OWNED emergency room. There is no difference to the patient, but it is owned by three doctors. Don't believe me? Check out the ownership group of the Miseracordia Hospital in Edmonchuk. My wife is an RN, and two of her former work buddies accepted jobs there. They are paid from a corporation, not the Capital Health Authority. Does this mean that the place is EVIL? No.

Pauly does contradict himself a lot. Is he lying? I think he's just not very good at thinking on his feet. You want someone who changes his mind (read: lies) try Smilin' Jack at the second english debate: "We will put working families first.." "...we will put senior's first..." Which is it Jack-O?

Gotta love the dedication to party platform. Did everyone forget that our system of government is based on the "best fit" principle? You decide what YOUR platform is, and then find a party that is the closest to your beliefs. To generalize any supporter as this or that is very close minded. I support the CPC....for now. I like some of the Lib platform (please burn this letter when you're done reading it!), and I can't imagine a more dedicated bunch of people as NDPer's. But what is right for your Canada RIGHT NOW? Smilin' Jack is semi-fake. Nice guy, but fake. Pauly-boy could have been good, but it's hard to relay true beliefs when you have both feet in your mouth (thanks to the mighty JC). Harper's getting better, but should be someone's Finance Minister, not PM. I'm voting based on MY beliefs, not on a party leaders beliefs. Hand up, hand out, hand in my pocket. Decisions, decisions. I worked 70+ hours a week for almost eight years straight. My wife works 60+. My kids go to school, and we all want to go to Disneyland. I bought a nice boat two years ago (used). Who has the right to say that instead of this, I should give more than the almost 50% of what I make to build someone else a house? I believe strongly in APPROPRIATE social programs, but why is it criminal to want to give my family preferential treatment? Rovik, you want to single out a made up number as an indictment of the NDP? Go ahead. I can find holes in any party platform too. Did you notice that I picked on ALL the parties? You're a feverent lot, I got to admit that. Mar, how dare you say that we should use child labor if the parents can't afford school! (Man, it's easy to misquote.) And be careful, I think Melanie has an unregistered calculator!!!

"Martin will be remembered as the Liberal Kim Campbell." Dunno, I think a more accurate equation would be "Lib Martin = PC Clark". Pauly has been around way too long to be compared to Short Term Kim. I think it would be more fair to compare him to Joe Who; both men were entrenched in government for years, made the news headlines for good or bad, and were left to clean up the mess and turn out the lights. Besides, I have absolutely NO INTEREST in seeing Pauly posing nude with only a judges robe - it would never be as effective as when 'Lil Kim did it.

"\" as Shaw (the writer not the cable company) said: "merely, have the meager satisfaction of not voting for the candidates we dislike most." "/" umm...well...uh... "I know you are, but what am I?" (sorry, I got nothing!) All free votes? No political party system? Free Jell-o for everyone? Political utopia!!! Won't happen...would be nice...but won't happen. That being said, I don't think it's too far fetched to expect more from the governments we elect, regardless of stripe. Using the Constitution as a hammer? No, use it like a gondola pole...nudge the country back on track when some oddball wave moves it too far to EITHER SIDE. Supremacy of either the courts or the parliment? Not in my lifetime please. Checks and balances. Just like my bank account. So the mental decisions begin. Hand out? Hand up? Hand in my pocket? Who's offering what? Why is it acceptable for 10% of the population to thrust their beliefs (!?!) on the other 90%? Is that 90% not made up of a bunch of other 10%'s? I must now leave to gather my thoughts, and construct meaningless barbs that I will, no doubt, throw at unsuspecting poster's for the simple pleasure of causing confusion and small migraine-like headaches. Good day.

and don't forget... Conservatives - "Now if we can only get rid of the federal government completely...no...wait...that's us!...Damn! Liberals - "If we can just steal some of the funds from the 1.75/vote fund and give it to ourselves, then we would be able to give us some more of what we were going to give to the Liberals so they could kick-back a portion of the money to us...and...hold on...what the hell were we saying?...Damn! ...and of course... NDP - "Trick or treat!!!...what the...candy?...I was hoping for a quarter trillion dollars to balance my budget...Damn! Seriously, you're better to scan the forum for topics that interest you...and don't forget to check out the parties' websites for their platforms...well, at least most of their platforms. Good luck.

mar, we do agree on the preferred outcome of political policies. We just seem to have different views as to how to make these outcomes possible. You may believe that the feds can fix the problems with social policy. I believe that resources closer to the need require the funding to make more direct gains (read: financial transfers back to the people who need it). Is Stephen the one? The only expert on that is time. Why then, the CPC? So glad you asked! If they will allow free votes on some/most/major issues, is that not a more direct link that you now have as a voter to decisions now uncontrollable in Ottawa? If free votes become the norm, does it really matter who leads the party? Dump Steve-o and SPONGE BOB FOR PRIME MINISTER!!! The people of Canada should be making the decisions that affect them, even if it is by representation only (we wouldn't all fit in the House, anyway). Someone forgot that I ELECTED THAT MP...he didn't choose me. If the Lib's had gone to free votes, instead of whipping everyone like they're in a swinger's club (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe there would be less opposition from the people of Canada. By the way, don't go getting all "you and me agree"-ish, you're gonna ruin all the fun. How about this for a signature line: If there is one thing I know, it's two things. One, I don't like the government today, and B, I may not like the government tomorrow. Catchy?.....No?

p.s. - thanks everyone, this is FUN (yes, I even said thanks to liberals)

mar, "\" So ultimately you are voting on social policy, even if you think you're voting for tax cuts. Which group of taxpayers will benefit most? I would suggest if you think it will be you under a Conservative government, you may be mistaken. And I don't even think this is because Liberals - and particularly Martin - are wonderful, warm people. I think it is because the Liberal voter requires at least some level of social justice in taxation and Liberal candidates who ignore that will not be elected. I think the Conservative campaign is reminiscent of recent U.S. Republican campaigns, relying principally on misdirection. If the Conservatives gain power, I wonder if you will jump for joy when they are defeated in the subsequent election too. "/" And why, exactly, does it matter which taxpayers benefit most, as long as everyone does? If someone is below the minimum tax threshold, will a tax break benefit them? As for the "increasing gap between rich and poor", how do we quantify this? Paul Martin and his MP's (ALL MP's for that matter) widen the gap between them and me every time they get a raise. Where is the "evening-out" policies when that happens? This simply becomes a "percentage vs dollar amount" argument. If any government gives me an effective 95% tax break, but gives a multimillionaire a 1/2% tax break, which one of us benefits MORE? Be careful, I'm armed with an unregistered calculator!!! Social justice/policy/correctness - whatever you want to call it - is not inherently a liberal (small L) belief. Conservatives (small or big C) believe in it as well. There are food banks in my city, busy ones, that I don't think should be there. Now, how are you going to quote me? Are you going to say that I think food banks are bad, wrong, unecessary, or that the people using them should not be? Or are you going to assume that I think that the socio-economic policies of the current federal government has forced food banks to become a necessity? Did food banks start in 1993, or have they been around longer than that? If I support the CPC, would that make me a food-bank-using-family-hater? Or perhaps I have different ideas of how to GET RID OF THE NEED FOR THEM. If the CPC's lie/cheat/steal/f-up MY CANADA, I will be the first one to fire arrows, barbs and votes for an opposition. Can you say the same?

While this may or may not be accurate (I do not have numbers in front of me that support or deny this), financial necesseties of the early 90's do not hold water ten plus years later. Splitting hairs and telling half-truths is easy. Did the Lib's get rid of the deficit, yes. Did they do it partially by STEALING from the EI fund, yes. Is everything the Lib's have done criminal/corrupt/poorly motivated, of course not. What do the cpc's offer, lots that I agree with. I was screaming aloud (read: happy screams) in 1993 when JC got in. I felt betrayed by BM (I'm in Alberta) and was glad of the change. Now it is time again. My name is not Bob, but I am a Canadian..... No, I don't drive either of those cars, but I would like to. But let me tell you, my wife and I (by the way she's a union nurse) spend the vast majority of our GST contributions at Walmart and Canadian Tire, not the Porche dealer. Most of the guys that work for me make about 12.50/hr and guess what, they pay GST on everything too.

Stephen Harper said that he wants to see more Tim Horton's serving soup in our cities. In our cities. Soup with buns. In Canadian cities. In Canada. We're not making this up. Choose your flavour.

<played to Pink Floyd's "Money"> Stephen Harper said he wants to put Canadians with money in their wallets back on the streets of our cities. Canadian cities. Wallets with money. In our cities. Canadian cities. People with money. In Canada. We're not making this up. Choose your denominations.