Lost in Manitoba

If only Monty Python was still active!!!

Ever wonder why this board is here? Or really the entire site. I've read the 'about us' statement, but who funds this? Is it part of UL's budget? I guess Greg's a student, but is there anything usefull to the students or staff of the political science(?) department derived from this forum? I hope they don't take the thoughts projected on this site as that of the 'typical' Canadian. If it was typical, the CA would be overwhelming all opposition. Interesting to see from this poll the conservative slant to the members (I mean it was obvious before but the #'s don't lie). It'll be really neat to see all the ranting and raving going on after the next election with the CA somehow still as runner up.

I think that was a joke...... What happens when/if a Yank soldier is captured and a trade demanded? Possible that it might happen. I think it would be awesome (and unlikely) if the Iraqi's wanted the international criminal court to handle it.

I thought McLellan was finished after the SARS outbreak. She continually made herself and her department look incompetant, especially when it came to communication with hospitals and the public. This might be sexist but I do like the fact that it is a woman who is in charge of security. Bill Graham doesn't seem to have enough backbone for foriegn affairs but that could be just because he is a liberal. The western diversification may be a good thing if I understand it right. What ticks me off is that everything Martin is promising is intriguing, like a carrot in front of the donkey, but there won't be enough time before the next election to see him follow through with it. So, all the dumb asses (maybe myself, oh the shame) will vote for him so that he can continue. Ah, but thats the same trick that Chretien played.

Does that include laws against littering? Or city by-laws restricting the amount of trash you throw into the municipal landfill? Or regulations on exhaust emissions from cars? 'Cause we must have a big disconnect here if thats what you mean. How can anyone think that enviromental conservation isn't a good thing?

Borotsik is my MP. He's been talking for a couple of months now of either going Liberal or sitting as an independent. There is little doubt around here that he will win, no matter his choice.

What you guys are talking about is really a discussion of what's wrong with the world. I do agree with what Neal says. This summer, living on the prairies, I was very thoughtful of the BSE crisis. The idea of sending the unsellable, costly, excess beef to impoverished areas of the world was brought up but there seemed to be no political will. I wondered why? Farmers are getting relief money from the Gov't, they want to reduce the herds, people around the world are hungry, the gov't donates money to 3rd world nations. To me, it sounded logical. Instead of giving $$$$ to country's in need, give beef. I heard that insect-damaged timber from BC will be going to Afganistan because it is worthless here in N.America.

Hit the nail on the head, Michael. The attitudes expressed by guys like this are seen to be ridiculous by the majority of Canadians. As long as the Cons have spokesmen like this, they will never win the Fed.

As long as this is the type of attitude prevailent in the CA, it will remain on the sidelines as a club for angry white guys :angry: . For once, try to have a debate about politics without using any reference to religion. You know, just to humour us poor unenlightened heathens.

It may boil down to the role of government. If a party wants to promote or restrict society then there will be people on either side opposed to it. It depends on what you think Canada needs: economic/fiscal change, a global strategy, political accountabillity/responsibillity, social change. I, myself, thing social change is the least of Canada's problems, one way or the other. If social issues stay on the back burner for the next 4yrs, no big deal. We need a major overhaul of our government finance, spending, and taxation. We need efficiancy within our government. We need a definitive plan of where we want to be in the world, as in allies, millitary/peacekeeping, foreign affairs. We need a better, more representative, democracy in Canada. Paul Martin seems to be portrayed, wether it is true or not, as the guy who can settle some of these issues. To me, I really don't care very much what his stance on social issues are, as long as there isn't a lot of policy change. As a lot of people claim, Harper is a smart guy who can solve these issues as well. He might just be able to, but if he pursues social policies which can be seen as regressive, even by many PCers, why would I vote for him?

What is the general concensus here then? Does anyone think that the Cons can take the next election? From what I've heard, even this last weekend with Rex Murphy, that it is not likely that the Cons will be able to win an election for another 4yrs. If even then. I know a rookie, in the form of Prentice or not, wouldn't have much of a chance right now but I still feel that Harper will not win in the forseeable future. Too many people will see him as the CA leader, and they've truly never been an alternative. The Cons need a makeover, even at the cost of losing the idiot fanatics.

That's the dillema here. If you want to win, you have to compromise. If you compromise, you lose the hard right, and you don't have the votes needed to win. I think that this is a problem with the NDP as well. If you try to implement rational workable policies, you will lose those hard-left, bleeding-heart, do-gooders. If you support those irrational policies wanted by the bleeding-hearts, you lose the more realistic members to the liberals. Extremism, on either side, will never succeed. On the issue of leader... McKay is a joke now. He can never win. If he thinks he will be seen as a hero who united the right, well I'm sure history will prove him wrong. Harper, no matter how much you support him, will be seen as the same old CA leader who people were unwilling to vote for. Too much baggage (perception). I'm not saying that he wouldn't win a party election, I actually think he would, I'm saying he would not win the fed election. For the good of the party I think he should step down and let a new fresh face lead the party. Someone not truly identifiable as either a PC or CA man.

It was just a day or two ago when I heard something like this here in MB. Apperently, Bars that have strippers must have maximum insurance for their premises now. I can't recall the actuall dollar figure, but it was prohibitive to any smaller establishment, which includes pretty much every bar not located in a city (and MB only has two of those). From what I gather, this move was made after some peeler slipped on stage and broke her arm. Now if this was the case and the reason, fine, extreme maybe but fine. However, it would seem that it is a convenient way to rid the province of a contoversial profession.

On the homepage of the New Deal, found here , they have some neat little programs to calculate the cost of owning a house under the old system and what it would cost under the new deal. They just posted a couple of days ago a similiar calculator for business. I encourage anyone who owns a business to try it out, and see what the results are under the New Deal. (and of course, share your findings)

It may be the perfect oppurtunity for Harper, though, if he handles this right. Such as cracking down on that behavior, or maybe making a speach about freedom and personal choice. As for Spencer, his job is to represent the people who elected him. If they are homophobic rednecks, maybe they'll appreciate his comment. If not they can get rid of him. If the Alliance doesn't like him they can remove him from their party and he would sit as an independent, wouldn't he?

If we primarily screened on education grounds, ie post-grads and high demand skills, would that not promote industry? The matter of immigration needs to take so many different things into account that it takes a smarter person than me to figure it out. I do think, though, we should aspire to bring in immigrants who have more historical, cultural, political, and/or economic ties to Canada.

I think you may be a bit confused about the details Craig, but no matter. What would you propose for a new deal? You often write out good long posts, so c'mon, put some thought and details down. About the Winnipeg ND, Its funny that the business community seems to be completely on board if it's such a bad deal. And to say that the tax burden may be shifted to the poor- the direstor of Winnipeg Harvest, basically a foodbank, says that under the ND, the charity will have to pay about $5000 more per year, BUT under the new system it'll be elligble for other incentives and programs, and there will be more support in place for poor families so they may not need to rely on W.Harvest.

Good Post Springer. I have to disagree though with the point 'And generally, such people in return manifest remarkable generosity to their fellow man.' I would think that these people are the exceptions, not the rule. Really good points though.

I'm totally not saying that there shouldn't be social welfare programs. I for one am a believer of looking after my fellow man. What I am saying is that while the poor can expect us to help them, we in turn should be able to expect them to help themselves. The onus seems to be placed on the wealthy to have some heart and give more to the poor. More focus should be put on making the poor more accountable for their situation. If I, or anyone else, get injured, lose my job, or otherwise fall on hard times, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect help to get back on my feet. I don't think it reasonable, however, to take it for granted that I can sit on my ass and never work again. Many social programs are prone to this kind of abuse. I'm not sure of the state of it now, but I was a big fan of the Harris work for welfare program, as well as other welfare abuse hotlines. (I guess I could have cut all this short and said: Hand up, not hand out)

Off Topic. I had a friend email a little article from some magazine entitled "The last will and testement of Bill Gates", or something of the like. It was rather interesting. It was a speculation of who he has down in his will to inherit his fortune. The guy is richer than god and has proven himself to be quite the philanthropist. His personal and family connections seem to be limited, and why leave a fortune to a business? That leaves how many billions of dollars probably being donated to charity. Not wishing death on him or anything, but that's an amazing thought.

Those two things need not be at odds. We hear a lot of people complaining of the rich not doing enough (which I agree with) but it is also important that we are just as hard on the poor people. For every sign out there that cries out against corporate greed, we need two that says 'Get a job you lazy bum'. We live in a compassionate society, or at least a society that does not want to be seen as uncompassionate. We are unwilling to say this guy can't afford medical, let him die. Or this guy is too lazy to work, let his kids starve. At the same time though, why should we support them? Is this not enabling them to continue their laziness? If we're talking programs to help people get education or training, so they can go on and get wealthy then sure I support that.

I've heard over the past year interviews with senior officers of the CF who have all reiterated the need for a clear objective for our millitary. People don't seem to want a huge war machine like the US, who's role is whatever the gov't wants it to be. Give them a Defense/peace keeping role with clear terms of what they can and can't do, where they can and can't go, and where their ultimate obligations lie (Obviously 1st is defense, but who are our allies? Do we go to war for the UN or is NATO just as valid?)

Ah, unfortunately Chretien suckered me into voting liberal the last two times with the same types of promises. Alas, the GST is still here..... One thing I'm going to look for is the response of the premiers. If Martin can round up the majority of them, maybe there is something to it (Premiers used to being screwed around and being treated like misfits). Especially looking to see the attitude of Klein and my own Premier, Doer, towards Martin. It would seem that for as long as Martin has coveted and had to wait for the top dog position, and even his father before him, I would imagine he may be inclined to act on his ideas. Then again, too often it seems that once a position is reached, most of the politicians energy is wasted trying to mantain that position.

What is the logic behind BC seperating? Is there some driving argument that the seperatists have? Give some background maybe so we can actually give some input/opinion on the matter.

I'm repeating myself here but..... My vision of Canada is that of the egalitarian, multi-cultural UN poster country. As such I would prefer to have the majority of immigrants coming from other such countries, namely the EU. Second preference would be from any commonwealth country that may share our country's British heritage. Third preference is to the US and Mexico, due to their similiar culture or trade relations. Refugees should be a part of immigration but not as much as it is now (running away from something is not the same as running towards something, humanitarian reasons aside). I think education and trade skill should be the most important factor for coming to Canada. Younger people rather than older. Single rather than married, and married with no children rather than married with children. Obviously, any criminal ties or history should disqualify immigration, unless special circumstances are apperent. I think immigration should also not be a static thing. I would prefer to see a rotation of the amount of immigration. For instance, year one let in a very large amount of people, then for the next few years let in less and less. Not sure if this is logical but I would think a sudden large influx of skilled, employable people would take a while for the economy to grow and stabalize, and also give time for a) the immigrant to adapt to his new home, and society to get used to the new population.