Michael Hardner

It is a strange thing... Maybe he's just tired, or maybe they need to re-think their strategy for the last 7 days. As far as BS goes, Harper chooses his words more carefully than any leader I've ever heard. That means you need to read between the lines, folks. I'm reluctantly voting for the status quo this time around. I'm think Martin probaby knew about the funny business going on in Quebec, but he had to look the other way. What else was there to do ? Martin's a manager and only a so-so politican, whereas Harper and Layton are excellent politicians and unproven managers.

The Senate has proven itself to be useless. Why reform it ? We don't need it. They have provided the best case for their own dissolution.

The senate has been largely ineffectual and unnecessary in Canada. Observers may notice that various parties come up with electoral reforms in order to "balance power" or make things "fairer". But is it a coincidence that these reforms always help the parties that propose them ? Of course not. Let's abolish the senate, rather than having each successive government try to stack it with its cronies by elections or otherwise.

Free votes are an interesting idea, but I'm really suspicious of the fact that most CPC candidates are mum about their own positions on hot-button issues. Harper should have demanded that his own candidates be more forthcoming, since free votes are his party's policy. I don't think that it is actually party policy. This is another one of those free vote issues, and again the local candidates are keeping pretty quiet about it.

Too close to call. If the CPC wins, we're in for a period of instability, as the Bloc won't support them on a number of issues. If the Libs win, they'll have to do something pretty drastic to get the Bloc's support. It's going to be a wild ride either way.

I don't think that would sway too many votes to the CPC that aren't already there. Exactly. Those votes would go straight to the Liberals. MS's explanation makes more sense to me. But who would leak something like this ? The mind boggles.

Maybe the Bloc will support Martin after all, if he promises to leave Air Canada in Montreal. Of course, this might lose Martin some votes in ... the west ? Uh....

I'm from Ontario and I don't belong to any party. I'm reluctantly leaning towards the Liberals right now.

Whether or not it's a good idea, it's politically stupid to float this idea now. Not that Harper was going to win a lot of seats in Quebec anyway, but it will cause Quebec voters to wonder whether the Bloc will be able to fight for their interests in Ottawa. Why would the CPC let this out now ? With all that they've NOT been saying it would have been easy to let this go. I don't understand the logic of this.

I could see why someone might vote against bill C-12. The law is a nebulous thing, and a few words taken out of it could have unintended effects. Those of you who are against the excessive leeway that the Charter of Rights gives will know what I'm talking about. I do think it's tasteless to politicize this issue.

You're assigning motivations that might not be there. The CNN story I read on the web used the word 'terrorist' a few times. And 'murderer' isn't descriptive enough. 'Terrorist' is a better word.

I think something like this happened in Ontario in the mid-80s. The Libs and NDP were allowed to form a coalition government even though the Libs had less seats.

Be optimistic. The average North American is far more aware of the issues than they were five years ago. That's why these types of boards will save democracy ! Uh... Maybe that's too optimistic. It seems to me that our system of democracy is founded on open discussion and the inevitable compromises that result. Two people tend come up with a better solution than one.

But reality does exist outside your mind, and it might not align completely with your perspective, in all cases. This is why arguments exist. Otherwise, it would simply be a matter of "ask takeanumber". The term "good" is a value judgement that exists in your mind. There might be an argument that laws that suppress individual expression will cause a backlash, and give a hint of contraband to views that would otherwise just wither and die anyway. That's one argument that might be good to someone. That doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's possible. If one thinks that their actions are immoral, decadent or improper somehow for one. But maybe I'd rather wait until everyone can see properly than force everyone to wear glasses. But it doesn't mean they're the same type of people. You may be pre-judging them, which is a behavior that you are ostensibly against. But the board isn't about outing bad people, it's about discussion. Your visceral reaction to your opponents is understandable, but I suggest that all you can do is argue them to a stalemate then walk away. Those who are comfortable in their views will be open to change them. The board is about arguing the idea not the person. If you're indeed arguing with somebody who harbours hatred for certain groups, you're never going to win anyway. Give up. The board isn't for those types anyway. That's an emotive response, not an intellectual one. I think hatred is more of an emotion than an idea. You can't argue against an emotion.

Which one - 'Bill C250 passes Senate ' ?

Can you say somewhat is racist if they're against hate laws ? I think that's a fallacy. There are many reasons one might be against the law and not racist. This is a value statement, not a fact statement. You have to prove this in argument, you can't just say it's true and expect people to accept it. It's up to people to decide how they would like or not like to be labelled. It might be obvious to you, but it's still up to him/her what they would like to be called. Rather than descend into a statement about your opponent, try speaking in the third person, ie. "One can't be anti-250 and not be anti-homosexual" etc. Otherwise, you're contravening board policy, contributing to the trashification of the board and inviting tit-for-tat responses.

I'm not saying whether I would for or against anyone. I'm saying if a party says that they're going to allow free votes on anything that's not party policy, the members of that party have a moral obligation to be forthcoming on those views. I'm not arguing about the utility of the policy, or whether one party or another is more pro-life. I'm saying that a party that has a policy such as this needs to show consistency. Again, this is beside the point. Whether or not the CPC told the local candidates to be quiet they should be forthcoming on their views, just to be consistent. Check the straw poll I did at the top of this thread. Nine CPC candidate websites, many of them touting free votes, did not explain the candidates' views. The tenth had a statement concerning the traditional family, and defunding of abortions. Are you saying that the CPC has been treated fairly by the media then ? Did you hear the reporter who was booed by the Harper supporters in (I think) Kitchener. How can you say for sure that is has nothing to do with it ? The free votes issues certainly serves a political purpose for Harper to manage social conservatives from within the party. In an election, there is no advantage to turning off half of the voters, if that is the number. Harper isn't winining because Canada turned socially Conservative. That half of the voters that is for same-sex marriage and pro-choice must also be supporting him to a large degree. See above, re: party consistency.

A future event can't be a 'fact' by definition. From these and other posts, I'm starting to understand why the BQ would support the CPC. But will the CPC party and Canadians in general be satisfied with a coalition (however loose) with the Bloc ? Harper's image is built on integrity. How quickly would that crumble if he started doling out more money and power to Quebec ?

I think if you have a problem with a post, or poster, you should check whether it contravenes the guidelines then report the poster. I have done this in the past, and Greg has been responsive. This is what makes a moderated forum great.

Maybe it would be less scary if I had said "in order for us to get along peaceably with these countries, they would need to want to be part of the same world as us". Yes, I believe this is all true. The influence of corporations is one of the aspects of our current western civilization, but I don't know if you could say it's the defining influence. Maybe this is what the argument is about. Not if the people of these countries want to westernize. Essentially, yes. If these countries are eventually going to be on the same team as us, this is how they'll have to look. I'll leave your perspective on our western civilization intact, even though I don't entirely agree with it. Oh, yes, there is something wrong with us. And the title of the thread could be "what's wrong with western countires". And in such a thread we could discuss the ways that the west would have to change in order to be more like the "Islamic world". I probably agree with you more than you realize. I was just discussing a practical problem, which is something along the lines of "How would George W. Bush's ideal vision of a new Iraq come into being ?". But I do think that the systems used by many of these countries are inferior to our (deeply flawed) systems, and that it's possible for them to evolve (yes, evolve) to a system of informed secular democracy that's superior to ours in a few years.

As I said in my last post, the CPC is the party that will allow completely free votes, so they should be telling us what they think. Whether he told them to be quiet or not, they're not being so forthcoming. And they would jump all over your statement as being anti-choice. It might. It just might. The CPC has a large conservative force that wants to be able to have its ideas heard. Fine. Harper's solution is to push that off on free votes, so that mainstream voters won't be scared into voting against the CPC. Also fine. No contradiction there. But at some point, the rubber has to hit the road. If the mainstream is vulnerable to fear-mongering, and the political solution is to use free votes to mollify the conservative hardliners, then there's a disconnect if the local candidates don't tell us what they're thinking. But, politically, it's a very good play by Harper. Quite in the league of Chretien, I would say. But I don't have to believe it's all about integrity etc. etc. any more than I believed the Liberals when they pulled these stunts.

Well, how do I know that if the local candidates don't tell me how they feel ? This is all specific to abortion, and beside the point that the local candidates should be telling us. Based on Poll numbers I saw yesterday, voters see the Liberals as slightly stronger on healthcare than the CPCs. Well, yes. Maybe the other party candidates should start thinking about doing this, seeing as how a CPC government is looking more likely. But, I think the party that has free votes entrenched in its policy has an obligation to have its local candidates explain their views, more so than other parties that might be sitting in parliament under the new CPC rules. Martin will allow free votes, but not on anything that he doesn't want to allow free votes on. Just like Harper.

But they (the local CPC candidates) haven't been saying anything, and that seems to me to be irresponsible, given their official party platform.

Really ? Why ? It seems to me Martin would have much more leeway to deal with the Bloc than Harper.

Capital punishment is a possible bogeyman that will rise at a certain point in the campaign.