Canadian Blue

I wouldn't mind an NDP opposition. I think if they were to become the opposition they would begin to moderate their policies to be more inline with most European social democratic parties such as the SDP and Labour Party. From the times I've seen the NDP in QP they always seemed to be more on the ball when it came to issues on the environment, forestry, and even Afghanistan, while the Liberals were asking the 20th question about Obamagate. But like I said it's too early to say what'll happen. I'm gonna wait till after the debates to make any solid predictions. But if Dion doesn't preform well in either the english or french debates and Layton makes himself the primary attacker on the left it would be disasterous for the Liberals. As well the Green Party and Liberal's cozy relationship might come back to bite Dion in the ass, the reason being that May is prone to foot in mouth disease, plus when people actually read the Green platform they'll realize about a page through that it's utopic at best.

The truth is that the government really doesn't have much to do with the economy. It's easy to govern when the economy is doing well, the better question is how a government will respond when an economy doesn't do so well.

How do womens rights differentiate from individual rights? From the sounds of it all Dion is saying is that he's going to create a massive expansion of the nanny state.

Watch it capricorn, from what I hear fruits are known to be homophobic, sexist, bigoted, and are strong believers in neo-conservatism. It's obvious that they also support a fascist ideology and hate all women. They also strongly support a laissez faire approach to the economy. The worst trait of fruit is that they also believe Canada should become a part of the United States. Do you really want more of this? Obviously we'd be better off with Dion whose favorite vegetable is the potato.

I'm more scared that the Liberals and Greens will cut some kind of deal right before the election, especially since Elizabeth May is open to having a coalition with them. If that were to happened it would be far worse than a NDP opposition.

The Manitoba NDP is basically a third way party in the same grain as Tony Blair's Labour Party in the UK. When I lived their they seemed to support the free market more than their federal cousins, and in todays world more than Stephane Dion and the Federal Liberals. I even supported the NDP at the time. Even though I'd now consider myself a classical liberal, I found the Manitoba NDP to be alright. Not great, but alright.

Depends, I wouldn't count the Liberals out yet. However I would put money on either a stronger Conservative minority/weak majority. That being said alot of it will come down to Dion. I still can't get over the fact that he failed to utilize people like Warren Kinsella and Stephen LeDrew this election. Right now it looks like it could be a three way race for the opposition if Dion continues to campaign as he has for the past three weeks. If Jack Layton is able to become dominant in the debates I would say we'd be looking at an NDP opposition made up of extra strength from BC and Ontario.

This just shows why journalists get less and less respect as time goes on. I really don't care whether Dion's wife buys his clothes, their are more important issues to deal with. Like figuring out what kind of vegetable Stephen Harper would be, which is a touchy issue for a certain poster on here.

No, no, no, we're just gung ho to put kids who shoot our kids in prison. I'm not sure what your solution is, I'm guessing it's give them a wallypop and then force the victims of the dead children to pay the kid for reperations as it's societies fault. Theirs a difference between entitlements and rights. I wish people would understand that. From most polls I've seen the CPC is actually leading among women. Maybe they're getting tired of Stephane Dion making them to be victims all the time who are to weak to make it on their own. I hear that often from the general population, they even make movies about it, ever hear of the "Boondock Saints." It doesn't mean it's going to become official government policy, only the truly naive believe that. Yes, and I'm sure that anyone who disagrees with your bleeding heart sympathy with drug dealers and sex offenders is "un-Canadian."

I've never been asked that question, maybe when I was 6 I was asked it. Yes, I'm sure psychologists base all of their studies of the mind based on what a person's favorite vegetable is. The only thing that this proves to me is that the left is bankrupt of any ideas. If you're biggest concern this election is wondering what kind of vegetable a leader would like to be, you have a problem. By the way can you give me a link for this shoddy piece of pseudo-journalism.

If I was a politician here is what my first thought would be: "What the fuck is this, pre-school!!!" But I'm glad to see that the kind of politician you want in Ottawa is the one that thinks day in and day out of what kind of vegetable he'd be. Personally, I've never thought of what kind of vegetable I'd be.

Exactly, in Alberta for example we have a Catholic Premier. However nobody would question his religious beliefs, and nobody would say he's unfit to be Premier due to the fact he's Catholic. To ask that question would be absurd, and quite frankly I hate hearing those kinds of questions being the main discussion on political talkshows in the US. Why the left would want to bring in a religious litmus test like eyeball is suggesting is absurd. For me it doesn't matter if a Jew, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or Sikh is running for parliament. As long as their views match mine politically I'm fine.

My mistake, I thought you were referencing the call of many to fully subsidize each one of the manufacturing plants in Ontario that are being closed down.

It's quite easy, due to eyeballs insistence that politicians should be held to account for their private religious views he's supporting the idea that religion and state should be mixed. Meaning that if you're a politician you can't be a Muslim, Sikh, Jew, Buddhist, or Christian, privately, yet keep them separate from your political life.

So what are you saying exactly. Outside of your idiotic beliefs that people to the right of Hugo Chavez are evil fascistic imperialist pigs who love to kill people.

But it's gratifying to see that people on the left now openly state that religious groups should be persecuted and hounded from office, and now want both Church and State to be one and require a religious litmus test.

Any person who says they can read minds are full of shit, and unless they've got ESP they can't claim to know what any person thinks. But it's gratifying to see the looney left say that any person who seems to think that tax breaks are indicative of an evil plan to make us all snake handlers is abit of loon in my book. As for both Douglas Todd and Bruce Foster, I've read what they stated. They basically say people with Christian religious beliefs are not fit to be in politics. Just out of curiosity if you're going to accept both Bruce Foster and Douglas Todd's beliefs, would you then say Muslims, Mormons, and other religious minority groups that believe in the afterlife shouldn't be allowed to run for office? As well what about Stephane Dion, Jean Chretien, and Paul Martin's Roman Catholicism. The Catholic Church had links to Ustase, Franco, and Mussolini. However I doubt you'll hear a word about it from someone like yourself. But for some reason I doubt you'd have a problem with it as they are Liberals and we know how double standards go.

Yes, as we all know the most important question of any political leader is what kind of vegetable they'd be. Wow independent, don't you wish that we could all vote for leaders based soley on what kind of vegetable they wish they could be. Jeeze, the left is really starting to grasp at straws nowadays.

So you won't be voting for the Liberals, Greens, or New Democrats either. Looks like you're stuck between the Canadian Action Party or the Christian Heritage Party.

As compared to the nutty rabidly anti-American, anti-free market, and ultimately irrational people that seem to make up the left nowadays. You mean people who think criminals should learn to take responsibility for their actions. That is as opposed to the Liberal view that those who rape, kill, steal, mug, vandalize, and sell drugs, are simply confused and we should give them a slap on the wrist even after a dozen offences. So now you want to take away police officers guns, batons, and tasers. What do you want them armed with, water pistols? Problem is that the left wing view of compassion is taking another persons money by gunpoint, and then using that money to fund special interest groups. Most people think they know how to spend their money better than a bureaucrat, and many also think charities can deliver needed essentials to the poor better than a bureaucracy. So far the worst excesses of "moral authoritarianism" have already occurred under left leaning governments. Do you have any idea how much social engineering happens with the Labour government in Great Britian. Probably because most people don't like the thought of rapists, murderers, and other assorted violent criminals walking on the streets within a couple of years. It has little to do with the Old Testament, the fact that Liberals such as yourself are willing to sacrifice someone elses security because of your "compassion" isn't a satisfying thought. You haven't been able to even proof this guy. Maybe if you had a little bit of critical thinking you'd be able to realize that. What's more nuts is people like yourself who make grand assumptions based on little or no proof, and are hysterical to the extreme. I'm not sure, but any person who thinks police should be armed with water pistols, thinks repeat violent criminals should be free to walk the streets, and that young people shouldn't learn to take responsiblity for their actions, isn't exactly rational. Especially someone who doesn't have any proof for the BS that he's saying.

Let me guess, it's the governments fault for not nationalizing all manufacturing industries right?

Meaning that the left believes that all people on the right are secretly evil Hitlers in waiting, who laugh at people dying, and wish to build a death star to destroy the Middle East. Right, I noticed this little idiotic idea is making the rounds with the far left these days. It basically states that if you tend to be in the mould of classical liberal thought you must also believe that the world is a couple thousand years old. However on the other hand if you believe the government is the answer to every problem, that a bureaucrat is better able to run a business than a businessman, and that a criminal shouldn't take personal responsibility for their actions, then you are a truly enlightened figure who knows the world is approximately 4 billion years old.

Which is why we should all model our economic system after Ontario, afterall aren't they having a booming economy right now?

This should be mandatory reading for all leftists on here.

So you're consulting psychics and people with ESP to make a judgement on Stephen Harper. I can only imagine that the people you're reading have a long history of being associated with looney left wing causes. By the way I've read most of Harpers articles and essays from when he was a Reform Party and president of the NCC. He wasn't a member of the religious right, and never has been. If anything he's been opposed to social conservatism his entire career, the best case I can give is when he left the Reform Party along with Jan Brown and Jim Silye because he felt it was bending towards the religious right. Harper's a classical liberal, not a social conservative. Even the supposedly "social conservative" issues he's championed have been moderate, and most people don't have a problem with tougher sentences for violent criminals. Stephen Harper isn't Jesus, and yes contrary to your view a leader is supposed to lead a political party. Are you a Christian. If so I think you're already breaking one of the most sacred rules of Christian ethics which is to be non-judgemental. "You've placed a lot of stock recently in the inability of leftists to think rationality or scientifically. Can you seriously imagine yourself coming to the same conclusions Harper has about the nature of reality after reading C.S. Lewis and Muggerridge? " C.S. Lewis wasn't a socialist, and he was never keen on the government becoming a welfare state. I think his view that charity should first be an individual responsibility, and he covered it in "Mere Christianity."