Canadian Blue

So the Liberals are for the three strikes rule, they just don't want violent criminals who have committed more than three offences to serve their time in prison. Not really, it's more or less based on the fact that some individuals believe a child would be a nuisance and want it to be "evicted." So you're saying that people can't be targetted by HRC's for making unpopular speech. No, the Liberals just tell Albertans that they should have no say who represents them in the Senate, and that they should learn to give more money to the federal government to pay for daycare in Toronto as that part of the country voted Liberal. By how much exactly, I believe taxes in general were lowered in the country. You've been saying that often, and then go on to say that Harper wants to make all abortion in Canada illegal, bring in the death penalty, and repeal gay marriage. It seems that you have a this pleasent fiction which thinks the only savior for Canada is Stephane Dion. Probably because their never was an intent to get the government completely out of food testing. It's not really anti-arts, more or less I don't like the idea of paying people to go vacation in Cuba. Especially someone like Avi Lewis. As for being anti-daycare, I think they're simply opposed to using taxpayer money to fund daycare. Their position was the correct one which was it should be up to individual parents how to spend their money. So you fully admit that you aren't fiscally conservative, correct? I don't see how someone who supports taxing Canadians further to make way for government spending on increasing the bureaucracy in Ottawa is fiscally conservative. It's common knowledge that one of the reasons Harper left the Reform Party was due to its social conservatism. An unbiased political observer would recognize this. You don't think abortion has anything to deal with the question of when human life begins. Actually the Republicans have been known to talk greatly about supporting traditional values and then paying lip service to the base.

As well Jdobbin, when it comes to the question of abortion the CPC has no policy on it, and their are currently prominent pro-choice MP's. Harper himself was known to be pro-choice when he was a Reform MP, so I doubt he'll really hoping for recriminalization. However I'm tiring of people who always have knee jerk reactions when it comes to abortion, and will refuse to listen to any argument that contradicts their view. Currently most European nations have some restrictions on abortion, and a majority of Canadian's support some restrictions. To say that because their are pro-lifers in the CPC, it automatically means they'll outlaw it is absurd. Not even the Republican Party was able to do that with all the years they controlled the levers of power in Washington.

I believe US Supreme Court Justices need to be approved by the Senate. Perhaps we should have a similar system here once the Senate is made up of elected representatives. That is unless the Liberal Party takes power again and they immediately fill the benches with people who gave them money and didn't get elected as MP's.

But then again in your simple minded world any political leader that disagrees with you is a dictator. Really, how so. Do you think every single member of the military is a monarchist. I sure as hell ain't. Link.... Actually no, I'm simply pointing out that not all Republics inevitably turn into communist/fascist dictatorships. As well all economies go through a slump. However Ireland is considered a success story due to their large economic growth. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...y_id=E1_PNRGVPG By the way, the United Kingdom currently has many problems. Perhaps we should get rid of the monarchy just so those problems don't replicate here.

I'm more concerned with Justin Trudeau's belief that capitalism will be our downfall.

So they basically want criminals out of prison quicker, no matter how many violent crimes they've committed. No, I was simply pointing out the idiocy of your comment which was the Tories would support abortion if it meant reductions in crime. My point was that you support abortion because you want fewer unwanted children in Canada. Which simply shows that the Liberals were to weak kneed to say they morally supported the US. Hahahahahaha... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/j...unals-on-trial/ It seems the tribunals have targetted Jewish newspapers for hate speech, so I doubt support is that strong. They've never stated they would consult Alberta when it came to who represents them in the Senate, and usually the Liberals for obvious reasons tell the western provinces to fuck off and let Ontario choose who represents them. Yes, elected is the keyword. If I have to choose between someone who is elected and accountable or someone who isn't, I'll always choose the former. The House of Commons is made up of elected hacks, it doesn't mean I want to get rid of parliamentary elections. Probably because it forces the more populous regions to compromise with other provinces. It's unfortunate, but you have to understand that to some people they prefer an elected body that forces compromise for the regions. Difference being that he cuts taxes, that is unlike the Liberals who want to put a tax on pretty well every product in Canada and create a more "progressive" tax system which punishes people for working harder. The difference being that the Liberals will make side deals with other provinces, except for Alberta as they don't have a chance of winning any seats there. Actually they aren't, can you please tell me when all our regulatory bodies were privatized. Either way it seems that your fears are based more on assumptions and fear than anything else. Yes, and we're all gratified that the current crop of Liberals such as yourself want to tax working Canadian's to help fund pet projects like universal daycare and pump more and more money into crappy artwork. Well it is a big tent party, it's just that since your extremely partisan and will vote Liberal no matter what, I doubt you'd ever support a different party. As well you seem to be opposed to any discussion on hot button issues, so I'm not sure how anybody is supposed to convince someone who is close minded.

I highly doubt that if Canada was to rid itself of the monarchy, we would become a fascist or communist country. Hardly, I'm sure you'll find many past and currently serving members of the military who are Republican, I'd put myself in the latter category. France is failing due to it's nanny state, and is beginning to improve with the election of Sarkozy. As for restoring it's empire, I really have no clue what you're talking about. Ireland is actually one of the most vibrant economies in Europe at the moment. But to be honest I'd prefer the Swiss style of government. So, we should then become more like the Swiss.

It has a long history, however I am much more in league with Thomas Paine than Edmund Burke. I don't mind the idea of being more like Ireland, France, and the United States. I prefer it over the idea of hereditary rule, even if the monarch is only a figurehead.

What incoherent ramblings. First things first, I doubt the government will hand out guns, however the crux of the matter is whether the government maintains that citizens should be able to own firearms. As for cutting back on funding to law enforcement, I doubt it as this government has funded the RCMP, the CBSA, and CSIS, greatly. That includes arming members of the CBSA. Being tough on crime won't necessarily reduce crime, but it will put career criminals in jail for much longer periods of time. Quite frankly we should be glad that the onus is on the criminal to rehabilitate themselves and not instead blame societal ills or bad parenting.

If you're interested in a good war film, I'd reccomend Tae Guk Gi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AykACb4a9iM Another movie I'd reccomend is Uprising. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjqv3S6uf0 I also greatly enjoyed The Wind That Shakes The Barley. [keep in mind that Ken Loach is a socialist and there is an undercurrent of it in his films] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc61Cjmmbkg

No the original bill dealt only with violent offenders. As compared to the opinion of those who are pro-abortion that the procedure is necessary to rid society of unwanted children. Actually the Liberal position was neutral, they never stated their support. If you'll remember Carolyne Bennett compared the actions of the US to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in World War 2. Neither does taxpayer funded harm reduction facilities. We might as well create separate lanes on the highway for drunk drivers. That is true, however it seems to me that the Tories are much more receptive to it than the Liberals, who simply believe that speech which offends any sensibility should be banned. Kind of like publishing some cartoons or having a banner that says "Jesus Sucks." Transfers are a different matter from increased federal power. It seems that thus far the current government tends to support provincial rights, that is as compared to the Liberal Party which threatened provinces that deviated from their thinking when it came to healthcare. So you'd argue that Liberals don't believe in making any changes to institutions which are at the core in opposition to the central tenants of representative democracy. Actually it will be better, as compared to the alternative which is a house meant soley to reward partisan hacks and subvert the will of the people. By the way for some reason I doubt Australians are pissed off that they can elect their representatives. I'm sure some dictatorships run smoothly however it doesn't make it any better. First of all, you're saying the Tories are bad, therefore we must go to a worse option. A party which more strongly believes that the state is required to keep individuals in line throughout their lives whether through social engineering or in economic decision making. A party which will increase taxes on the general population, but then use those funds for wealth redistribution. To argue that is a better alternative is laughable. No doubt about it. But I think they prefer it over the obvious wealth distribution plan that the Liberals are supporting which seeks to punish economically successful provinces. That's ridiculous, the difference is that one is absolutely necessary in society and isn't some tool for social engineering. Whether you like it or not your core beliefs are that individuals should lose more and more liberty to the government as long as it's for the greater good. To call those beliefs classical liberal or libertarian is absurd. I still don't see how someone who supports massive state intervention into the economy and social engineering is a "fiscal conservative." Not to mention arguing that one is a social liberal yet supports the government restricting unpopular political speech through the HRC's.

Nice to see Green Party supporters seem to mimic one another. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National I'm still wondering why some people are so opposed to Canada standing up for Israeli victims of suicide bombers. By supporting a liberal democracy in the Middle East. How awful. It so far is preferable to the anti-Americans who keep on sprouting their "ecological" values while thinking that the Prime Minister should pay lip service to the Jewish community.

We should get rid of the Monarchy altogether, it's an outdated institution which isn't in I think the best traditions of the west. We should move over to a Republic, and hopefully once QE2 is gone, perhaps we'll finally move towards that. Not really, she's a figurehead and that's about it, with no mandate from the Canadian people.

The point being that it actually is legal to kill a fetus at the 35th week in Canada due to the lack of a law. Yes because they view it as a seperate entity with a completley new strand of DNA. Actually, the three strikes rule here in Canada is for violent criminals. I've got no problem putting a violent criminal behind bars for life after a third offense. Oddly enough it's probably more likely due to abortion than it is any of those things. It was already discussed in "Freakonomics." Difference being that taxpayers aren't paying people to break the law. I believe he stated that we should be providing moral support to our allies. Which is a far cry from the neutral position of the Liberal Party. Exactly, they support restricting freedom of speech if they feel it has the chance to offend people. Restricting the freedom of someone to speak their mind isn't exactly in line with libertarian or classical liberal principles. I hope that's a joke. The Liberals are ideologically committed to the belief that Ottawa knows what works best in Edmonton and Quebec City. They are only centred around a version of Canada which usually only include Ontario and Quebec, with lip service paid to the western provinces. Excuse me, but the Liberals have never supported reforming the senate, as they still strongly believe that the PMO knows better than the citizens of each respective province when it comes to representation in the senate. By the way the Senator that Paul Martin selected from Alberta was once again a political hack that no Albertan would want representing them. Which is quite frankly a good thing, as it would ensure that the two most populous provinces can be countered if they support legislation which would in essence be punishing to the other less populous provinces. Hardly, the income tax cuts are a joke and only seek to create more wealth redistribution. Especially when the supposed carbon tax is being touted as a way to fund universal daycare and other Liberal pork barrel projects. Mind telling me more about this, as it seems the governments of both provinces are strongly opposed not to Harper but Stephane Dion's viewpoint that Ottawa should steal their wealth and fund daycare in Toronto. Well if you're a welfare statist than of course Conservative policies wouldn't go over well. If you think the government is the solution to the problem, and that the collective is more important than the individual, the Liberal Party is definitely for you.

Which is why we should switch to Nuclear Power. Actually I believe the war in Afghanistan was due to some tragic event that happened on 9/11. That is unless you happen to be a truther as well.

Now you're talking about nuclear bombs, can you tell me how the radioactive waste stored in the US has severly hurt humanity. Imagine that, isolated incidents which in the end were more or less caused by incompetence. However the most famous incident in the US which was Three Mile Island resulted in zero deaths, and the people in the surrounding area were only subjected to about as much radiation as is emitted by a microwave. The potential exists for alot of things to go wrong, that's why we have safegaurds and emergency response teams in place. Not to mention all of the research that goes into ensuring things don't go wrong. That was crumbling at the time due to an incompetent bureaucracy and lazy technicians. Actually government and regulatory bodies test and regulate any agricultural activity to ensure their are no side effects. Apart from the scaremongering, I have a feeling that people eating GM foods won't make them worse off, however they'll probably be fed which is better than the alternative that ecologists such as yourself propose. Awe yes, since you have no proof that it is harmful, you then turn it around and request the burden of proof from me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8 http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/ http://www.economist.com/world/internation...ory_id=11871937 http://www.economist.com/business/displays...ory_id=10727808 However the ecologists did win one battle against GM food. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2233839.stm

So, can you tell me of a case in western Europe, and North America, where radioactivity resulted in hundreds of deaths? and, if GM foods could feed millions of people, would you still be opposed even if the food was proven safe by a government agency and scientists? Number one, you're proposing that we scale back any research on genetics. Even though this research could result in improving humanity. Second, you're proposing that genetically modified foods could be harmful to humans, do you have proof of this? Easy, in the fight against malaria, once DDT was no longer used, what do you think would have happened. Malaria would have easily flourished, thus resulting in the deaths of many people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Such as what exactly?

But since my friend here [Ontario Loyalist] loves to talk about nuclear radiation. I was wondering whether he could give me a case where nuclear power has caused massive environmental damage in North America and resulted in numerous deaths. That is outside of the horrid mutations caused in the movie "The Hills Have Eyes."

If you want an example, in my former county residence a rail derailment caused massive pollution to a lake. However it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to all railways. Not really. I recognize the value of science and progress in helping our world go forward when it comes to feeding the world. It's not plain stupid. But, I would counter that plain stupid is saying that we should stop all biotechnological research because a few greens such as yourself are opposed to it. Which is funny, since you probably would have opposed most technological innovations in the past 300 years as they put a large amount of people out of work. Perhaps you should get with the program instead of wishing for a return to the stone age. I'm referring to the ban on DDT, which ironically enough probably would has killed more people than climate change ever will. The difference is that I'm skeptical of such alarmist claims that pretend the end of civilization will come within a decade.

Just to be clear then, you believe a woman should have an abortion up to pregnancy, even though a fetus can survive outside of the womb at the 22nd week. Probably because the abortion issue is much more complex than you are willing to think. By the way my view on abortion has been shaped by both Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens, who aren't social conservatives but atheists. Actually I think they oppose pretty well any initiatives which will create harsher sentences for violent criminals such as the three strikes legislation. Probably not, I remember before the last election people were saying we would go to Iraq with Harper in power. It still hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen as it's based on hype. Hardly, the Liberal Party supports restricting speech deemed offensive, support the idea of a centralized bureaucracy running the country, and are opposed to the provinces having a say in who represents them in the Senate. Any person who believes the Liberals are sympathetic to the classical liberal and libertarian movements is delusional. Not to mention that their carbon tax is essentially about wealth redistribution from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the poorer regions of the country. Funny you say that, as it seems the red tories from the old PC's are coming back to the Conservatives. Look up Andre Bachand.

Are you talking about Chernobyl? That was an example of an incompetent Soviet government. France has basically switched to Nuclear Power, yet I still haven't heard of any major health hazards. Most of the opposition to nuclear power is based on good ole fear mongering. We've always been screwing around and experimenting with agriculture since the dawn of civilization. As long as said food is safe for consumption why should we be opposed, especially if it feeds millions of people. No, luddites are people opposed to technology, which you are as you have shown in your previous posts. As for your second point you've got no clue what a neoconservative is, if anything I am a progressive neoliberal. Thats all good and well for people who are more concerned with alarmism than reason. Climate change is a problem, however it won't mean the end of civilization, and I doubt we'll be eating Soylent Green in the next decade.

It doesn't take a "true Albertan" to recognize the idiocy of such a move. http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive

No, I recognize the stupidity of the Green movement. For example they bleat on about climate change, but when it comes to technology which doesn't produce a carbon footprint [Nuclear technology] they are adamantly opposed. The Sierra Club and Green Party are also adamantly opposed to biotechnology which helps produce higher yields of food that have helped feed hundreds of millions in the third world. I don't mind calling them luddites, and essentially people who more than likely have little interaction with the natural environment and make epic pronouncements from some office in Ottawa. I fully support conservation and some environmental initiatives that have been shown to work, but not some lofty proposals which would do massive harm to the economy and humanity.

As do many Liberals, and if it's any indication the most ardently "pro-life" legislation over the past two years was brought forward by a Liberal MP. However I'm still unsure why the Liberals so strongly believe that we should have no abortion law, considering the fact that most of western Europe does. Not really, in our current justice system people can get away with killing police officers. I'd hope the Conservatives would start to change the justice system. It won't mean the reintroduction of the death penalty, but it'll beat the hug a thug approach which has been used under the previous regime. I've become weary of this designation. Because it usually doesn't even encompass what the definition actually is. If you're a fiscal conservative, would that mean you support more private healthcare, cutting government spending, and supporting a flat tax. On the social front does that mean you oppose drug laws, prostitution laws, and hate speech laws. That sounds like more of a libertarian or classical liberal stance, and might I remind you the latter has very little to do with Stephane Dion's version of Liberalism which believes the state is the answer to all of lifes little problems. I'd prefer the Liberals be destroyed, and then built back up. The party should return to it's roots and start embracing classical liberal ideals instead of welfare statism.

I doubt Harper will bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, or peel back same sex marriage. More or less because theirs already support for social moderation in most corners of the Conservatives, and embracing social conservatism would basically defeat any chance the Tories have of building a long lasting coalition. In this case people simply like to believe things that aren't true, more or less due to their partisan hackery.