udawg

Great post SirRiff. I agree completely, as I think many of us do, but are unable to put into words so eloquently.

Saw an online poll at the Global television site... If the election were held today, who would you vote for? Obviously not a scientific poll, but I found the results a little shocking nonetheless. Last I checked the results, the Liberals were at a staggering ... 16.5%. The NDP, yes, the federal NDP, had more, at 25.4%. And what about those Conservatives? 50.7% of respondants voted Conservative if the election was today. Even taking into account the conservative slant of the Global/National Post media group, and likely visitors to the site, I still find it incredible that the Liberals have dropped so far in one day. How big is this?

Too much to hope for, this time around anyway. Maybe a Liberal minority could lead to another election in a year or so, where the Conservatives could actually win a majority.

Despite the corruption, despite the mismanagement of money, and even the exit of John Bryden from the party, the Liberals will once more win a majority government in the next election. The only realistic hope is that more defections occur, and voters realize that even Liberal MPs don't have trust in their own party. The problem with Bryden's move is that he came off sounding more like a disgruntled Chretien supporter than a concerned Canadian. If the NDP can carve out some space from the Liberal's left wing, maybe with a move by Sheila Copps, and if the CPC can gain some ground on the Liberal's right wing, with a unified front and maybe a key defection or two, I can almost see a Liberal minority. However, it would require even more big scandals or headline-grabbing statements by the party or the PM before we could begin to hope for a minority. Do the Liberals have another scandal in them? Or are they all fresh out?

If a minority situation occurs, which IMO is not going to, but if it were, I actually could see an NDP-Liberal coalition. The Liberals have slid so far left in recent years, while the NDP have only very recently centralized a little more, that these parties may almost be considered one, even now. Sheila Copps, former leader candidate for LPOC, now considering move to NDP... just one very good example of ideologies meeting. She was, of course, on the left end of the Liberals to start with, but still... And of course the NDP would be much better to her than Martin's Liberals have been

Perhaps, if marriage is just a process by which property rights are assigned, we should simply outlaw marriages of all kinds Such an obviously archaic institution has no place in forward-moving societies like our own. Being legally bonded to a single other person for life is preposterous! If the survival of our species relies on reproduction, then there should be nothing standing in the way of said reproduction. Go crazy! And obviously the concept of marriage and monogamy is a failure. With such high rates of infidelity and divorce, one should be astonished that the institution has lasted as long as it has. It is only through legal intervention that marriage remains in existance. Maybe it is time to let go of old customs, and embrace the new world order. Go find a woman, get laid, and sow the seeds of mankind's future. No longer shall decency and love stand in the way of procreation.

I know this is sarcasm, but thank you for illustrating my following point. The really stupid thing is that I could actually see the article about how someone says that seriously. Has political correctness, tolerance, and observation of minority rights has gotten so bad that we have to censor ourselves as the majority? I hope not. I don't have a problem allowing Sikhs to wear turbans or Muslims to pray to Mecca in school, but we also need to be careful to allow Christians and Jews to do as they wish. I am not familiar with this case, this instance, but it reeks of the same type of reverse-discrimination that we seem to hear about every day in the news. Of course, we don't hear "reverse-discrimination", but that's what it is. When a Christian student is not allowed to pray in school because the school board is afraid of being viewed as intolerant, and when somebody actually goes to the trouble of complaining about this behaviour, that is reverse-discrimination. We would never hear the end of it if a school board disallowed turbans because hats aren't allowed in the classroom. Just look at Don Cherry's little fiasco. Not related to religion, maybe, but certainly similar circumstances. He gets investigated by the language commissioner because he said the word "French" on tv? It wasn't an issue of "language rights" to begin with, and nobody complained to the commissioner anyway! The language commissioner is going out of her way to persecute somebody who has done nothing wrong. He expressed a viewpoint; he wasn't fostering hate. This is the type of reverse-discrimination that makes this world an idiotic place sometimes. Sometimes you just need to take a step back and say, "What is the problem here? Why is this a big deal? Who the hell cares, anyway?"

It's the same thing that's been happening for nearly 50 years now, since the Avro Arrow was cancelled by Diefenbaker for no reason other than political pressure from the US and possible "cost overruns". In Canada, we believe in not replacing something til we can't even recover scrap metal from the last crash. At least, that's what the politicians seem to think... Sometimes, I think of a Canada where instead of sending our GG on luxury trips to foreign countries, we spend the money on new equipment for our troops. Instead of criminalizing possesion of guns, we buy some for our soldiers. Instead of working so hard to please Quebec, we build some new bases there so we can quell the rebellion quickly. Then I wake up, and realize it's nothin but a dream. Sometimes I wonder about a big conspiracy in Ottawa, where the Liberals are doing all this, getting in trouble, getting caught in the midst of corruption, just to prove to themselves how gullible we really are. Just to see how far they can go before we stop complaining and do something about it. Or maybe the separtists are in control of the LPOC, and they are simply trying to degrade the military to the point of collapse, so when they DO rebel, we won't be able to stop them. Or maybe I need some sleep. But the point remains, this is a disgrace a half century in the making. And ironically, a Conservative started it. Maybe a Liberal, Martin, can end it. Or maybe we'll have to wait 4 years, 10 Sea King groundings, and a couple hundred million wasted taxpayer dollars for the Conservatives to do it themselves.

When I look ahead to the upcoming election, I am almost filled with despair. Are these the only choices we have? Possibly the most corrupt government this country has ever seen on one side, and a leaderless amalgamation that even members of the former parties aren't happy with. Then we've got the separtists. And the NDP, who I wouldn't ever trust to rule this country for fear that a well organized gang of chimpanzees could overwhelm the NDP's idea of a military. Not that we're not almost there already. Thanks, LPOC. But seriously, I can't decide whether we're going to, once again, set a new record for lowest voter turnout in political history.... or just maybe ... hopefully, unite in our disgust for the unbelievably gross and possibly criminal mismanagement of taxpayer's money. If Canada decides that there is in fact no alternative, no better alternative, to the Liberals, we could be in for another 4 years of French extortion, where they take our money in return for their continued presence on our maps. I can't honestly say that I believe the CPC will win this election. They won't. Even if they get the right leader. Even if the Liberals and all the other parties mess up. The Conservatives cannot win this election. I don't even believe it will be a minority government. There will be a reduction of Liberal seats, there is no doubt of that. But Canada will, once again, choose the devil it knows. We can argue about where this election will be fought, debate the number of seats, and discuss policy and leadership til the cows come home, but nothing will change the fact that the Liberals will once more reign over this weak and sometimes pathetically conservative nation. To quote the Arrogant Worms, it seems as though this country has lost it's will to live.

Dreaming? lol I support the new party. I just fear that the differences between the radical faction in the Alliance and the moderates of the former PC may be too great to overcome. If they CAN overcome their differences, however, the new party will emerge as the strongest in Canada.

Not being from Ontario, I don't know much about Tony Clement... but I haven't heard too many complaints. I think if he wants to have a chance, he needs to raise his profile in the West. A good strong leader he may be, but the Conservative stronghold now lies in the west, and we don't know who he is. Which leaves us voting for Harper if we don't trust BS's experience. And that would put the new Conservatives only slightly ahead of where the Alliance was on its own. The new party needs a leader who has not made too many headlines in either party. I also suggest they need a former PC MP. For the new party to gain credibility in the crucial early period, it cannot be seen as the Alliance in new clothes. In Saskatchewan 2 elections ago, (figure 4 years), the Sask. Party, based on the old Conservative party, lost the election because of the perception (helped along by a very effective NDP ad campaign) that they were merely the old conservatives in green, rather than blue. (For those who don't follow Sask. politics, the Conservatives were hoofed out of power several years ago after a huge scandal resulting in criminal charges against many in the Tory cabinet.) A former Alliance leader would be fine in the future, but the new party needs to avoid the "radical" stigma that many see in the East. I think McKay actually would have been ideal, but in the absense of his name, I have to put my support with Tony Clement. Even if I don't know much about the guy.

Now, why do I see another seperation within 2 years?

Ignoring the horror stories and what-if scenarios on both sides of the argument, what it comes down to is whether or not it is worth the trouble to make legal gun users pay to register weapons they will not use in a criminal act. In my opinion, it is not worth the trouble. Gun owners with legal pretexts for owning a weapon are not the ones we need to be worried about. They are not the ones using firearms in crimes, and they are not the ones who need regulating. The real criminals are not likely to register their guns anyway, and many crimes are commited with weapons that are illegal to possess in Canada, registered or not. I bet all the gangsters in Vancouver and Toronto are going to go to the local RCMP station to register their AK-47s. Or maybe they'll go register the weapon they just killed someone with. They can dodge the murder rap, but don't wanna get caught with an unregistered gun, oh no.

Maybe the CBC is just trying to provide you with something to complain about. *rolling eyes* The problem is not left wing lies, it's right wing fanaticism. To say that the Israelis have done nothing wrong is pure horsesh*t. They have repeatedly, without provocation or justification, systematically attacked and attempted to annihilate the Palestinian people. Of course the Palestinians are not blameless either, they are in fact the worse party. But state-sponsored terrorism should hardly be celebrated, either.

Anti-Americanism is nothing new in Canada... it's been here ever since the Loyalists came here to escape the American war machine in the 1760s thru 80s. The feeling strengthened around the time of this thing called the War of 1812... when the US invaded our poor defenseless nation... Actually, anti-Americanism was a major factor in deciding to form the Confederation itself. All in all, we're on pretty good terms right now.

This is very true, and why some right wing fanatics will call for a two-teir system, rather than just fixing the existing one. If it don't work, replace it. The problem is that healthcare is a provincial mandate, and some provinces just don't have the tax base to pay for the same type of service that other provinces do. Perhaps healthcare should be provided by the federal government. Or here's an idea: controlled provincially, funded federally. Best of both worlds. Interesting conclusion, if you did the math right. It would directly oppose statements by others on this very forum... And would prove conclusively that we DO, in fact have the better system. There are problems, yes. But are they so bad as to completely abandon the idea? (re: my views on American space program)

Agree to that... I have never understood the point behind having a state of the union address, other than just one more opportunity for the president to inflict his views (or those of his advisors) on the American public. Actually, it's alot like a campaign speech. Alot of promises, very little actual substance. Kinda like, we'll see what he actually does... The state of the union address, if it were to be true to it's name, would be comprehensive review of the past year, including successes and failures. It could still be given by the President, but could provide a time for him to acknowledge mistakes in unison with all the propaganda. Then the public would actually learn the "state of the union", not just hear a sanctioned campaign speech.

Well maybe the US should have stayed the hell out of foreign countries. Attack the Soviet Union, attack Soviet bases in foreign countries, but don't think that placing your own leader in power will make things better. American-supported dictators have caused more problems for the West than the Soviet Union and communism ever did. Why go around wrecking third party countries in a stupid spat between your ideology and another's? The whole cold war was the most pathetic display of machoism I have ever seen. The entire first world, divided down the middle, whether they wanted to be a part of it or not. Whatever happened to the two sides meeting each other head on, firing volleys until someone retreated. If the United States and Soviet Union want to have themselves a war, do it without involving the rest of the world.

Unlike Germany. Who have, over the last 50 years or so, have come to acknowledge the horrors their nation committed. Their children learn about the holocaust; their entire national psyche is painfully aware of it. Which is why Germany has made such progress. Once again regarded as a world leader (by most), by "accepting their past immorality", they have been able to move on.

It's hard to compare ourselves against a country with nearly 10 times the population, who has a hundred-year head start on sovereignty, and has been more industrialized for our entire respective histories. It's simply not a fair comparison. If we've caught up to 12-15 years apart, "not bad" is all i have to say. The climate gives the US a head start, as probably 60 percent of our nation, at least, spends 7 months of the year frozen. The US has been more heavily populated, allowing industrialization, diversification, and expansion, since the first settlers arrived. Forging their own country 90 years earlier than we did gave the US that much more time to build their own economy, not reliant on Britain's. Canada, on the other hand, remained part of Britain's mercantilist economy, reaping none of the benefits of our work. It was only after Britain moved to free trade, with the Industrial Revolution, that Canada had to form her own trade partners and policies, which led to Confederation. All these factors lead me to my point, which is that comparing the US economy and Canada's is completely biased. If we caught up 75 years out of 90, in only 140 years, that's not too bad. Give us another 140 years; we'll be 60 years ahead of the US.

One of the many reasons I hope Canada never becomes like the United States is the health care system. Even now, we're getting a little too close for comfort. No longer does every citizen get equal care in Canada. Tommy Douglas' vision was for every person to recieve quality healthcare, regardless of money. Several provinces are no longer following these ideals, and making people pay for certain services. This is a step backwards, and should be corrected before we DO end up like the US. Say what you like about the amount of government money poured into healthcare, we still have the better system, and our citizens still recieve better care. Until somebody can prove to me that the American system saves more lives, helps more people, and is better for the low-income family, not just the rich, I will continue to believe in Medicare.

Was he in a position, however, to be involved in this? Yes, he was high up in the party for years, but is it even possible for him to have the proverbial blood on his hands? Finance minister, then hoofed out of cabinet...powerful at times, yes, but not concerning foreign affairs.

Sure, which is why I almost hope that Clement wins the leadership. Voters in Ontario know him, he could quite conceivably lead the party to a very strong opposition government. The perception, true or not, is that the Alliance has rubbed off on Harper a little too much; voters in the East may not trust him. And B.S. doesn't have the experience. So while she lends some glamour to the race, if Clement were to win, the Conservatives would have both their known element, with the media attention to boot.

Re: the state of the union, no surprises there, really. A little surprised he didn't reiterate the Mars plan... Genuine question: Why privatize Social Security? Like Morgan and RTOR, I was quite surprised that the immigration plan wasn't mentioned... that seems to be the biggest issue for him at the moment, and he doesn't mention it? What does it mean (if anything)? Maybe dropping the plan quietly... or trying to avoid attention...

If there was some sort of conspiracy or whatever, surrounding the Arar case, why would Martin bother hiding it? The issue began long before he took office. If there was some inconsistencies in the handling of the case, he should be exposing them, not covering them up. Which leads me to believe that the RCMP did this of their own accord, without leadership any higher than their own. They, unlike Martin, could have something to lose if a story comes out. (Assuming there was wrongdoing of some sort.)