August1991

This thread is absolutely Looney Tunes. It started on a really bad foot, showing an appalling ignorance of federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and then went down hill from there. The RCMP used to handle all intelligence matters. In the aftermath of the FLQ crisis, CSIS was created. I would be very surprised if anyone suggested CSIS and the RCMP be combined again. Our strucure is identical to the US structure, on a much smaller scale. The US recently created a Homeland Security cabinet member. Presciently, Kim Campbell created that in 1993 but the Liberals did away with it. Incidentally, there is a security section within PCO which advises the PM now, much as the NSC (Candoleeza Rice) advises the President. Defence also has an intelligence unit (DIA in the States). What a whopper that one is. Argus, you are dead, dead wrong. We are not a whore; we are irrelevant. Bionic, the US a thug? I hope, in God's name Bionic, you never meet a real thug. We'll see about that in November, MS. From what I gather, things are well on track in Iraq. Interim government in place, hand-off on schedule. There's a good thread going on this forum. Check it out. This is absolute BS, takenumber.I like neither types of fundamentalists. The Christian sort occasionally knock at my door and I feel vaguely sorry for them. Those that want to do the pentecostal-baptist thing is their right. None of these groups bear any resemblance at all to Islamic Fundamentalists. Since Boy Scouts and Marines both wear uniforms and sing songs, would you also say they have a lot in common? WTF? What research is there to do? Learn to read? Some sweet reason from BG. But I disagree. Goldie, I always thought Reagan was a bromide merchant but he saw communisn thankfully end up on the dust heap of history. Nowadays, the only people defending communism and socialism seem to spend their time posting to Internet forums. WTF? Any city in Canada with an identifiable gay bar will not have this problem. Evidence to the contrary, takenumber? It was not cut and dry, BG. IMV, the Cold War was much more difficult and dangerous than this current war against these Islamic fanatics. But they are of the same piece. The kind of anti-Americanism visible on this forum is a garden variety, the half-baked ideas of immature youth.The US did not provoke the maniacs who flew those planes into those tall buildings. Was the rape victim guilty of provoking the accused?

You are in the business now of interpreting spirits?

The NDP are going to get a stunning 4 to 6 seats in BC, a 100% increase over the 2 seats they won in 2000. G&M BC Seat Analysis MS, are you on drugs?

This abortion line in the sand is largely irrelevant. Duceppe would prefer a Tory win and I suspect he's saying this to reassure any nervous Ontario women Tory voters. The line in the sand that really matters is the aeronautics industry subsidy to Bombardier. I don't know why Duceppe is doing this. He's simply boxing himself in for no reason. He's going to win the seats anyway. One work around for Harper would be to include the money as a part of a fiscal imbalance package and then let the provincial (Charest) government dole the pork out. Harper will have a strong interest in getting an organization on the ground in Quebec, possibly though the ADQ, so that the BQ begins to fear an election.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question. That is so much kitsch that it amounts to a series of falsehoods. What the hell do you mean by "warming up to same-sex marriages"? What is "aggressive war"? Capital-L Liberal on social policy? What is an "adequate" social safety net? What environmental "measures"? That's not an argument. It's Canadian pablum. Have no fear of the 17 men. They're dead and of no danger to anyone. IT'S THE NEXT 17 YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF. A dfifferent generation of Canadians stood up to bullies. In fact, they stood up to the bullies before the Americans did. Are you saying you're a coward, takenumber?

The link at the beginning of this thread is a rip off of this column in the Toronto Star. There are serious problems with this strategy. First, it doesn't work. For several weeks now, the media and Herle et al have been talking about "hidden agenda" and social issues. The Tories are still rising in the polls. Second, any scare tactics just move NDP supporters into the Liberal column. This may explain in part why the NDP is holding steady at 16-17%. Third, the Tories are not primarily social conservatives. They are fiscal conservatives. And in this, Harper is no Margaret Thatcher radical. Fourth, many Canadians I feel are appalled by the moral presumption of many comentators. IME, Canadians are polite and will not speak out when they feel pushed around. But they will happily make their opinion known on a ballot. The Charlottetown referendum is an example. We are witnessing a change in government. Democracy in action.

This is for MapleSyrup: G&M BC poll analysis This is Canada writ large. Rural areas are over-represented and urban areas under-represented.

Harper in English: Avoid "Where is the money?" Try instead "Paul, you and I have met several times and spoken. Paul, what happened to the 250 million?" Harper in French: "Il faut respecter les droits provinciaux." Avoid the Clark line of "Je négocie tous les jours". Try this: "Franchement, c'est assez. Veut, veut pas, le Québec et le Canada - il faut le faire. Je veux les députés québécois autour de moi afin de déterminer le comment." Don't worry about the accent. But appeal to women. Those would be my talking points. Let the principal put them in his own words.

That's not what was implied by jordan above. To do this, Herle and the Liberal war room are living on about 3 or 4 hours sleep. They have absolutely no life. At most, they get adrenalin and campaign sex. Why are they doing this? They should have done a Clinton and run on the economy, stupid. But my "why" question is deeper than that.

Barry Kay at Wilfrid Laurier 10 June 2004: LISPOP Atlantic 28 Lib 17 CPC 11 NDP 4 Quebec 75 BQ 57 Lib 18 Ontario 106 Lib 47 CPC 51 NDP 8 Man/Sask/Terr 31 Lib 10 CPC 13 NDP 8 Alta 28 Lib 4 CPC 24 BC 36 Lib 12 CPC 19 NDP 5 Total 308 Lib 108 CPC 118 NDP 25 BQ 57 Other posters are welcome to make predictions here in this thread. (My French forum does this for cash and donates the money to charity. Did you read that Greg?)

He's the guy. At Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. Since 1980, he's been within 5 seats of the final results. Only recently has he attracted attention. I have never seen his work closely but IMO, this is the way to do it. Thanks for the link, Goldie.

You are right caesar. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. My point was not about the decision to buy or not. I simply meant that on moral questions - gay marraige for example - most people have a ready answer. But for technical questions, as you say, it requires some research. I usually ask my dentist to clean my teeth. I tend to defer to him on more complex questions. But I always want to know what he's doing and why. We elect politicians in somewhat the same way. Harper's suggestion of a free vote to solve the colour question seems reasonable to me. His idea of saying the party together will solve the motor overhaul question strikes me as sensible too, as long as they've explained the basic principles for the choice.

I'll take this variant first. True we have a universal insurance scheme, but the premium is subsidized. A refugee off the plane just had a monthly health insurance premium of about $200 paid by someone else - without need for a medical test. This matters to immigrants. (Would you move to the States until you had a job? Why?) If our labour standards are good - in that they lead to better workers who provide good value for services provided - we have nothing to fear. One can say the same for our environmental standards.Let me give an example of what I mean. If it is true that a State universal, compulsory health insurance scheme is better than several private schemes ( I think so), then this will make us better off in the long run. The same applies to various labour or environmental standards. These should not be seen as costly anymore than changing your windows is "costly".

Why do I have a problem? I see a difference.Votes of confidence include money bills. Have you ever thought why? In the US Consitution, money bills must start in the House of Representatives, have you ever thought why? Most people would be able to tell you whether they like a car's colour. But few could tell you whether the motor needs an overhaul. Most of us have opinions on moral questions. Few of us have clear opinions on appropriate tax rates. How many know what the oil depreciation rate should be? A different take might be this: why should tax bills require party discipline? Well said!If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, national security is the first basis of a brief. As to free votes, the US is almost what you describe. Maybe MPs are used to being trained seals and candidates are new to the idea that they may actually have to indicate independent thought to earn votes.

I was intrigued by that quote when that web site first went up. PM PM was not PM at the time, so I kind of dismissed the quote. I'd like to see the context.If the NB Nuggest answers, post it here too.

Provide a link, jordan.

I missed this from BG. Call it an incentive to use mass transit if you will but IMV, the question is far more serious.If you rent a hotel space, you have to pay. There are even special weekend rates. So, if you want to rent road space (even if it's moving under your car), you should pay also. I'd like to see weekend rates (low) compared to the 5 pm "high season". What got rid of the gas guzzlers and made industry energy efficient was the quadrupling of oil prices in the 1970s.When the government gets directly into this game, it generally makes a mess of it. Want an example? Read this. The US government wanted to regulate, à la Ralph Nader, improved vehicle gas consumption. It defined different vehicles, set rising standards and forced auto manufacturers to respect them. Classified as a light truck, the SUV was born. The manufacturers had got around the regulation. This is one of many, many examples. The lesson here is not to write better regulations; the lesson is not to write them at all. There are much better ways to solve this problem.

The quote below comes form the same G&M article: Take a wild guess what business this consultant is in. And you don't think this newspaper article was a good plug for him? Margaret Thatcher threw all of these jokers out of her office. The Irish recently have done the same while ensuring lower corporate taxes across the board for all businesses. These entrrpreneurs want to make a profit. They look for ways to do it. They will never walk away from a profitable opportunity. **sigh** I'll try again to make this obvious argument. Math makes it easier (maybe that's why Michael Moore still doesn't get it).If it is easier to produce widgets in Mexico or China, then we would be foolish not to produce something else and trade. If the Mexican and Chinese governments are foolish enough to subsidize widget production, then we'd be really dumb not to take advantage of the deal. Widgets? If the Japanese government were foolish enough to subsidize car production so that Canadians could buy a new Lexus for $5000, we'd be fools not to take them up on the offer. Cars? Widgets? Why do you think many foreigners, no fools, want to make a refugee claim in Canada? (Hint: We subsidize health care.)

I disagree. There are objective facts which do not depend on a relative context. For example, "the speed of light in a vacuum" or, "Brian Mulroney reformed the MST creating the GST". At most, I'll accept quantum mechanics: objective truth is tempered by chance, but that's absolutely unpredictable and without bias. (At the limit, such as the speed of light or a ship on the horizon, chance no longer exists. I'll accept that in the GST case.) I'm not going to lose sleep over an empiricist's dilemma. If I see the sky is blue, I'll trust my eyes. If you tell me the sky is blue, and I have no reason to believe you gain by lying, I'll trust you. The federal government should nationalize and operate Canada's auto industry. It should provide subsidies to the auto industry. It should not provide any subsidies. It should raise or lower corporate taxes. How? I disagree. For better or worse, this is the current result of all those years of political debate, argument and philosophizing. People learn. Knowledge is passed from generation to generation. The media provides ample evidence of this.

You are assuming that MPs will vote according to their personal opinions and not the opinions of constituents (however gauged). It's an interesting exercise to find out the personal opinions of a candidate. But keep this all in the right perspective. Harper has made plain that social issues will not be a priority for his government when compared to the fiscal issues he wants to deal with. The reason social issues are taking such a place in this election campaign is because the Liberals and the NDP feel they can defeat the Tories this way. The Liberals in particular will use any means to keep power.

There are more sources of information now than at any time in our history. This forum is an example. Have you thought maybe that many Canadians don't want more political information? Excepting the CBC, the other media respond to public desires. They are very attuned to what the public wants to know.

Below is what Hargrove wants to give them. I haven't heard Layton's line but it wouldn't be hard to imagine. G&M This is pork pure and simple. It's also evidence of meddling politicians and bureaucrats. On the left, it goes under the name of "industrial strategy" when it's anything but. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

I am in favour of a carbon tax. I am also in favour of toll roads such as the 407 in Toronto or road tax used in London, England. These should be permanent taxes and could eventually replace income taxes. If you expect government bureaucrats to identify the next great energy source, you are sadly mistaken. That argument is absolutely specious. Every dollar I spend gets back to some criminal at some time or another. Natural resource royalties are complex. Is that what you are referring to?Duceppe wants the federal government to subsidize the aeronautics industry and Layton wants the feds to subsidize the auto industry. They want to give taxpayers' money to those awful, psychotic, rogue corporations. BG, do you agree?

Misogynist? I would rather say terribly misleading.I guess Sully means to say that in the past, children (including boys) were raised in a family with a mommy and a daddy. Now, because of all the radical social changes, lack of moral fibre, social discipline, egotism of some adults, the freedom people enjoy, children are raised in "broken" families by a single mother. A walk in any cemetery should dispense anyone of this naive view of the past. Because of death (or a whole host of other reasons related to poor communications and travel), children were frequently raised in single parent families in the past. Children were often raised by other family members. Take two famous examples. Pierre Trudeau and Bill Clinton. Sully is wrong not misogynist.

Yes, immigration for example. (Why don't BC and Ontario get involved as Quebec has done?) Municipal affairs are not a shared responsibility. Sorry, you've lost me there. Do you mean that 10 or so Tory MPs from rural Albertan ridings are going to dictate how the other 290 some odd MPs vote?