Moonbox

The PC's imploded everywhere, not just the west. If they hadn't done such a terrible job in the 80's and early 90's the reform probably wouldn't have even started. If the Liberals collapsed right now we'd probably also see a movement to replace them with a new party.

So....as a taxpayer I should be forced to pay for equal but more expensive goods made in Canada?

Madmax I think (he can correct me if I'm wrong) he's talking about a specific instance where we bought Canadian and it was garbage. It's true that we do business with the military, but when you're facing giant american competitors with the benefits of massive scale and their own government is the world's biggest customer, it would be a little redundant for us to have a competing and independant industry.

I'm curious as well. Care to answer the ACTUAL question?

I don't think it's a good idea. We generally export more than we import and a "Buy Canadian" clause sends the wrong message to our trading partners. I think import duties from China, Japan etc might be a really good idea but a "Buy Canadian" stimulus package is a short term solution that will make all of the infrastructure more expensive. It would ultimately cost the tax payers and only prolong long term competitive problems these unions have.

The reform party was a western protest vote that only really became a factor after the implosion of the PC's. When the PC's went from 151 seats to 2, it left quite a vaccuum in western Canada. Every party starts somewhere, which is I guess what you're saying, but I feel my vote is better spent preventing things like the Green Shift and Bob Rae by supporting the governing party which I happen to tolerate and on a lot of issues agree with. Given that national politics are all about people-pleasing in 31,000,000 directions, it's unlikely that I'll ever be totally thrilled with the governing party.

Haha. It's sadly true

I know and Ignatieff would NEVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD think of telling the people what they want to hear. When he told everyone the stimulus plan wasn't working (before it was even made law) Ignatieff CLEARLY wasn't trying to score points with people worrying about their jobs or EI.

I can say for certain that if Harper had any chance of moving forward with his social agenda he'd lose my vote in a second. I really dislike his position on all of the above. I just know he has no chance of doing anything about it, so it's kind of a none issue for me. I don't have to like the guy. Ignatieff doesn't have Harper on anything. The amendment to the budget was his way to make the appearance that he wasn't REALLY supporting the budget. Ignatieff is in no position to deal with Harper head to head so all we'll see over the next 6 months minimum is a repeat of last year. The Liberals are broke, the 'coalition' would ruin the party and Iggy knows that. He'll play the same waiting game Dion did (I'm not trying to compare him to Dion for the record) and the only way he'll make any moves is if Harper REALLY screws up.

Oh I'm sorry. I guess you were were referring to the 'other' parties that manage something like a combined 0.0001% of the vote.

I was mocking you. There was nothing vague about what you and Argus were saying. You decided that the alternative of running for office or starting our own parties were perfectly practical solutions to our choices of picking the lesser of evils when we vote. Pure analism again. Think like a human being here. He said he votes for the CPC because it's better than the alternatives. Most people would leave it at that and realize he's talking about the parties available at the moment and that running for office is probably not a real option. No. Nice try. Socially I'm very liberal. Fiscally I'm conservative. I'm not happy with the stimulus program right now and I know my taxes will likely rise in the next few years. Like Argus said though, which you managed to muddy up with your delightfully insightful suggestion that he run for office if he wasn't happy, was that there aren't better alternatives right now.

No, that's just you trying to be clever. Context helps the AVERAGE person (not an anal person) understand that when someone like Argus says he chooses the CPC over all the alternatives, he actually means that "Barring the possibilities that I create and nurture my own political party and run for politics, and considering that a vote for a fringe party like the Christian Heritage Party makes about as much a difference as a fart in the wind, the best choice for my vote is the CPC." Really anal people, on the other hand, require the clarification. You said I vote conservative no matter what. Citation please?

That's about what I'm thinking, but I like the way you've explained it. I never really thought that the Liberals could moan and groan for more stimulus and then pretend they had nothing to do with it several years from now. You could be right and it would be pretty funny to see how the blame game pans out.

Look up the definition of context. Context can drastically change the meaning of a statement. If you're not prepared to take context into account when talking then maybe you'd be better conversing with robots. I know what I said. You chose to take what I said as if it were a separate discussion altogether. Yes, TECHNICALLY Argus and I could start our own grass roots party. Yes, TECHNICALLY we could run for office ourselves. Whether we have the means or the inclination is another matter altogether. If we don't, then our alternative is to chose from the parties available. If he and I are voting from the right, we generally have the choice of Liberal or Conservative. Presently the Liberals look worse than the Conservatives. I hope that clears things up. As for who you think you'll vote for, you don't have a clue. I have voted Liberal in the last 5 years and I would do so again if people like Bob Rae weren't in positions of influence. The fact that the coalition even became a possibility tells me the LPC has shifted left/stupid.

Probably. Either that or he agreed with the majority of the budget. The situation was drastically different anyways. The country wasn't in its worst recession in probably 80 years, and we hadn't had 3 elections in the last 5-6 years. Harper's party also wasn't completely broke and they weren't in nearly the same position of weakness. They're both walking a fine line. Harper's majority gamble failed in October and if he triggered another election soon even I wouldn't vote for him. If people like me wouldn't, a good number of others wouldn't either. He knows that. We're in a recession. That's what's important. Harper is not calling an election in spring either. He may force none-confidence on a big issue, but that's a little different than what he did in October.

What you said was all I care about is winning. Take the statement in context. Stop trying to divide and pick apart and confuse every argument. Argus said he is unhappy with a lot of the things the CPC has done but he still thinks they are better than the Liberals. You told him to vote for someone else then. My question was who??? A marginal fringe party with no chance of affecting any change? There's no point in voting for them. The reform party filled in the vacuum in the west created by a collapsed PC party. That's not the environment we're looking at today. No argument there. It's just not an alternative for myself or Argus.

This sort of amendment is more to keep up appearances of resistance than anything. When the first 'report card' is evaluated, we'll be back EXACTLY where we were last week. The CPC will present whatever theyre going to present, and the LPC will either swallow it or force some ACTUAL amendments. The amount of pussy-footing being done here is titanic. If Ignatieff thinks there are big problems with the budget, amend them NOW rather than wait for the actual damage to be done and say, "I told you so!" No Iggy, you didn't. You had the chance to force amendments and you didn't do it. Either you think the budget is fine or you're politicking. It's something Canadians loathe right now. You'll notice the lack of CPC attack adds recently. Harper's reigned it in for a reason. Like I said it's a wishy-washy pussy-foot position. He's taking the easy way here. It's a no risk approach where he can say anything he wants after the fact and it's purely because he's in an extremely weak position. A coalition would ruin the Liberals and they can't afford an election. It's Dion all over again with better English. Harper can and WILL make it clear that Ignatieff could have had the budget amended at every turn.

You have no idea what I believe. For someone who doesn't like to get personal you certainly have no problem telling me what my values are. It has nothing to do with winning. I voted for John Tory in the 2007 Ontario election even though he was CERTAIN to lose and we don't have to go over what his mistakes were. I voted for him because I thought crybaby Dalton was doing a horrific job and he was the best alternative. This is what you seem to have trouble realizing in most discussions. Politics are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about alternatives. I choose Harper (so far) over Ignatieff because he is the best alternative for ME. ALL of the other options are either: a ) Completely opposed to my philosophy of government (Green and NDP come to mind) or b ) Are such fringe parties that voting for them would be as effective as trying to fart down a brick wall. As a RATIONAL human being, if one of two parties are 99.99999% certain of winning the election, I will chose the one that suits me best. People can vote NDP or Green all they want. If they want to vote with their heart then that's fine, but our parliamentary system could not care less what you feel in the deepest part of your heart. It's very obvious which of the posters here follow that philosophy as well, because their arguments reflect it. Besides, the NDP actually gets elected and makes a difference in a lot of ridings. Even the Green Party has a chance in specific areas.

I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that if the Liberals think the budget is a terrible idea and isn't going to help Canada, they SHOULD push for amendments or they should vote it down. Since they pretty much passed it as is, it's stupid to take the position that they think it's a terrible plan. Right now the official opposition is supporting the budget. That says one of two things. Either they support what the government's doing, or they're a weak opposition. I'll let you decide.

Agreed on everything... There's something I would DIE to see. This is one of my biggest beefs nowadays. Again, I agree on everything. These are all things that can and should happen. The problem is that none of them are going to stimulate the economy right now and none of the current parties are really offering any of that anyways. These are things that nobody is going to worry about for a couple of years right now. You and I are therefore left with just complaining about them. If we want something done we should try and get into politics. Failing that we can continue to both argue for the same measures from opposite teams. Okay I couldn't remember. Now that we know that they were either full of balogna or forced to reverse their position, who do we go to if the current budget doesn't suit us?

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand. I think you need to be a little more specific. In some ways I agree with you, but you're speaking mostly cliché and I don't really know exactly what you're talking about. If you're saying that insatiable corporate greed, corruption and the inept regulation of the financial markets, then I think you're on the right track. Above it all, however, you have to hold the stupidity of the average consumer.

Surely you can't be saying that it's not the job of MP's to help decide how to govern the country??? You couldn't possibly mean that MP's in the opposition should keep their mouths shut if the current government is doing harm to the country, could you? While I agree that Opposition isn't normally prepared to disclose their election platform to the current government, when the country is facing its worst recession in probably 80 years, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the opposition shouldn't be trying to mitigate it as much as possible.

For pete's sake there is a very small list of alternatives, but you alreadly know that. It's almost always a question of which party will be better for you, as an individual or family. There's no point in voting for a party that has no chance of winning, which is often why the Liberals have such strong support from the left. Why would you say something silly like that knowing full well that it's impossibly unlikely another right-wing grass roots party will spring up in Alberta? You make it sound like you've never voted for someone you weren't 100% happy with...

What sort of meaningful things can the government do without the budget right now? I'm not sure that's what he said. As I recall he said they were going to wait to present the budget before they did anything.

I'll agree with that. I don't think anyone, even CPC supporters, have the same image of Harper as we did in 2004-2006. Having said that, in some ways he is still very different from Liberal idealogy and even you should be able to admit to the (increasingly more subtle these days) differences between the two. I think it is good strategy to spend where you think you'll win votes. The tories could spend billions in downtown Toronto and they'd still probably come up with nothing. Spending in Newfoundland would similarly flop. Quebec is probably a lost cause at this point too. I think fairness gets disregarded in favor of pragmatism when it comes to politics. I didn't read any of the numbers but I'd bet a disproportionate amount of stimulus is being spent in Ontario and other small C areas for the very reason that they'll pick up votes from red/blue swingers.