marksman

What're these "really really bad anti western policies"?

Your irrational hatred of Trudeau and efforts to blame everything on him is sad. If a country can't have ideals why is it that people from almost every country in the world talk as if they do? Did Trudeau give the Americans their ideas of the American dream? Efforts like yours to belittle Canada increase regionalism and hold us back.

Well if it's been touted then it must be true. It's also been touted that Harper wants to put soldiers on every street corner. Should we believe that too? Arrogant is thinking you can tell supporters of a party what they think. Every political party wants to form the government. That's not being arrogant. If they didn't think they could govern best then they've got no business running. Just because some advisors told Dion to dump the green shift that doesn't mean he's arrogant. He wanted the environment to be at the centre of his platform and it didn't work for him. Do you think party leaders should try to follow every bit of advice they get even if it's contradictory? Nothing would get done with that approach. You can bet there were also memos in support of the green shift. Of all the leaders Harper comes across as more arrogant. He's tried to shut his MPs up and when he 1st got to office tried to shut out the media because he knew best.

Liberals think screw the west as much as Harper wants to make homosexuality illegal or any of the other nonsense that gets spread about him. Which is to say not at all. The only people who keep repeating that nonsense about the liberals are people blinded from reality by their partisan views. Of course if your argument's to be believed then the liberals got rid of that nonsense back in 1993.

That's the question I was trying to get at. Despite a massive scandal the 1st time and a perceived weak leader the 2nd there's no majority for the cons. If Harper can't deliver a majority in his 3rd try then I don't see the party keeping him. They'd be crazy to try to push him out now though.

And that's why your suggestion that the liberals won't rise again is wrong. Parties go to opposition then back to government then back to opposition. It's the way of things. I'm always amused by people who call liberals arrogant. Some are but many aren't. You'll find arrogance in all the parties. Some would say that Harper is a good example.

Something's seriously wrong but it's not with our country No So what? Dion would've got a serious majority in the absence of all the ridings that didn't vote for the liberals. Same with Layton. Sorry but Canada isn't defined by a single party leader. Wanting to kick someone out of the country because they didn't vote the way you liked is sad. So you want to kick out ON too? The accusations of cash grabs were exagerrations during the election there's certainly no reason to kick a province out of the country based on a policy that'll never be implemented. Is your problem with Quebec or the Liberal party? When Harper was criticized people in his party defended him. The same people were attacking Dion. Double standard. Welcome to politics. If you don't like it then either demand change from all of the parties or get a thicker skin. This has nothing to do with Quebec. Looks like you've found a way to be more condescending arrogant and elitist by demanding that a province leave because you don't like their democratic choices. The population of Canada is largely found in ON and Quebec which makes both important for getting majority governments. You might not like it but them's the facts. Many english media pundits have said the same. Maybe you'd like to exile them? Lot's of people care but attacking their democratic choices won't fix the problem. Yes let's ban political parties that we don't like. We don't need freedom of association. And let's also ban people from talking about things we don't like or believing in things we don't like. Your suggestions would do more to destroy Canada then the Bloc has ever done. They're Canadians. Your call for creative solutions to whip an ethnic group into line is disgusting. Your whole post is something that sounds like a spoiled child. You're saying they didn't vote the way you wanted so let's get rid of them. You don't like their choice of representation so let's ban them. The only one trying to ruin our democracy is you. I think it's a good thing that we can elect whoever we want and promote our beliefs. That's real democracy. Your democracy seems to demand that only Harper get elected. So here's a suggestion if you don't like it you leave. With your views about our rights and freedoms Canada might be a better place without you.

Getting back to the topic I think the cons need to think about Harper's leadership. Right now he's the best they've got to lead and shouldn't step down but there should be questions about his success in this election. The liberals have been unorganized for 2 elections but both times no majority. Even with a massive scandal during the 1st election and if Harper's to be believed a completely incompetent leader in the 2nd election. The cons were in majority territory at the beginning of this election but couldn't pull it off. Sure the popular vote wasn't far from Chretien's results but who cares about that if you don't get a majority? Wasn't that the point of this election for Harper? He's only got 1 more chance before the party turns on him.

I'd hate to ruin your little soapbox speech but noone is forcing any religious group to marry samesex couples. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent not the government and not the courts. People say that but it's no more true now than any other time in Canadian history. Canadian cities have places called Little Italy or Chinatown or Greektown for a reason. It's natural for new immigrants to want to live near people familiar to them and that doesn't mean they aren't trying to integrate into their new country. It looks like you're contradicting yourself when you say gays can go ahead and get married right after saying a traditional definition of marriage is fine. What special treatment are you talking about? It isn't special treatment to get the exact same marriage certificate as everyone else when making a lifetime commitment to your partner. You should maybe listen to yourself when telling the government to uphold a traditional definition of marriage. I've bolded the words I changed to make your argument generic instead of only supporting religious groups. If governments shouldn't tell religious groups who to marry then why should governments tell people who not to marry? Let people do what they want. Maybe you'd like to listen to the last part of the same quote of yours. Bolded where I changed the reference to religion. Your views don't give you the right to tell people what they can and can't do any more than someone else's views give them the right to tell you what you can and can't do.

What'd be the point of an experiment like that? It's not as simple as let's have a trial separation no questions asked. We'd have to know who owns what and decide what happens to portions of the province that want to stay in Canada. Not to mention the confusion at the international level. Does a trial separation mean Quebec's a country or is it something else? Does it get to make treaties and join the UN? Setting up your trial involves most of the steps of negotiating secession. That quickly becomes a permanent separation not a trial separation. There's no gain for anyone in attempting a trial separation.

Noone's going to take your posts seriously if you can't even do basic fact checking or a simple reality check. The war measures act wasn't used in 1812 because it didn't exist then. It was used in both ww1 and ww2. It was used in the October crisis not just because of 2 kidnappings but also for reasons that included the Quebec premier and mayor of montreal requesting it be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0008439

You're saying Westerners are willing to play ball but that they'll never vote Liberal. You've got a strange definition for playing ball. And a strange way of deciding how to vote you're basing your decision on someone who's dead and someone who's no longer running. You say Quebec is being selfish and screwing over Canada just because they're not voting the way you want them to but they could say the same about you. When will you stop being selfish and vote the way they want so that Canada doesn't get screwed by another of what you call minority government gongshow? Instead of blaming voters why aren't you questioning the parties they're not voting for? It's not selfish to vote for what you want. That's probably what you're doing so why criticize others for the same thing.

Your 1st posts had nothing to do with hypocrisy. They were all about how Harper is the only 1 in touch with common ordinary people. Your basis for this claim was that he worked for about 3 years almost 30 years ago. The only reason this even counts is because you've used your own highly selective criteria to dismiss the jobs held by his opponents. You haven't said directly they should be looked down on but that's the bottom line. You're saying their policies can't possibly take into account the common man because they're all ivory tower elitists who don't know the meaning of a buck. Harper is no different than the others when it comes to his experience as the common Canadian. Somehow I doubt you're concerned with hypocrisy. If you were I'd expect you'd be pointing at real examples of hypocrisy. Like complaining about snap elections and even passing a law supposed to prevent snap elections but then calling a snap election. Talking about how politicians shouldn't cross parties but then getting someone to cross to your party days after an election. Saying that the senate should be elected but then appointing an unelected person to the cabinet by appointing them to the senate. Justifying this with the excuse that the person will run in the next by-election but they didn't run in the next by-election or any other. Talking about being accountable and open but doing everything possible to prevent people and media from asking questions or being given access to government information. I know people have real reasons to vote for every party in this election including Harper. But when talking about voting for Harper those reasons don't include his experience as the common man and they don't include his lack of hypocrisy.

So you're arguing that people who're successful should be looked down at? University professor cabinet minister and lawyer are all real jobs. You don't think lawyers have bosses or can be fired? Does running a small business count as a real job since there's no boss? Maybe you're right how can someone understand the needs of someone else without being in the same situation. Using that "logic" Harper shouldn't be PM. He doesn't understand the needs of women because he's never been a woman. He doesn't understand what the military needs because he's never been in the military. He can't understand about veterans or being a senior citizen or being from Quebec or Newfoundland. He doesn't understand what it takes to be a single parent. He can't understand how to deal with youth crime in the 21st century because he isn't a teenager right now. Your views about what counts as a real job are as warped as people who think all blue collar workers should be looked down on as stupid and lazy. Working outside of politics or academia for about 3 years almost 30 years ago doesn't turn someone into the common Canadian.

That wasn't the stated goal of the law. Harper said it was there so PMs couldn't call snap elections. Then he called a snap election. It's still legal because the law doesn't do what Harper said it does. He never complained about people not having an election for an extra year. There's no reason to think a 4 year term is better than a 5 year term especially when that 4 year term can be ignored at any time by a majority government.

There was already a thread on all of this but to recap The law was not broken. Harper's promise of fixed election dates was broken. The law is totally useless. It does nothing to prevent what Harper was complaining about in opposition because the PM can still call an election whenever the PM wants. There was no need for this law because we already had a maximum 5 year term in the Constitution. It's still there. Parliament was working just fine. Harper was getting his laws passed. Delays in committees were coming as much from the Conservatives as from anyone else and this wasn't a problem until the polls said the Conservatives might do well in a fall election. The only way you can say Parliament wasn't working is by remembering that the election was called while Parliament was not in session. If that's the reason you want then we'd have elections every 3 or 4 months. It was the same opportunistic election call that Harper used to complain about when he was on the other side of it. I don't have a problem with election calls like this. I do have a problem with such hypocrisy coming from someone who keeps trying to sell himself as the honest and accountable guy. He's no more honest or accountable than the rest of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Accepting that human caused global warming is happening doesn't mean accepting the most extreme viewpoint available. Promoting new policy priorities doesn't mean promoting the destruction of the economy. I think some Canadians would see some local benefit. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/climate-f...8524886121.html No what you said was See I've included you saying that's what you said since you've forgotten. Even if you had said the line about producing SUVS it still doesn't change the reality that just because our economy needs transportation that doesn't mean it needs the type of transportation that you say we can't live without. Our economic infrastructure can also be used to invest in new technologies and to adopt new technologies. Your argument that we've got to accept "the good" and "the bad" is kind of sad. You're saying our economy gives us some good things so now we've got to accept it without any changes. Our economic infrastructure gave us markets to invest in and gave us people like BreX. Interesting that we tried to fix that problem even with all the good stuff markets give us. Same with energy and transportation. We can improve these areas without destroying them. I don't have to deliberately misrepresent what you've said. You've made enough misleading and contradictory statements on your own without including the misrepresentations you've made about what others said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox That's why I've said we need multiple approaches not just 1 approach. Energy efficiency is 1 of those steps. So if fuel efficiency improved and fuel had a carbon tax demand would stay the same and the money could be reinvested into the green energy industry that then gives more economic output so you can buy more of your drugs or SUVS or whatever you want. You're like the guy from the urban legend who wanted to shut down the patent office in 1900 because everything's been invented. You've missed the point and are arguing that we should stop progress because it might be hard. The UK took a step to a different energy source. We can take steps *once* to adopt more renewable sources. This investment will lead to improvements that will make it possible to move *once* to improved renewable sources. None of this means that any economy will automatically be destroyed.

Don't you just hate those huge multinational environmentally friendly companies. They're everywhere throwing around their huge bags of money and influence. Look what they've already done to us! They've forced us to do stuff. And with the economy. Or something. I'm sure we'll come up with an example soon. Well I just hope those poor little fossil fuel companies can somehow find a way to get together and maybe have their voice heard. They're so hard done by. Barely eking out a living. It's no wonder we never hear anything from them about things like gasoline prices or climate change or where to drill.

With your argument coal isn't technically feasible because it's not possible to replace all existing sources of fossil fuel with only coal. Technically feasible means it's possible. And no one's trying to push 100% electricity from wind turbines. Your criteria for using alternative energy sources is so high that not even current energy sources would satisfy you. Nice that you dropped the argument about how the technology doesn't exist. It's hard to sound reasonable when you're saying a non-existent technology is providing 6% of Denmark's power. Since that isn't what he said your statement is a perfect example of a strawman. Set up an argument of your choice then attribute it to your opponents then attack away. Any person that was interested in having an honest debate would've admitted they used misleading language then clarified their statement and moved on. You claim that it's obvious you meant paying for drugs. The only question then is when you go to the grocery store do you pay for your groceries or do you fund your groceries? Maybe you want a drug question. Do you buy Tylenol or fund Tylenol? Funding implies something other than purchasing power. Please continue to repeat that line. It's worth the laugh. Mr. Jones next door bought a Prius instead of an SUV and now little Timmy won't get his lifesaving medicine! Obviously the economy needs transportation but that's not the same as saying we need SUVS or else the economy will selfdestruct. Switching to alternative fuels can save money in the long run when oil prices get even worse than they are now. Tighter fuel efficiency standards will probably save money for transportation. Cheap anything is not the basis of our economy. Generally Canadians believe in more than just cheap. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like labour standards or pollution controls. Your current arguments use the same logic southern US states used in the 19th century when they said their economies would collapse if they had to give up their cheap labour. I'm not too worried about my research. You've claimed that SUVS are critical to our economy even though anyone who's driven on a highway recently can tell that the transportation of all those goods isn't happening with SUVS. You've claimed a direct link between healthcare and the number of SUVS on the road. You think that because the economy requires a transportation industry that means that only the transportation industry as it exists today could fill the role. And you claim technology for alternative energy sources doesn't exist even though things like solar and wind power generators are operating around the world. And none of that research changes the fact that your quoted blog misrepresented the person it called out by name. Energy efficiency happens across the economy not only at coal plants. And using energy for a particular purpose like CCS isn't the same as saying that something is inefficiently using energy. Using energy for 1 thing doesn't make you inefficient if your total energy usage for everything you do goes down. You've said emissions went down because the UK switched to a less emitting technology. That's the whole point! So switching can make a difference.

They only had math books in the huts not grammar books.

Many of the people in the study were "native" Canadians. By this I mean Canadian born. Are you saying people born in Canada aren't Canadians? Maybe they appear that way to you because you treat them so poorly. My observations and experiences are that they're just like everyone else. Some are serious some aren't. So Canadians are lazy? I know a number of Canadians that don't even approach laid back and a number who enjoy lifelong learning either in schools or otherwise. Your forget that many of the children being looked at were born in Canada. There's nothing unfair about someone working hard and improving their situation in life. Saying it's unfair makes you sound like a spoiled teenager who doesn't want to do anything with their life but still wants daddy to pay the bills and buy them a Porsche. Lifestyles. Plural. We're not all lazy bums despite your characterization. Having people live their own lives is no threat to us. The hard working, self improving immigrant is a problem? If so then it's a problem I wish more Canadians had.

Why not? We live in a democracy don't we? If your argument for making something illegal is that we might have to discuss other issues in 20 years then it's not a good argument. We shouldn't be scared to discuss issues and we shouldn't be making anything illegal because we're scared to discuss issues. Saying you can leave Canada also isn't reason to make something illegal. We believe in a free society IN Canada. To limit a choice you've got to have a better reason than you can leave the country if you don't like it.

But if the argument's over where to draw the line then saying "lawmakers chose" doesn't cut it. There's got to be a reason. I'm not trying to judge your conclusions but to reach them there're better arguments than "lawmakers chose" or "prohibition doesn't harm you". Some people find a government regulating their choices in life harmful to them and an example of government interference in their lives.

Don't you know these websites are for all or nothing opinions only??? What're you doing trying to propose a tailored solution???

How's education destroying Canada or our quality of life? Where's the unfair competition?