willy

The lens that one views the world through has a huge impact on what one believes is reality. Maplesyrup, thinks of the media as right wing. I think of the media more in terms of socially liberal. The fiscal right wing views are put forth primarily on the business pages, but to say a right winger is represented in the media would not be my experience. i.e. Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, CBC I personally don’t like the term left and right. It is to simplistic and does not represent many issues that make up parties or personal ideologies. Economic Environment Social Justice Governance Each of these areas can be approached from many directions and left and right is not an adequate description of any. E.g. it might be good for business to restrict certain types of development for environmental reasons. What are the various views of what makes up Canadian politics. Social aspects: Guarantee of quality of life Program provision to address social inequities Facilitation and personal responsibility to address social inequity No government responsibility Justice aspects: Punishment Rehabilitation Governance aspects: Populism Representative democracy Central control Local autonomy Economic aspect: Government investment Tax incentive Training base on need or technology Market driven The picture that makes up individual political ideology is more complex than this and when parties are formed it becomes more complex. My question then becomes what is the outcome each party expects with the policies they hold. What is their vision? I like what the NDP talks about by way of outcome but their process for achieving those outcomes seems inconsistent with human behaviour and economics as I understand them. The Liberals are all things to all people. This to me means they are noting of substance. They have no vision other than staying in power, but for what? Chrétien’s Legacy! The Conservatives are principled so far. They are clear on there direction they seek and their plans are consistent with there goals. They are not perfect, far from it but no party will ever agree with me completely, that is democracy.

The arrogance of the Liberals makes me ill.

False Creek Community Centre fits about 100 people at most and 36 were candidates. Wow, the support is overwhelming.

I am a Conservative. I have read his speeches, seen him speak, read articles he has written and in this context the more important thing for me I have seen what he has done. Steven is a thoughtful, family man, very bright and principled. His integrity will bring him many voters. What people say is one thing, but what they do is more important as it speaks to what they really believe. Hypocrisy will show Martin to the door.

Yes, I do want Harper as PM. If you want valid information on Harper try better sources than a Liberal smear site.

Here are the Ekos numbers, they show trend data and a variety of questions about level of support. Very interesting. http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/3May200...ckgroundDoc.pdf This election could look more like a rollercoaster. Let the fun begin.

The Liberals keep steping in it in BC.

Captain Democracy PM PM, is stirring up the grass roots of the Liberal party. It will be interesting to see how this affects the electorate.

The PM PM. His sons run his steam ship company. The company that has been fined for dumping waste at sea a number of times. At the same time PM PM tries to appear like an environmental steward. These same steam ships pay extremely low wages of $2 per hour. This is a reflection of his hypocrisy. Why should we believe anything he says?

Love Gordon Campbell. Good guy and they are making the tough decisions. The labour movement has done a great job of smearing him. It is a shame and doesn't encourage quality people to get into public life. One more term with Campbell and we will be a have province again. Yaa. The latest poll showed a 9 point bump for the Conservatives in BC and that puts them back in the lead.

It will be interesting to see if many others post their results. Thanks for the link. Always interesting to do a little self analysis. I got Economic Left/Right: 1.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

Here is another poll on The Globe and Mails Website. Jack doesn't look so good in this one.

This poll like the many before have to small a sample for a regional breakdown but Maplesyrup I thought you might like to know the Conservatives are on the move up again in BC.

Just a follow up to August1991 comments. http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...16-27864792affc

Not much difference but the nuances can make a lot of difference to eventual outcomes. The Tories still hold strong that provinces are responsibly for delivery and with that they need a level of flexibility. The role for the feds is to ensure the universality and accessibility is being complied with. The Liberals want to direct small amounts of funds for political purposes, so as to appear to be managing healthcare. (e.g. the national shots program, national equipment funding program) They are not adequately funding the health transfer payments. They have increased these by $2 billion, put in context the national health bill is around $100 billion annually. This is only a 2% increase. The feds now fund 16% of the total cost and for this minority share holder they hold opinions of a majority share holder. They want to tie all new funding up in strings. This is not good for the money getting to direct patient care. With adequate funding we could once again hold the provincial governments responsible for healthcare outcomes but the Liberal policies for the last 10 years make this difficult. This is not prudent fiscal management, but rather incompetent stewardship of the nations infrastructure. Little differences can have a big impact on outcomes. Side not maplesyrup, we have two tier now with med labs, MRIs and cosmetic surgeries, ect.. As for private provision most GPs in this country run private offices that bill the medical plans in each province. This debate needs to loose the rhetoric and focus on accessibility and universal payment.

udawg, Is their a God? If their is a God, he may have created religion to reveal himself to us. If their is not a God, you are right their is no need for religion. In fact without a God what is this evolved society that you are trying to create for? Should we not just find anyway possible to party on? The God you mentioned above is that of utilitarianism. The principle of utilitarianism states that all things should be organized in such a way as to ensure the maximum happiness for the greatest number. Knowing this one does not need religion but a good justice system. Criminal acts detract from the collective happiness and therefore should be prevented. Many variations of this theory evolved and are acted on today. Utilitarianism is not a metaphysic. Social theory has made for thought provoking philosophy and a complex justification for educating people into conformity and punishing only things determined to affect others negatively. With the theory you put forward (underlining premise to your statement) the only reason for God and religion to exist would be social conformity. All the modern social theories look to maximize the functioning society and seek a social balance. Constraint theory, Status Frustration, Structural Functionalism, are all social explanations used today in whole or part by people to explain away social problems. None of these theories provides an adequate explanation of why we still have pain and suffering. The problem is they are all based on the same utilitarianism model. Human behaviour as it turns out is more complex than simple hedonism. What if the world is fallen and we have a sin problem. The answerer to social problems would not be equality, conformity, education, wealth but rather something as simple as a relationship and dependence on God. The only thing that would show us how to accomplish this is religion. This might take a little faith as one would have to believe God inspired religion to accomplish this task. A comforting notion is that all human explanations that have attempted to fix our societies have been based around this insufficiency or out of balance approach and that would suggest an omnipotent design to the world that was describe in the bible. Our world is fallen as described in the bible and this lack of social cohesion can adequately be explained by biblical theology. No other philosopher has come close but their philosophies do influence our laws, judicial systems, and education. What is your premise when you think about what is good for you and your community?

Udawg, following your logic we should have an abstinence parade. All those waiting for marriage to have sex are teased and looked on as prudes. They are a minority and don't feel comfortable coming out about this lack of sexual activity. The government can support this with tax dollars and recognition with a special day. Virgin Day! Being gay is not dressing up and celebrating the kink in the subculture. Those parades do more to separate and look at the extremes of the gay urban subculture. If healthy long term relationships are to be fostered and choosing partners of the same sex is to be normalized one should not do their best to normalize the lifestyle. The lack of relationship experienced by many gay people is celebrated at these events. Only comment back if you have been to a parade like this. I live in Vancouver and have seen enough leather chaps to last me a life time. A better example of a support event is the gay ski week at Whistler. Parties, skiing and good times. Turns out gay people are a good market and businesses pay for this event.

Good luck when you get audited.

BD, you state some facts to support your arguments. I have seen the studies that state women on average make less than men and men do have more leisure time. This has more to do with gender roles changing and culture not moving fast enough. It is not discrimination. The leisure inequity comes when the majority of family women now work out of the home, but they also take care of a disproportionate amount of household work. Home responsibilities are factored into leisure studies. The average wage inequity is driven by type of employment less than unequal pay for the same job. More men hold low skilled high paying labour jobs. Women with little education seem to make up much of the service sector. Unfair maybe but access to women is not restricted. As for education you are wrong. In the mid 90's it happened where more women than men are now in post secondary education. Men still dominate sciences, engineering, and mathematics. This is again not by gender restriction but by choice. Women tend to prefer the nurturing professions and not the building ones. This is not a competency issue but rather a social and cultural choice issue.

If the answer is simply sharing, and individual values, how does government forced compliance foster that in our kids. The only value that fosters to me is a lack of personal responsibility. Laws restrict us, but they do not compel us to change our values. If they did, communism would have been a wonderful experiment and not a disaster to personal freedom and rights.

This area of the forum is called Religion and Politics. If you don't want to read about God, you should not read these posts. My point BD was that society has not changed, and not that we are any worse or better. Sorry but atheists don't get a monopoly on public policy. I don't think you can legislate morality or faith but if you do believe in God it will effect how one governs. I am sick of being told that my free speech is less valuable because you don't agree. When you can fix the world, just let me know why you botherd? What is the point? individual happiness, self acualization, less pain, more power, equality. How and for what? Rich people take drugs, poor people starve, and powerful people abuse that power. Removing things that explore why the human condition can not be better? Social conflict theory is naive to say the least; it does not get at why we do the things we do to each other. And if we were all kind and shared would that make us happy? And back to the point, is happiness what our society strives for? Or is it equality for equality sack, freedom for freedom sack, wealthy for wealthy sack. What is it and does it stand to reason?

What evidence do you have of this occurring? Here is a list of the opposite of moral progress. Government Scandals Police abuse power Soldiers abuse power Judicial abuse (a judge in BC yesterday pled guilty to raping teen age girls) Poverty Murders Disease Turn off the start trek and walk in a downtown center. I have volunteered in the downtown east side of Vancouver and if that is the result of the progress you talk of, I want none of it. I must interpret your premise to mean we don't need God because we can control our own destiny. So when you start with a premise like that I just have to ask one question who will live forever. My two favorite cultural fibs are: We are more progressed than ever before, and It just isn’t like when I was growing up and the streets were safe. People need guidance. While a person may do great things, that same person can do the opposite.

Mack, show some evidence. What innate morality? What is good and bad and how do you decide? It is sad to see the lack of tolerance and understanding of people of faith. 87% of people in Canada still believe in God according to a recent IPSO survey. Are there any of them on this forum? Here is a list of those none thinking Christians that you refer to Mack. Think yourself for a second and realize how they have affected your life. Augustine Tomas Aquinas Martin Luther John Calvin Dostoevsky Kierkegaard C.S. Lewis Peter Drucker People tear us apart not religion. Religion is peoples understanding of Gods revelation. When exploring God one finds great peace and hope. The metaphysic of Christianity is whole and any atheistic explanation has always fallen short. If I followed your premise on life I would have no reason to get up in the morning. As a Christian, believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, I have the ultimate hope of everlasting life. This is all based on God grace and not on what I deserve. That is a message that is love. Nothing can be wrong with that. You might think I am completely daft but look at the list of names above and realize these are some of the most brilliant minds ever known and they believe this.

Maplesyrup, the Campbell government has had a tough time putting this province back into working order. I own and run a business in BC and finally we are seeing investment again. I would love to stay in this province but if Carol James the puppet for the labour movement gets into office watch the mass exit of business from this province. None of us can afford to operate under such a government. Under the NDP we lost mining, much of the logging industry, aluminum and manufacturing. The only growth we had was tourism and movies. Tourism is mostly low paying service jobs and the movie business was subsidized. Good job NDP.

Bushmustgo, most of the people on this forum are Canadian. They are not our troops; however I do appreciate the sacrifice the US is making to try and stem the growth of terrorism world wide. I read in your statements an ideologue that is hoping for the failure of his own troops and government. You are confusing many arguments and are just displaying your hate for Bush. This is a shame. This form of expression is done best with a placard out front of some protest. On web forums you have the opportunity to discuss possible solutions or alternatives for action. I will ask you again. What can they do now? Please be a little more insightful than a world wide PR campaign and diplomacy. (Diplomacy only works with a carrot or a stick) The stick was the invasion; the carrot is not having to repay their debt. What good foreign policy and diplomacy do you speak of?