Progressive Tory

I heard just yesterday that he still plans on immediately initiating it's closure, only admitting that it's not as simple as just locking it up. Prudent.

There's another problem with the 'faceless' voter. I spend a bit of time looking around at message boards across the country, just to get an understanding of different political views. I was quite shocked when I read a story on a Western Canadian aboriginal site, discussing the last election. I won't give you the name of the party that allegedly perpetrated this fraud, but the story went like this: Apparently someone working in this candidate's office, drove with some others into the Reserve and offered a bottle of alcohol and a $ 5.00 KFC gift certificate, for anyone who would go with them to the polling booth and vote for their candidate. I thought it had to be a joke but there were many responses validating this story or telling other similar tales. However, in the back of my mind, I said that just because they paid them to vote, there was no guarantee that the recipient of the rewards, voted for their candidate. However, under an electronic system, what would prevent them from setting up computers in a room; paying for votes, and making sure they cast the right one? I could see it being abused.

I have to agree. No system is fool proof, but the physical act of going to a polling booth is almost ethereal. You can't explain it but somehow being in a line-up with people exercising their democratic right, just makes you feel good. That doesn't mean I'm not open to suggestions about getting more people engaged. If the student living away from home wants to vote without travelling hundreds of miles to do so, then maybe it can be set up for them similar to online banking. Just don't like it as a broad-base solution. Too high a margin for error or manipulation.

Any coerced 'confession', obtained under the threat or implementaion of torture is not credible. We pride ourselves on our democracy and 'freedom' for all citizens. Mr. Khadr, like all Canadians, should expect a fair trial. It the hearings are performed outside of the country, it is again up to our government to make sure that he is treated fairly. Guantanamo is a disgrace to the American people, and Obama is wise to close it down and allow the US justice system to prosecute the offenders. In my previous thread, about Mr. Big, we know all about scripted confessions, that don't always match the crime scenes or physical evidence. It is in everyone's best interest to ensure that trials leave little margin for error. Only confessions obtained through normal interrogation practices can be deemed credible. I can identify a lot of people in photographs, doesn't mean I ever met them.

Even more than amendments, I think it needs some clarity. We were shell shocked. Fortunately, Harper's unearthed 2005 speech (linked in my signature below) gives us some idea what the constitution does not allow. I'm reading Adrienne Clarkson's book right now, and she is very clear about what her duties were when she was GG. She speaks of the Harper/Duceppe/Layton Coalition attempt at the 2004 throne speech. Martin went to her asking for another election. She refused stating that it would be very irresponsible for her to allow another election so soon. She sent Martin back; he made some alterations and Jack Layton was satisfied with this so he backed out. I just wonder if the reactions would have been different for the Harper supporters then, if he had accomplished this. It had to be a backroom deal because he states in his letter "have been in close consultation with the opposition". He was ready 'to grab power'. Another interesting thing in Ms Clarkson's book, is that she states that the term 'Prime Minister' doesn't even appear in our constitution.

What does this have to do with anything? Lester Pearson never had a Majority, but he knew how to be a Prime Minister in a Minority gov't. Look what he accomplished. The Nobel Peace Prize, for one. He was also an Evangelist, but never claimed he was appointed by God. Stephen Harper also knows what a Minority means; that his being PM had to be earned by gaining confidence in the house. This master strategist was beaten and we know how he hates to lose. If he had been smart, he would have allowed the Coalition to vote him out. Dion would have been PM and the Gov't probably would have fallen. Instead he created his own Helter Skelter, giving the Opposition a chance to get their ducks in a row, appoint a new leader, and are now back rejuvenized. This has also given ample time for his own words to come back to haunt him and has made it clear to the Canadian people that his whole campaign against our citizens, was a complete fabrication. Lie after lie after lie; none adding up to any element of truth. Thank you Bart for sharing the letter.

Public monies don't all go to the governing party. They also go to insure that we have an opposition - shadow cabinets to make sure they do their jobs. If I was told that I could only advocate for one thing; be it a party, a leader, a candidate or a policy, my soapbox would have one four letter word: VOTE! It's the only way we can protect our democrary. If the Party that earns the most votes, gets the most subsidy; it's still democratic because the majority of votes is rewarded. However, it also means that our votes counted, regardless of whether we voted for that party or not. You have to remember that taxpayers are already subsidizing, based on donations. For every $1,000.00 given, it costs taxpayers $ 750.00 We are subsidyzing those who have the 1,000.00 up front to give to their party. $ 1.95 seems like a very small sum compared to that, to help protect the democratic process. As one poster suggested, it works in the Conservatives favour if less voters show up; but certainly not in the country's.

Oh but voters do agree. 62% of voters in fact and when you factor in the 63% of Quebecers who now want the Coalition to take power, we're giving that message loud and clear. How exactly did we know his budget was going to contain stimulus? His word? Ha ha ha ha. The word of a man who told us during the election that there was no economic crisis...that he had a steady hand at the wheel? The word of the 'economist' who didn't see this coming? Then we find out that not only was the 13 billion dollar surplus gone, but we were ALREADY IN A DEFICIT, masked with the 'projected' sale of assets. Out and out fraud. I'm sorry, but I would believe in Santa Claus much easier than believe this man or the Conservative Party has an ounce of integrity. It's a shame because I think there are a few who are genuine, but we'll never know. They were all willing participants and will all wear this shame for a very long time.

There were few dry eyes. Speeches gave quotes from all great leaders, Republicans and Democrats. You really got the sense that Americans were banded together for the first time in nearly a decade. I may have gotten very emotional over the whole thing and expect that tomorrow will be even more awe inspiring. However, I'm not the Prime Minister, who chose to attack the Canadian people and pit West against East to save his job. His public display, and that of his Party, was one of the worst in Canadian history. It was like his whole caucus was on crack with their high pitched squeals and loud mothed rants. They attacked Justin Trudeau suggesting that he had shamed his father. They attacked Jack Layton, again suggesting that his father was rolling in his grave. This was dirty. This was personal. And he has done nothing since to gain their confidence or respect. Maybe this PM should have shed a few tears to let us know he has some humanity. To this day, he will not take any blame; despite the fact that his Party puts the blame clearly on his shoulders.

Wow, wow and Wow! Did I mention WOW! I had taped last night's concert 'We are One' and just watched it. I cried for almost the whole two hours. Then I read this and feel absolutely empowered. Mr. Obama's 'There are no red states, no blue states only United states' is in direct contrast to Harper's There are 'Separatists...there are Socialists and then there is ME! There is not enough kleenex in the world. This small party has become the lion that roared, pun intended.

If you had read the rest you'd know that it was meant to be tongue in cheek. The difference between workers in a Democracy and the Proletariat under Socialism, is that the former has options, while the latter's only option is a revolution. Public support of political parties at the expense of carte blanche funding by interest groups is one of the most Democratic moves this country ever made. I don't follow any leader or Party based on blind faith, and I don't as a rule donate money to them either. However, since Harper counted on the financial demise of the Liberals to quiet their constituents; I had to put my money where my mouth is, literally. I came into a bit of a winfall, so Democratically speaking, helped to take away a bit of Harper's power. Others may feel the same way, because I've been told that donations for them are pouring in. Harper's plan may have backfired in more ways than one.

A friend sent me this video, from Rachel Maddox, television host on MSNBC. It's very funny, even if a little embarassing. "Oh, Canada C'mon"

Iggy never really liked the idea of the Coalition, but the thread is about whether the Coalition ever existed. Ms. Jennings clarified that the recent Coalition was not with the Bloc; only the Liberals and NDP; with the Bloc's promise not to overturn the new gov't in a non-confidence vote. This was not at all like Harper's Coalition in 2004, which INCUDED the Bloc. The article is pretty clear, but Mr. C picked up on a couple of sentences and then got tunnel vision.

Natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction and provincial governments collect the royalties. Exactly. For Mr. C to suggest that oil revenues belong to the Alliance/Reform was ludicrous, so I simply turned it back. As to tax cuts, Ignatieff has always said that he favours 'targetted' tax cuts, not sweeping tax cuts. Once again Mr. McParland went cherry picking for the Conservatives. First off, if he had read the article when sober, he would have realized that the message to Harper was "...that he risks defeat if he goes ahead with across the board cuts." which could risk an extended deficit once the recession was over. And if Mr. McParland had bothered to read Obama's plan, (and not just the headlines) with a measure of non-partisanship, he would know that the new US president refers to middle class as 'workers' and his TARGETTED TAX CUTS LIKE IGNATIEFF'S ARE AIMED AT THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $50,000.00 a year! Nice try Kelly.

Harper doesn't do well without a script. His last campaign was conducted in what has been referred to by the media, as 'a bubble'. "Nothing unexpected, no one uninvited, everything in its right place" He prefers human props to actual citizens, and his overuse of the RCMP is bordering on paranoa.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say 'hate'? I said that as a Red Tory, this Party had nothing for me. Believe me this was not based on simple bias. I researched each and every MP before coming to that conclusion. It was like going to a town hall meeting to discuss potholes and part way through those in attendance don white sheets. I'm not suggesting that the Alliance/Reform are KKK, but the difference between their views and mine, were that profound. As to taking 'their' money. Since when is oil revenue the property of the Alliance/Reform? Are you suggesting that they're skimming off the top? All taxpayer money is supposed to be pooled for the benefit of all taxpayers. What are you suggesting? Do you have proof that Harper is stealing from oil revenue, because that's a pretty serious allegation. As to Harvard, I only mean that these men will be able to discuss issues that concern both countries with intellect. No more ridiculous 'You're either with us or against us." Yes, Bush went to Harvard but was a 'C' student. Obama fishished top of his class and became a law professor. Quiet intellect replaces loud posturing.

I read the actual article and there was no backing out, only clarification. The original Coalition is only off the table because it named Dion as PM. And, it's not 60% against; only in Alberta at 65%, and 63% in favour in Quebec - 49% against nationwide. Her interview was cherry picked.

I respect that.

Thank you. I guess as a lifelong Tory I've felt like I was left out to dry when they were swallowed up by the Reform/Alliance. I never really liked Paul Martin as a PM (great finance minister though) and respected Dion's passion for the environment; but he really wasn't leadership material. For me, Ignatieff best represents my views. I really liked his stance on the oil sands. He knows that they are a vital part of the Canadian economy, so is looking for a balance between the industry and the environment; while recognizing the health impact on communities like Fort Chip, that are downstream. I also admired his views on Obama; prayed that he would win, but knows that our vast oil reserves gives Canada some bargaining power. Both are intelligent men; Obama graduated from Harvard and Iggy taught there; so any meetings will be handled with intellect, not rhetoric.

I only agreed that it could 'look fishy'. It's just the timing that's all. I'm currently reading Adrienne Clarkson's book and she discusses the role of the Governor General. This is one of them. Not political, just humanitarian. I'm proud of Canada.

If democracy is to survive in this country we have got to get people engaged. The last election posted THE WORST VOTER TURNOUT IN OUR HISTORY! Someone here suggested that lower voter turnout works in favour of his Conservative Party. This can't be used as a strategy. Every election for the last 20 years that Peter Milliken has represented Kingston, his office calls me to remind me to vote and asks if I need a ride. I told them one year that I wasn't voting for him. They said it didn't matter, they just wanted to make sure I voted. Last election was the first time I ever voted for the poor man, though I never hit him up for a ride either. That has stuck with me. Under Karl Rove, the Republicans tried to stop this practice by the Democrats, and some have been jailed when they were caught. http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/4/16157/21121 I will campaign for candidates I like, but first and foremost encourage people to vote. Last election, my son's friend said he wasn't going to bother because his Party, the NDP, didn't have a chance. I reminded him that at least they got $ 1.95 of his tax money, so his vote did count. He went with my son to cast his ballot. I would absolutely hate to think that wanting to scrap the subsidy was about more than just wanting to bankrupt his opponents; but also take away any incentives to vote for anyone else. If so, Karl Rove will be very proud. Me, not so much.

I agree.

Here's the article. A worthwhile cause. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0115?hub=Canada

It would certainly be suspect, even if that wasn't the intent. I like the Governor General very much, and rather doubt she would see it that way. However, many may see it differently. Haiti still benefits either way.

That's it exactly. At least our vote is worth $ 1.95 to our party of choice.