idealisttotheend

The last posts remind of a favorite saying of mine: When you can't correct the argument, correct the spelling.

A Con-Lib alliance would either mean a true one party state for our fine country or that the NDP would be seen as electable for the first time in it's history as the only opposition to such an alliance. A Bloc-Con would be more likely (something I didn't see until August pointed out) but would be historically interesting also. After all, the Western Cons have held nothing but derision for Quebec seperatists for a long time. To join with them.... well that would be very interesting and could lead to the end of our fine federation as "refederation" becomes the norm. What to do but pine for Tredeau and hate Mulroney (for helping create the Bloc) all the more.

I'm not personally convinced the Cons do have any sort of hidden agenda, at least not as a party. But you are essentially arguing for supply side politics. The agenda they want to move forward on may not be the agenda the people are concerned about. If people are concerned about social issues than they have the right to know where the CPCers stand, either as a party or as individuals. I'm sure all people are concerned about different issues and am not arguing social issues are, or ought to be, prominent. But I am saying that abortion etc. are important enough that people have the right to know where the Cons stand if that is the issue they wish to cast their votes based all or in part on. And I agree with you about private members bills being almost impossible to get through. But I believe C-250 was Mr. Robinson's private members bill and that seems to be getting a lot of response on these forums. C-250 deals with a social issue. Furthermore a governing party that wanted to make private member's bills easier to pass could easily do so. They need only extend parlimentary sessions and or deal with fewer government bills. Therefore arguing that is impossible to pass a private member's bill is not a sound defense.

The challange for the anti abortionists here is simple. Can you convince people not to choose abortion without using the law to force them not to? If you can then your victory will be all the sweeter. I often argue for laws in many instances but not when it involves religious or quasi-religious morality, which ought to be an individual responsibility.

I think we have lost the point of the thread. The point is that among all the promises of free votes, none of the individual MPs doing the voting are showing any interest in telling us their positions on social issues. In fact, they are being told not to talk about it all. If you are interested in social issues you cannot make an informed decision in the upcoming election as to what position you are supporting when you are voting for a given candadate. This is what leads to charges of a hidden agenda on the part of the Cons and this is what the Liberals have to exploit if they want to rebound in the polls (along with Harper's past positions on the various regions etc.)

I didn't say anything about a hole in the ground. Acts of mass murder are investigated and those directly responsible brought to justice. Perhaps I should have mentioned also the courage to admit you made a mistake instead of declearing war to divert attention. And the courage to call a spade a spade. You can be quite dramatic yourself Argus, and funny. But in this case I think I will put takeanumber's post up on my wall. Canada is defined by it's values and freedoms, no one will remember or care about tax rates or transfer payments levels 10 years from now. While I don't think we are in big trouble here yet the US is going that way and the Arar case shows us that we must defend Canadian values or lose them forever.

How can it cost money and jobs? If it costs money that is because money will have to be spent reducing emissions which will create jobs implimenting the changes. New technologies require people to work at them just as the old ones do. Huh? You just said it would reduce emissions by 20%. As opposed to quickening the build up of gases, sounds good to me. Or are you arguing for stricter emission controls?

Nice one BA, lol.

takeanumber: August: I think takeanumber just said he/she isn't a coward. It takes courage to recognize that Sept. 11th was not the first shot in some sort of misbegotten war but a criminal act of mass murder. It takes courage not to let Sept 11 push your economy into recession. It takes courage not to lose your values and strengths when times get a little tougher, (the White House is now undertaking to redefine the word torture to exclude almost everything that doesn't cause death -- Big Brother wants control of language just like Wells said he would). If you told this last generation about how you could have this one attack (in going on three years now) would be compared by the American president to WW2, I don't know what would happen but it wouldn't be pretty. No I'm not afraid of seventeen men in airplanes. Even if they get through the new security than whatever happens is what will happen and I will deal with it as it comes. I will not be afraid because that is what those seventeen men want and I won't give it to them under any circumstances.

This reminds me of the arguments over the Iraq war. Rarely do the Cons argue that American policies/institutions are better. Instead they simply argue that we ought to follow American policies for the sake of following American policies. Integrate for the sake of integration not to find the best possible solution or our own way. Is this cultural treason or just a complete lack of imagination of the part of the Cons?

Good point but that doesn't prove mine wrong. The article states as fact that "Mexico and the Southern States" have had success getting plants with subsidies and since there are a finite amount of plants to be got, that means less for others. Practically, these subsidies are bribes to keep companies in countries with higher labour standards/costs. It is not easier August. Really. People in Canada are better educated, have a higher quality of life and we have better technology therefore it is impossible for poorer people using poorer technology to make anything more easily than we can. They make it more cheaply. They trade their labour for fewer resources to the company making the widget so the company wishes to trade with them and not us. Such as? It turns out the better jobs can be done in India or China just as well as here. Suprised a whole lot of economists but it's true. What we will trade are our labour standards, enviromental standards etc. If you don't believe me see Hjarmar's posts in the union thread (states with anti-union laws are preferable to companies relocating) and that the reason Ford and Chrysler aren't laughed out of Ottawa when they show up with their hand out is because they can threaten to go somewhere else. I see your logic on this one but practically, we need the jobs to distribute the money in our economy. The Japanese subsidies are offset by the economic benefits of the jobs locating in Japan (their economy is better because more money changes hands and they get more foriegn currency than they give). So they can make clothes at GIdeon in Montreal for $10 an hour and not 75 cents and hour in Haiti. That simple. Health care "subsidies" are dependant on the taxes generated on the $10 a hour paycheck and are impossible on the 75 cent an hour one. Furthermore we do not subsidize health care. We can't since 'we' all pay for 'our' health care, we simply collectively insure ourselves. It is more efficient so it seems like a subsidy. Auto subsidies are being made increasingly illegal with each successive MAI round. But, no matter how much I hate them, they are one of the few, ahem, "competitive advantages" we have left to keep the jobs in Canada. And when those jobs are gone I don't see what will replace them. It would be nice if we didn't need the jobs, and it was simply a case of mathematical trade between nations but in our current wage economy we need every decent paying job or the system will get a little weaker.

What is the context of that quote? At least the Liberals give the context on their site.

The free vote appears to be the new last refuge of the politician. No more, simply stating ambigious positions or avoiding the questiong through conventional means. No now we have the magic phrase, not "before the courts" or "national security" but "free vote". Can anyone imagine if that was said about taxes: Reporter: "Mr. Harper what is your position on corporate tax rates?" Harper: "Well, we'll hold a free vote on that, I believe in letting MPs expressing themselves." Now if you say free votes are okay for abortion but inappropriate for corporate tax rates you have a problem. That suggests the rights of the unborn/women aren't as important as corporate tax rates and you are going to seriously annoy anyone who takes the issue seriously from either side. If you say abortion is a moral issue and therefore appropriate for a free vote then you automatically argue against any law on the subject. After all why let MPs decide, why not just let the citizen's decide for themselves? The contridictions are obvious and the Cons get away with it only because they are campaigning as the party out in front and can try to be as uncontroversial as possible.

I disagree. It is clearly a bribe to keep these companies in Canada. It is sickening and it is wrong but how else are any production jobs going to be kept in this country when they could easily go to Mexico or communist China? Free trade, globalization and all. P. S. Your own source August states clearly that Harper would have to go along, he'd have no choice.

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (Carol Skelton)-- Nary a statement on any sort of policy anywhere. However search of archived news releases shows: Against gay marriage Against legalization of pot

I hate to get involved in the abortion debate but I think it is key to how the State ought to approach morality. DAC said: This is the key. People disagree. Some say the foetus ought to be considered a human being others say it should not. There is no reasonably objective method to conclude the True answer. The answer is a question of subjective values not empirical evidence. Arguments for considering it human: -See DAC's post -Suggestions that the foetus feels pain, retains memory and makes decisions -It is God's will to choose whether or not a person has a child. -Sliippery slope argument, if we abort foetuses why not one week old children etc. Each argument supposes that for that reason it is morally wrong. Arguments against: -Foetus cannot survive without mother's body so is part of mother, not independant life form. -Every period a women has is a potential life had that egg been inseminated -Foetus does not feed so cannot be considered life under the biological defination All of these arguments are questions of theology, philospophy and morality not empirical fact or objective evidence of harm done to another 'person.' Therefore the State has no place deciding for people what is right. Individuals are responsible to decide for themselves whether or not the fetus is human and whether or not aborting it is murder or not. I say this being a great supporter of adoption and being unsure if I would consider anything a good reason for abortion besides rape or physical harm to the mother. Nevertheless I cannot impose my morality on anyone else because whether the foetus is a "person" or not is a question of subjective morality. I can argue for adoption and against abortion but not pass a law against it. This is quite a kicker. If a women hurts her fetus, and the fetus is not a person is it her right to do so at that pront but not once the fetus is born? If you say no because the fetus will be a person than you argue against abortion (since the foetus will be a person). If you say yes then I can't imagine you being considered humane. I wonder how to resolve that one.

Is it not interesting that Harper is so keen on using the non withstanding clause but it was he personally who launched the challange against the electoral financing law using the Charter as the basis for his suit? Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

If this is true why does the NDP always poll higher than it recieves in votes. If this is true why is it (or is it still?) illegal to publish poll results on the day of the election. I don't have a source handy but why do people argue that a good number of the people who voted Yes in 95 did so not because they wanted to seperate but because they wanted a "better deal" from Ottawa. One could easily argue that all voting is strategic.

If you argue for an eye for an eye, how can you claim the moral high ground? If I take your eye and you take mine in return are we not both morally deprived? After all, I may have taken your eye because I feel that you have wronged me so it is simply a question of who is more justified not who is more moral. Either taking some one's eye is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong then the principle of justice says that anyone who cannot follow societie's rules and takes someone's eye should be taken out of scoiety in a way that is seen as punishment. Not that society should debase itself to the same level and take their eye.

I don't see why Desmarais would choose Harper over Long. I mean there is the Western angle but I think Desmarais would be too smart to choose Harper over Long or even Martin given Harper's baggage and the fact that Mr. Desmarais' proteges tend to have carefully moderate images (and are moderates). Whatever Harper's true colours if there is anyone with half a brain in Liberal HQ, Harper will not and can not have a moderate image given his past statements etc.

Hear hear. This is a truth too often not heard in the debate over Middle east politics.

Well it seems that a COn MP has weighed into this issue. CBC story on Cheryl Gallant How she draws a linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality is...... well beyond comprehension. Another one for SomeConservativeMPsaid.com I guess (not a real website but it could be one). My own opionion is that the hate law is a good law. History shows us that most genocides start with one group inciting hatred against another through various forms of "speech." So strictly defined prohibitions against the incitement of hatred are useful and necessary in a society where all are free. I point out also that we have had laws against defamation and slander in this country for a lot longer than 25 years but those laws don't seem to bother the more committed "free speech" advocates.

I think that you are right about this and by completely denying the Americans the ability to level tariffs we may get an advantage. But I still wonder whether giving up any economic levers we have (the C$ would have to go to make it work) is wise. Especially without political representation. The US has a fine record of not giving a damn about what Canada thinks vis a vie trade deals and why should it. But really a customs union might work out better than the FTA though it may mean the end of any economic soverignty for Canada given the American's already dominate many many sectors of our ecxonomy and I have a hard time with that. I wonder if we couldn't join some of those trade blocks on a more equal basis than getting into some David and Goliath arrangement with the United States. At least we'd have more than a symbolic vote at the table.

Ghandi was agressive but he was still the ultimate pacifist. The two are not mutually contradictory. One can act aggressively but not violently. In fact pacifism would fail if actually done passively. But it only works when the agressor country has a free press and that is why Ghandi succeeded in his aggressive non-violence..

Gordon Campbell. Voting the opposite ideology into power federally than is in power provincially is not a phenomenon limited to Ontario. This may bode well for the NDP but if they aren't able to grab people's imagination they should fear a loss of more votes to the Greens.