takeanumber

Nope. And again with the personal attacks. See: they do have a secret agenda then. Appear moderate, then bam, we get Kleined. It's a good thing Canadians are an educated bunch.

It's a lot like holding your breath under water, being an alliance-Conservative that is. You have these beliefs that you have, but you have to pretend to be moderate for the public, until at least the election is over, but you gotta hold your breath. And your lungs start to burn, and you need to come up for air. These Alliance-Conservatives (not Pc-Conservatives), they can't help themselves. They can't hold their breath, and that's why I say: their old platform, how they really feel, IS their secret agenda. Increasingly though, no longer.

They're comming up for air, arn't they?

I wish there was a REAL MODERATE alternative that was viable. Canadians want a change in government, but they don't want what the Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party is selling. You know, all we'd need is 300,000 fiscally conservative, socially progressive people across this country to take over the Conservative party and kick out the Alliance faction. It's too bad that it's soooo hard to mobilize.

Yup. Besides, the NDP can't really be 'green'. They get half their funding from the automobile industry. Besides, have you actually listened to an NDP'er talk about the economy? Ever hear Buzz talk about Air Canada and the economy? I think many NDP'ers don't "get it". To say that the NDP is fiscally conservative is akin to saying Harper is socially moderate. It's just false. Anyway: nobody has spoken up to refute the NDP critiques of the Conservative hidden agenda and code words...so does that mean that the Conservatives here don't think that the hidden agenda is 'hidden'? If so, why the need for codewords?

I don't support the NDP. But that doesn't mean that I'll dismiss their interpretation of the Cons plan. So if the NDP are so wrong, like children, it should be easy to go through the list and point the falacies in each interpretation.

Their translations are accurate, arn't they? Are you going on record now to refute the NDP interpretation of the Con platform? If so, please go through, point by point, what the platform really means. I'm interested in reading your interpretation to the code words.

Some form of PR would be the most democratic thing that could happen in this country. That, combined with one vote per person. I don't think anybody, including the NDP or the Cons (and esp. not the Liberals) are really interested in improving democracy.

I don't know, not being one myself. Just the most damming part. Nah, it was a good read. As you said, the link was there. True. The Tax cuts arn't nearly as scary as the Alliance attitude towards the Charter and women.

Oh Argus, come now. It's clear to me that you have not read C-250, nor the relevant section of the Criminal Code it ammends. You're welcome to come on back later when you've familiarized yourself with the legislation and we can have a proper discussion on the subject and the Canadian Alliance position on it.

Yup. I said earlier that they hadn't really moderated. And they havn't. It's akin to holding your breath under water. The Elite of the party can only hold their breath for so long before they gotta come up for air. We've been seeing some bubbles lately, but I think with the release of the platform, they've surfaced.

I'll posit that the Greens are superior to the NDP in that you get a socially progressive/fiscally conservative platform WITHOUT the likes of Buzz Hargrove et. al.

Not so sure about this fact. Anyway: the arguement by inductive reasoning is hereby defeated because reason prevails. Where reason ceases to function, we'll have a problem. I have yet to find any evidence that reason has failed to prevail. Therefore, we are not yet in any danger of slipping down that slipery slope. ------------------------------------------ The next parliament is shapping up to be a pretty unstable place. It could be pretty cool to see actually!

You can't make a single post without a personal attack, so I'm not going to reply until you address the issues instead of the person. Regards, Takeanumber.

She's of the opinion that homosexuals are pedos. Goes to show her ignorance.

Capital Punishment: Libs: No. (Strongly) NDP: No. (Very strongly) Cons: ("Yes--in clear cases of DNA (Stockwell Day, 2000), but let's not talk about it, anybody is free to have a free vote on it. (Harper, 2004)")

The only proof I have is personal experience with regards to fundamentalist Baptists and single mothers. I know it happens. As for the personal attack, kudos. I appreciate them. It makes me feel good inside knowing that I offend you. It reinforces the validity and veracity of my point of view. As for the comment "why should I have to pay?", the answer is because it's considered a public good. I hear (small c) conservatives often say that those who can't afford to have children, shouldn't have them. I then hear them say that abortion shouldn't be allowed. This often followed up with a demand that children be put up for adoption. All of this deprives a woman of choice. If she chooses to keep her kid, then this is excellent! We should all pay some taxes, and have government send them her way so that her child has a decent chance at some social mobility! If she chooses adoption, good for her! The point is that by giving her the chance the choose, we're not treating her like a cow. If she chooses abortion, this is unfortunate. At the end of the day though, in spite of how you feel, it's her body, and it's her choice. So, it's about choice, and with choice comes entropy. I know it's difficult for those who lean towards the authoritarian to accept entropy (and even myself when it comes to many forms of entropy), but, there it is.

I never implied that. Holocaust deniers are holocaust deniers. Pro-lifers are pro-lifers. Those who desire lower immigration are those who desire lower immigration. Xenophobes are Xenophobes. Francophobes are Francophobes. Homophobes are Homophobes. Traditional definiton of Marriagers are Traditional definition of Marriagers. Somebody who is Francophobic is often xenophobic, but not always. Somebody who is homophobic is often a Traditional definition of Marriager. Somebody who is a francophobe, xenophobe, homophobe, traditional definition of marriager, and pro-lifer is often a holocaust denier, but not always. I've noticed these tendencies. Hell, I've even been able to link up demographic data to attitudes on immigration and homophobia. There are always exceptions, but there are often correlations that hold quite often. Those who make xenophobic statements are at risk of being confused for somebody who agrees with the whole package.

Yes. Exempt them from federal tax. See if the provinces would do the same. That would be a great, terrific way to boost their pay right away.

I know for sure that I'm not voting for Rob Anders. The guy embarassed Calgary West when he voted against Nelson Mandella. So I'm not voting Conservative purely because of the candidate. I might vote for the party that has the best chance at beating Anders. Without any PC's running, it becomes harder. Which means I'm forced to ask: "Who deserves my 1.75?" I think the Liberals get enough money from the Marijuana grow ops in BC. I don't like unions, and have a strong dislike for Buzz Hargrove, so I won't vote NDP. Which pretty much leaves the least of all evils. The Greens. It sucks. I don't even like the Greens, but they're the least of all the evils.

Gallant's comments that most of the caucus wants to repeal bill C-250 is a pretty good indication of what a Canadian Alliance government is going to be like. (I've lost hope that the party has moderated. Peter Mackay, who has no credibility anymore, has failed.) Alright, so by these standards, we should go back to the system where divorce is illegal, and a white person can't marry a black person? We should reimpose the old aboriginal sign in/sign out system? We should restore the previous status quo of aboriginals and Chinese Canadians not being able to vote? We should take away the female vote in Quebec? When you throw language around about 'traditional values', you risk being lumped in with the neo-nazis, Zundels, and polygamous Mormon cults.

This thesis is not correct. We have had anti-hate legislation on the books now for decades. And there exists most of us who retained massive freedoms. The 'all or nothing' thesis is checked by 'reason'.

I think America defeated itself at the Battle of the Moral High Ground. It's too bad. They needed that ground.

National Daycare Program Harper/Cons: No. (Free market principle. Augment tax credit by 2000, as though that will pay for daycare.) Martin/Libs: Yes. (sorta) (5 Billion costed for it, which is woefully inadequate.) Layton/NDP: Yes. (More robust than the Liberals, but the costing is pretty sloppy.)

Welcome! I'm inclined to agree with the "legalize and tax it to death" arguement.