Bionic Antboy

No, what I am saying is that if you are a law abidding citizen, you have no concerns regarding your eligibility to vote. Sorry but I don't believe that monsters such as Clifford Olsen should have a say in what happens in this country. No slippery slope, you are a criminal in jail, you don't vote. No have lost that right until you have served your sentence. Abide the law like the vast majority of citizens do, you vote. The discussion wasn't about extreme cases, it was for minor offenses. Let's try it this way... Person A and person B recieve an identical fine for the same offense. Person A pays the fine. Person B can not afford it, so opts for a stint in jail. Should both A and B be denied the vote because of their offense? or Should only B be denied the vote because they opt for prison (not being able to pay the fine)? or Should they both be able to vote? Which way, and why?

They would not be denied a basis right due to a lack of money, it would be denied as a result of an offense committed and received a fine as a result. If you wish to vote, don't committ the offense. So you're saying that the person who CAN avoid prison by paying the fine should be denied the right to vote as well? That's a really slippery slope. Where does it stop? If someone who can't pay a fine is denied the right to vote, can we then deny the right to someone who CAN pay the fine for an identical offense? The ONLY difference is their economic status. Should we then deny the right to vote to ANYONE who has had to pay a fine? And do we deny them the right to vote only once, or for the rest of their lives? There are some heavy ethical implications here...

We all knew that as soon as that report hit the news, Harper's polling numbers would drop. The Liberals may have engaged in some mudslinging, but coming out with a release that said... "Does Paul Martin Support Child Pornography?" was THE most boneheaded move by any party this whole election, bar none.

The same is true of Nazism, and it is applied in the same way (i.e. selectively). Actually, I'd dispute that, as Nazism (Fascism), by design would NEVER guarantee food, lodging and/or access to health care to all people (considering that under their ideology, some people wouldn't be counted as human at all), whereas a Communist society could, and in some historical cases HAVE provided the some, if not all, of the above for ALL citizens. In other words, not selectively. State-sanctioned bigotry, once again, has not historically been limited to Fascists and Communists. It was sanctioned in most of the Western world until slavery was abolished, and sexism was rampant until women gained the right to vote (I KNOW this is an oversimplification of the Women's Movement, but that's just tangential to this conversation). I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I see a huge gulf in the underlying philosophical roots of the two ideologies, which puts them both on the edge, but not necessarily the same edge.

I'm getting lefter and lefter all the time! I wouldn't worry about it, you're in good company, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama.

How is an ex-con ever going to feel like a full member of society again, if they are forever denied the right to vote? Just my take on that.

Why is one STRONG and the other WEAK? Does that suggest something of your personal feelings on the two?

They have come to mean different things. What people understand by "socialist" means, as I said, democratic-capitalist-statist, such as NDP. There was to be no intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. Marx "foresaw" that capitalism would reach an extreme and then collapse violently. As to what Marx says in the Manifesto, it is true, but just as today it's about popular perception of two different words describing the same thing - much like "insurgent" and "terrorist." He picked the word that had the popular connotation he was looking for, just as the left-wing press today talks of "insurgents" and "militants" in Iraq whereas the right-wing press talks of "terrorists", but they are both describing the same people, no? This is not a good analogy. To follow it, we might say that Communism was like being shot with a 5.56mm bullet, whereas Nazism was like being shot with a 7.62mm bullet. Of course we can see differences - but are they really of any significance beyond the splitting of hairs? I drew a long list of the many enormous similarities between Nazism and Communism. You could not draw a similar list between two other purportedly different systems - democracy and theocracy, or military dictatorship and feudalism. But perhaps you could draw a very similar comparison between, say, a federal republic and a Parliamentary democracy, because once again, these two ideologies are really two different methodologies for one single set of concepts - much like Nazism/Communism. Actually, I didn't want to get into the list point by point, as some of them are accurate, but at the same time, others are questionable, as they draw on Nazism (a real world example), not from the ideology of Fascism. Just the first point... These are NOT the same thing. In Nazism, those not of the Master Race would be exterminated or used as slave labour in their ideal world. In Communism, the means of production would be in the hands of the workers themselves, which clearly makes the ideologies opposed to each other in that case. Another one... Communism can, and in some real world examples, has adopt a number of human rights although obviously not all. A guarantee of food, lodging and/or access to health care come to mind. Fascism, especially when driven by Racism, can not (of course, unless they paint the other races as non-human, which is a legal fiction). This doesn't just apply to Communism and Fascism. It also applies to feudal societies, military dictatorship or Democracies. You don't have to be a Communist or Fascist to believe that your ideology will eventually become the ONLY one. You also bring up the points of religion and the status of the sexes, but the concept of women being merely property isn't necessary to the ideology itself. It's a reflection of the times that applies to MANY ideologies. All have considered women as property at one point. Unless, of course, you're saying that women always had the right to vote in a democratic society. Similarly, just because Marx "foresaw" a rapid switch from Capitalism to Communism, doesn't mean that the intermediary Socialism therefore can't exist. It clearly does. As for the definition of "insurgent" and "terrorist", I'm pretty sure they DO mean different things, so some journalists ARE using the wrong word, in some cases. Or, more accurately, it appears that in some cases they are acts by insurgents, and other times acts by terrorists. insurgency: an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict terrorism: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (both from dictionary.com to save typing time) As for my "gunshot" analogy, obviously you wouldn't like it, because it focuses on the core differences, not the similarities. A military dictatorship is an extreme form of Statism as well, but in the course of history, different dictatorships held different views on the role of workers, women and religion, depending on their cultural and political history. Edit: I just wanted to point out that I recognize that there ARE similarities between Fascism and Communism. Just because there ARE similarities, doesn't mean that there aren't differences.

They just use different terminologies. I'll illustrate... (snipped for brevity...) Actually, I haven't read every translation of the Manifesto ( ) but there is clearly a distinction between Communist and Socialist systems and literature. Here's just one of many comments about the differences between Socialism and Communism right from the horses mouth... From the Preface To The 1888 English Edition... (on the subject of why they couldn't call it a "Socialist" Manifesto) http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html Similarly, from the Bethune Institute's website re: the Marxist-Leninist Theory of Fascism... http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/mltheory.html Of course, this is someone else's modern take on Fascism, but it clearly illustrates the ideological differences between the two. A gunshot wound and a dose of poison can both kill you, but that doesn't make them the same thing. They have to be treated differently, just as Fascism and Communism are both bad, but stem from different ideologies, and therefore grow from different seeds of discontent... EDIT: I just wanted to point out that using a different set of axes (such as the one on the Political Compass website), also reveals the differences between the two ideologies, though not the same extremes. They are, after all, using different axis definitions.

I don't think the Pournelle chart is perfect, but I'd have to disagree with your statements that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are all the same thing! Socialism is an intermediary state between Capitalist and Communist economies. Fascism is a top down dictatorial government, which also tightly controls socioeconomical conditions, but it is under the control of a dictator. It's rule, in theory, is more of an absolute, the leader being the final arbiter of all, and not hesitant to use violence to control the people. Communism (the theory, not necessarily real world practice) is meant to be controlled by the people, which is anathema to the Fascist structure of an absolute dictator. Both political philosophies are extreme examples of Statism, but there's not much similar at all beyond that. Of course, we ARE talking about the theories of each political system, not the real world practice of each. I'm of the opinion that NO extremist ideology will EVER work, when you throw human beings into the mix. The well-nigh universal truth that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is ESPECIALLY true in extremist ideologies, but applies in most, if not all, forms of government.

BTW, Jerry Pournelle (good SF author) developed a dual-axis system quite some time ago, and it's been put on the web. No quiz, but it's structured similarly to the Political Compass. Some may find it an interesting read... http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

No kidding... that was a skewed quiz to say the least. I was a westerner, with a mild dip South, but the questions weren't very clear cut. It's also specifically geared towards US gov't... That map just didn't make much sense. As for the Political Compass... Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.92 Sitting somewhere between Ghandi and the Dalai Lama... no shocker there. Must have too much faith in mankind...

The problem with this issue is that no one is using their brains. It's all emotions. You'd execute paedophiles? Paedophilia is a psychological condition. Nobody ever asked to be a paedophile. And so far as I know most of them never actually do anything with children. They resist these urges. Perhaps at most they look at kiddy porn on the internet - presuming they can find any, but that's about it. Would you execute Schizophrenics too, because some of them commit acts of violence? Someone who lusts after children because he can't control himself should be treated and watched. Someone who acts on those urges should be locked away forever. But let's not be silly. Well said, Argus, which is odd since we're rarely in agreement on issues. It WAS stupid of the Conservatives to come out with a release that in big letters says "Does Paul Martin Support Child Pornography?" The law is confused and overly broad in it's definition. The Conservatives REALLY dropped the ball on this one. Good observation on the accessibility issue as well. I've been online for well over a decade (since the early 80's if we go to the BBS days ) and I've NEVER come across kiddie porn. It's not like we're being spammed with it in the same way we get penis enlargement and low mortgage rate pop-ups and emails. And the timing of the release couldn't be worse, what with the Holly Jones case. I expect some backlash on this one...

They are creating lies about the men and women who risk their lives to make this country safe, and would probably be happy if more police were killed on the street. Should'nt they be charged with a hate crime. ...and would probably be happy if more police were killed on the street. Right... that's got to be one of the lamest comments ever posted on this forum. Right up there with anyone who's compared ANY of the party leaders to Hitler...

HA! I can't believe you used the word "Pinko". How very, uhm, "fascist" of you. That's SO old school. Let's see how many MORE extremist labels we can slap on each other. It's so much better than intelligent discussion. Sheeshhh.... As for Layton, the NDP are doing almost twice as well in the polls than they have with the LAST two NDP leaders. In fact, if the polls are any indication, they're looking to get possibly the highest popular vote in their history... just to put Layton's performance in historical context... Of course, there's still over a week to go.

No doubt about that, but I don't think that should give Harper a free pass.

There are provisions in the Constitution for the federal gov't to deal directly with municipalities. We aren't LOCKED with the provinces as being a middle man in ever instance... For example.... This, in fact, doesn't strike me as contravening the Constitution at all. I agree on the comment about boondoggles, but that's the case of a fed initiating something for his/her riding (pork, as you put it) . In the case of a concerted organization of city leaders approaching the feds, I see it entirely differently, and would hope that I haven't become so cynical to think that something can't be done.

I guess we agree on the state of inter-gov't working, but disagree on the solution... That relationship served us well in the past, but Canada has over the years become more and more urbanized, while some provincial gov'ts have seemed to turn their backs on the cities. It's certainly clear that it occured for a decade in Ontario.... The Urbanization of Canada... http://www.sustreport.org/signals/canpop_urb.html I disagree with wholeheartedly disagree with Harper's dismissive view on the issue. I don't think the Mayoral group should be lumped in with other groups as they are the elected officals of a large percentage of Canadians. Their stance is to address the problems they're finding. It's enough to make an irrational Torontonian to want to separate from Ontario and become it's own city-state (er city-province). Not that I advocate that, but there is that sentiment, after the past decade of willful neglect. I'm not advocating an overnight sea-change in inter-gov't relationships, but think that a voice that DOES advocate a sea-change would be good in an opposition role especially in a minority gov't, where some of their key issues CAN be addressed.

That's EXACTLY the problem. When it comes to the relationship between feds/provinces/municipalities there's CLEARLY an imbalance that needs to be addressed, especially when it comes to cities, which have become a larger factor than they once were in that three way relationship. If the cities are being hard done by, especially when there are provincial gov'ts that are clearly ANTI-city (here in Ontario, the Harris-Eves gov'ts have been disasterous), there needs to be reform. Harper was the biggest disappointment in that area, though it wasn't surprising because his stance has been clear. If his party had rethought that issue, I may view him in a more favourable light, but to INSULT them the way he did was just reprehensible. He CLEARLY believes issues like homelessness are NOT federal issues, but tell me, when other provinces solutions to homelessness are to buy one way tickets to Toronto, crossing provincial lines, guess what? It's a national one.

Those are reasons why I said I'd like to see him not as Prime Minister, but have a strong voice in a minority gov't.

(or where I learned to stop worrying and turn to the NDP) I've voted in every single federal election since I was of age. I've never belonged to a party, nor have I voted for a single party. I've always looked at where the country was (IMHO) and voted for who I thought would best fill the role of Prime Minister in the next term. For example, in 2000, I voted for good old Joe Clark. I was hoping a lot more would. My reasoning was threefold. 1) The complacency of the Liberal Party was starting to get to me. 2) I suspected that if the PCs bombed, they would get swallowed by the Alliance. 3) Clark won me over in the debate. He owned them all, much like Duceppe did this time around. Obviously, I was psychic, as my fears have come true. Harper failed on two key points last night to assauge my fears. And that's why I think there's still such a high "undecided factor" only 12 days before the election. He spoke in weasel words regarding social issues, and the use of free votes. He also called the cities "a small interest group" (despicable to write of MILLIONS of Canadians that way), and thinks the status quo of trickle down through the provincial coffers is good enough. There are other economic stands that I don't think he's too bad on, but these are really key points that NEED to be addressed sooner than later. So that means I'm not voting for Harper. Obviously, I'm sick of Liberal corruption. Martin, in his zeal to replace Chretien, has spoiled the prize. He DOES have highlights in his record as Finance Minister that he COULD run on, but the scandal has tainted him. So no Martin. I realize that, although they can be problematic, I really want a minority gov't this time round. Interestingly, the NDP platform, though relatively unchanged, seems more pragmatic than the past. When it comes to NATO and other military issues, they've held to their "anti-militarization of space" stance, which I agree with. At the same time, Layton's NDP isn't going to tear out of NATO. They realize that things are different in a post 9/11 world. They'd also push more for electoral reform than either the Liberals or the Conservatives, something else I'd like see happen, whether it's proportional representation or fixed terms. I like Jack. He's a smart and decent guy. I guess being a Torontonian I've had more experience with how he gets things done than, say, someone in St. John's or Kelowna, but he's always been a man of integrity. Similarly, he is MILES ahead of the last to NDP leaders, Audrey and Alexa, who were TERRIBLE for the party. Neither seemed to present any kind of deep understanding of many national issues. Alexa in particular did no good by JUST complaining about health care and education. I don't think either Martin or Harper deserve to be PM. One of them will, in all likelyhood, unless the 26% undecided ALL vote NDP of course. That's not gonna happen... So I'm embracing the NDP. Not because Layton was the best in the debate (maybe it was because Harper and Martin both failed to meet their goals). Mainly out of strategy, and out of my gut instinct that now, more than every, the party that's always billed itself as the "conscience of Canada" needs to be a strong voice in what will almost surely be a minority gov't. That's my take.

I agree. I don't think this debate changed many people's minds. The majority of people who watch debate (sadly) have their minds made up going in, and it takes a great orator to convince people otherwise. If Duceppe was in any party other than the BQ, he could have won some votes, because he was clearly the best of the lot last night.

I don't think so! Layton looked like Hitler with his beady little eyes and sneeky grin . Can't wait to get his hands on Canadians hard earned money. Martin looked like a fool. Duceppe Was very good , he would make a good prime minister if he would think of canada as a whole country . He was interested in what is more important for his province for Quebec. Harper was great Hitler?!? C'mon, trotting out that tired old canard only suggests that you lack anything more substantive to say about the debate itself. [sarcasm]OH NO!!! He has a moustache, JUST LIKE HITLER!!! EVIL EVIL!!![/sarcasm] Anyways, maplesyrup was pointing out what the Ipsos-Reid questionnaire among Quebec francophone voters revealed.

I agree with this for the most part, but do want to point out that we were never told that we didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan, so that's a, dare I say, lie. We ALL knew we had troops in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, while Chretien elected to not send troops to Iraq, he didn't pull troops that were already in the region, as they were part of a previously existing agreement. The Chretien gov't IS guilty of not making that point clear to Canadians though (and further obfuscating the truth of it for percieved political points), as there was nary a peep from the Canadian press regarding the troops there under the prior agreement. (I recall reading about it in the Globe -or maybe the NY Times-, but don't know if there's an online source for it). Just for clarification.

Well, apparently the amendment to the report is going to included 8 pages of omissions and corrections, including a number of attacks that took place in November and December, because the original document had to go to the printer. Initial reports suggest that the revision will show one of the worst years as opposed to one of the best, which sounds a lot more accurate. Printing up a report on 2003 data, and finalizing it before November is finished is, well, silly. I agree with giving kudos to the State Department. I often feel bad for Colin Powell, as he is just about the only White House official I have any respect for. He has consistently appeared forthright and often questioned others in the White House on the veracity of data. I think he would have made a MUCH better US President than the guy running it now.