Cartman

You know, I suspect that even the Conservatives on this board will agree with me that Chretien did something even if it was only something bad for Alberta. I got a great idea for the next "nothing happened" thread. Let's argue about the obvious bias of a political movie that does not exist. Oh, better yet, let's argue about whether a non-existent MLW poster should be banned for trolling. No wait, the most provoking debate will be whether the 11th Canadian province has legitimate reasons to seperate from Canada.

I don't care who said it, it makes me laugh every time I see it.

Well, either way it looks really bad. Either he was given the job because he was an unqualified Bush buddy (which I suspect at this point) or he was qualified to do the job and Bush should have taken the heat off of him and even refused to accept his resignation publicly. If Harper can support Grewal then...But, considering Argus' posts on the matter, it will take some convincing to change my mind. Regardless, this should be a lesson to the US and Canada that we all better think of ways to make government more responsive to the general public rather than to the few politicians.

That could very well be and I will accept this providing they add the captioning in subsequent commercials. I think they will add them in future. I don't accept that tlf and I am surprised to hear this from you. I might just give you the frowning of a lifetime. :angry: If we all took this attitude towards minority rights, there would be none. I am astonished by the number of people in society with some sort of disability (real ones too). I think all parties can agree that if anyone deserves social support, it is the disabled. And hey, I know it is not easy. I was the manager for a company that had to revamp our wheelchair accessibility and it sucked. With all of the changes, it took about $8,000. out of my proft margin (about 1.5-2 days profit). That really hurt when you must compete with other stores in and outside of the chain. I was kinda miffed at first (too much government regulation and all that jazz), but I was really surprised when the added business made it worthwhile in the end.

In the interest of honest and sincere exchanges of ideas, would people be willing to name three policies they dislike of the federal political party they will support next election? #1. I am not really excited about the NDP's death tax. While it is enticing to tax dead people rather than living people, it seems like the idea needs an overhaul because low income people who inherit a valuable home look like they will be unfairly taxed. The idea in general is not entirely bad, but it needs major work. #2. Bank mergers. I admit to knowing very little about this issue, but I do know that the NDP was against mergers and now they support them. I am not sure where I stand on this myself, but I do not like policy reversals generally. #3. The infrastructure program. Again, I do not know all of the details about this program, but if there are no federal strings attached to ensure that it will not just result in more urban sprawl, then I am against it. We need to ensure that the environment is protected. Last year the Liberals gave Calgary some dough for more police officers and City spent the money on buildings. Not cool. So, anybody else able to break their ideological shackles and identify three policies they do not like about the party they support? This should be interesting.

I do and I am also a member of a union (well a professional organization; same thing). I would not compare the two because I have real influence within the professional organization but little influence upon the fat cats running the corporations in which I invest.BTW, have you ever tried talking to a broker dude? It is like talking to one of those talking dolls. They spit out the same answer "good investment", "buy", "invest more". Once, just once, I would like to hear a broker say to me "sell the stock, get rid of it like a bad rash". I only ever heard this once on MSNBC (that annoying, bald guy who is really loud...forget his name).

Are you fn serious? I wondered why the stats were so skewed as CNN seems to be quite popular and it has been around for some time. I am gonna look this up because this is really, really fascinating to me anyways. Thanx BD! That is really deceptive.

This whole thing kinda makes me wonder whether there should be some sorta independent body to administer these programs. They should give the President a Senate like ours so that s/he has jobs to "legitimately" give friends for doing as much or as little as they want.

You crack me up newbie.

A little clarification needed here BD. So, you are saying that CNN has more viewers cumulatively. But, because Fox has a few shows that draw more viewers, the average (I assume the mean) viewers per minute is deceptively raised? Please correct me if I am wrong. This is quite interesting!

This is a sad but probably true statement. I do not believe or even understand the contention that the media contains a Liberal bias. I think it is a bogus complaint designed to suggest that people would love the right, but they are too stupid and brainwashed to think critically. If this were true and people passively consumed media products, there would be a helluva lot more violence in society. Everyone has watched violence on television, but not everyone acts on it. Does everyone buy a pair of Oakley's because they saw the ad? Why would we assume that the news determines how people vote? But even if people do passively accept news like drones, why would there be a Liberal bias in the first place? What is the motive here? If we assume that the Conservative Party advocates reduced taxes for larger corporations, and we also assume that much of our mass media is owned by large corporations (not mom and pop outfits), would it not be silly to report in a fashion that detracts from your own interests? Why would they do this? From this, I must conclude that either the media does not contain a Liberal bias or the Conservatives are not the party that will cut taxes. I could understand it if Layton claimed that his corporate tax agenda offends corporate media and consequently, he receives less coverage. At least that is logical. But why would these large corporations promote a party that seeks to spend their money like Liberals supposedly do? I do not go for conspiracy theories and I think most Canadians find this logic equally ridiculous. Oh, and before anyone provides a link to supposedly "prove" biased news coverage, I bet I could find you a picture of a duck wearing a cowboy hat, rubber boots and a Roots sweatshirt on the internet.

I voted that they do discriminate, but I am not sure that it should be up to the individual parties to perform this service. I would have thought the stations that play them would need to close caption them. After all, businesses are expected to ensure their stores are wheelchair accessible. Either way, it is probably a good thing that this is being brought up for all parties to consider.

It is fair game (no pun intended) for this section because it intimates state regulation in regards to cruelty to animals.

Probably one of the only things I believed that came out of Mulroney's mouth is that the GST is simply obvious and therefore an honest tax, while the MST was not. Having said that, I think sales taxes hurt the economy and we should rely upon income taxes instead (becasue they slide).

There are extremists in every party and I would actually agree that it appears as though Harper has managed to silence his extremists. He needs to do this the most in order to maintain any hope of performing well in the next election.

Agreed. A few months without a Conservative crackpot speaking out constitutes a trend.

You keep saying that but the so-called neo-liberal agenda began when August? How many hundreds of years ago? Talk about a time warp. The right also seems hell bent on bringing back religion into schools with ID and opposing the expansion of civil rights (SSM). You think that is modern? I wonder how you define modern. You also completely ignore the fact that the left has seized upon the late modernity agenda with a focus on total cost accounting and the environment. You also ignore the fact that the Conservatives are not in power.Anyways, I gotta go, I have a big fatty waiting for me. Nah, I'll just use the bong.

Then you are lucky this tough guy is not the Prime Minister huh? http://tinyurl.com/bap5j I sure hope that this is not just regarded as another example of Liberal bias.

I think that Canadians still want a minority government, but one that works. My prediction is that the Liberals will win another minority government, but they will still need the NDP to maintain power and legitimacy.

Why even contemplate the effects of something nobody believes will happen? We might as well start thinking of what will happen if the Greens or the Marxists take power. The overt fears on this board are making me suspect that the right really is afraid of NDP success. Although the NDP will likely not win a federal election outright, the possibility of a coalition with the Liberals is distinctly possible and Layton has demonstrated an ability to further his agenda with marginal resources. Maybe the right has a reason to fear Layton while the left has little reason to fear Harper.

No, not baiting. I am just saying that some folks here have tended to respond rather strongly to a party that is described as having no chance of success. I mean, nobody is freaking out about the Greens who have a low probability of success and they advocate further taxes on fuel when it appears most people want fuel taxes reduced or at least maintained at current levels. Why posts like this? Believe it or not, some of the unemployed do vote for other parties and many New Democrats are employed. This is your own post. It is inappropriate to call the New Democrats "freaks" and then turn around and ask whether I am baiting. While I agree that the likelihood of the NDP forming government is quite low, I think we could use more congenial terminology. It takes little effort really. I don't even know how to respond to this, but it certainly never entered my mind. I find it odd, however, that if I had said such a thing, I would be considered "nuts" when the right constantly decries the conspiracy of the Liberal media.Would you please explain why Conservatives can validly complain about such a conspiracy but ND's are "nuts" when they do so?

My mistake. The emoticon threw me. Again, I am no Liberal but this title is really uncalled for. I disagree with much/most of what Chretien did while in office, but to say he did nothing? That is a bit of a stretch. They did balance the budget, they did slash social programs (more than Mulroney BTW), they did offer moderate assistance to students, sign Kyoto and alter the manner in which parties are funded to name a few off the top of my head.

I fail to see how this refutes Kimmy's point. Could you expand?

I agree that her departure really hurt the Tories for the reasons you offer. I also believe that the Tories are perceived as an Albertan party and that it faces a measure of resistance elsewhere as a result. Harper should have worked harder to make the party more inclusive. Stronach could have been a vital part of that effort.

Argus, you have clearly made your point and I do not think anyone has been able to offer any kind of response to your question about funding being slashed. Of course, what we think up here matters little, the American voter will ultimately decide. What I find strange is the "defend Bush at any cost" mentality. We should care about what effect US politicians will have on Canada. Neither party seems particularly interested in actually establishing free trade with Canada and neither party is interested in fiscal responsibility which ultimately benefits Canada. I see few differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.