Evening Star

Even going by the way you spin them, the two viewpoints you describe are not "diametrically opposed".

OK, that makes sense. I'll think this through some more.

They followed Mulroney, to be precise... Tbh, I tend not to resent the debt accumulated under Trudeau as much as some people do because I actually like the programmes he spent the money on. (I also tend to think that if Petro-Canada had remained a Crown, it could have easily been made a profitable generator of revenue. That doesn't seem to be a popular opinion though.)

(That doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Conservative though. I'm just saying that the differences are relatively slight if one takes a long view.)

In terms of the big picture, the whole spectrum of political ideology, they are pretty obviously similar. They all believe in constitutional Parliamentary democracy, federalism, Charter rights, and a market economy with welfare state social programmes. They even all agree on many of those specific programmes, such as socialized health insurance. Just because one party favours tilting the balance slightly in favour of military and security spending over social programmes and another party favours spending a little extra on social programmes and less on the military does not really constitute a giant ideological chasm.

I don't get this at all. What are the colours supposed to indicate? And why would the Pearson Liberals be so far from the Trudeau Liberals or even the NDP? Political Compass has problems but it at least seems to make sense.

It was reported as more than speculation: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ejections-at-campaign-rallies-a-staff-issue-harper-says/article1971383/

Yeah, I do actually agree that it's silly to say the CPC is extreme right and the NDP is extreme left.

But they're Canadian citizens and voters too. And the BQ is about as far left as the NDP so doing this distorts your results. You're right. I was thinking of Bryan's comment: which basically seems to suggest that 60% of the country is pretty far left. Maybe... but the Liberals only broke 30% when they moved in this direction... Btw, I do actually agree that the Conservatives are nowhere near as far right as the US Republicans or perhaps even the UK Conservatives...

Why exclude Bloc votes? And using the same logic, if you think the CPC are the centre (or centre-left!), then at least 60% of the country is pretty far left for you.

It is still possible to question what our role should be in allocation and deployment of those resources. (Tbh, it does get tricky because I can see a little more justification for combat in cases like Bosnia or the first Iraq War...)

When did I say I supported those actions?

I'm not even sure I support the Liberals' stance but it is possible to invest in education and training in other ways. That really doesn't seem to me like a justification for military spending.

I meant avoiding the situation of being in a combat role. Thought that was clear.

I don't think this is an unquestioned truth or anything. Keynesianism is still a respected mainstream school of economics.

Hm? I'm saying we should have taken that position wrt Afghanistan and avoided that situation altogether.

Anyway, I was perhaps a little off-topic. Now that I've actually read the article (ha), I think I actually agree. This is what I tend to believe (not that I'm a military expert): If the only wars we ever participate in are ones where we tag along with the US, it seems that our combat capabilities are always going to seem insignificant compared to theirs, fighters or no fighters. These other roles seem like more useful and appropriate ones for Canada to fill.

That's probably true but I don't think that even the most hawkish Republican would claim that to be a justification for going to war. Was that the mission? How long will it take before that's secure enough that we can leave? We've been there since 2003. I'm not shedding tears for Gaddafi. I'm just not sure that the situation justifies Canada going into war: The long-term objectives don't seem clear enough; I'm not sure the rebels we're supporting are going to be much better; I'm not sure that Canada's involvement is adding something that European and Arab countries can't handle themselves; it's an unfortunate situation but doesn't look so far like a humanitarian disaster on the scale of Bosnia or Rwanda. The North Vietnamese Communists and Saddam Hussein were also monsters but Canada was right to stay out of those conflicts. I don't agree with the people who think we don't need a military, by the way.

Again, I need to commend you on post 366, TB (although the Liberal spending plans sound OK to me personally).

First, that regardless of whether or not one thinks the 2008 coalition plan (the context for the quote) was democratic or legitimate or not, Layton was not simply expressing disregard and contempt for the democratic process, which is what is suggested when the quote is taken out of context. He was expressing an interpretation of the democratic process by which he felt that Harper was in fact the one showing disdain for democracy. In any case, however, the necessity for the sitting government to maintain the confidence of Parliament is pretty fundamental to our democratic process.

In context, as far as I could find it:

Fair points, you two. I need to think this over, clearly.

I can believe that you're right... But what do you think of the campaign workers' decision-making in this instance, which afaict was based on a Facebook profile photo?

Yeah, I was kind of being a douche, sorry. I do actually think we should maintain a military strong enough for the purposes you mention as well as for some international missions. I just think that some of our current priorities should be reconsidered. (If I felt sure that our intervention was doing a great deal to protect human rights in those countries, I'd be the first to support it btw.)

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.