justcrowing

The next federal election will receive total apathy from many Canadian voters. Prediction is that voter turn out will be the lowest in decades as many will see no one to vote for in 2006. Martin is tainted from being Finance Minister in a government that is shown to be corrupt. Harper is seen by many as bogeyman. Layton belongs to party that has no experience in governing a country. Duceppe is a separatist and none of the Bloc candidates are running outside Quebec. But for those who do vote we see very little change in the make-up of Parliament. The West will vote conservative. Quebec will vote Bloc. Ontario will vote Liberal and the East will vote Liberal and NDP. If the Liberals lose most of their 21 seats in Quebec, and the Conservatives gain more seats in the West and Ontario, and the NDP gain seats in the West, the East and Ontario, then Harper will form the minority government. If the Liberals can hold on to all their seats outside of Quebec, then Martin will continue as the Prime Minister. Prediction - that the Liberals will lose Quebec wholly and the Conservatives and NDP will gain seats in the rest of Canada and the NDP will hold sway in the next Parliament. Prediction in seats is as follows - Liberal: 105 Conservative: 106 Bloc: 74 NDP: 23 Green: 0 If this prediction holds true, the Conservatives will form the new government but it will be so precarious that it will fall in less than six months and we will have another election. And probably new leaders too. What a mess placed on us by the Liberals!!

Liberals put party before the people Ignatieff nomination demonstates Grit flaws http://w3t.org/?u=eh1 You wanna know what's wrong with Canadian democracy, the way it's practiced by the federal Liberal party? Look no further than Michael Ignatieff and his nomination as the Liberal candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Here's a guy who was born in Toronto but who has mostly lived and worked in other countries. He teaches at Harvard, but returns to U of T in January as a "visiting professor," for heaven's sake. Ignatieff writes critically acclaimed books that only the elite read, and is widely touted to be a future prime minister in the mould of Pierre Trudeau. Okay, now he's got the nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but it's not as if the voters of that riding chose him. FOISTED ON THE VOTERS Rather, he was foisted on them -- chosen by "acclamation," which means no one voted for him. He's the choice of the party, not the people. Not only that, two other candidates for the Liberal nomination were prevented from challenging his. Sound familiar? Like a dictatorship, eh? WE CAN BLAME OURSELVES If we, the voters, don't do the right thing, and if we re-elect the same guys who've so abused propriety, decency and honest democracy, then we've no one to blame but ourselves for the arrogance and corruption that has been so rife in government. In just the two ridings mentioned above there are sound alternatives to the Liberal establishment.

yep. I'd vote for that set of baggage in a heart beat, and so would 31% of Canadians as of today. We're gettng closer! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey so will I give him my vote and I wasn't polled.

A good 70% of Canadians are not social or religious conservatives. That's why the former Progressive Conservative vote has eluded poor Stephen Harper. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did you get the 70% figure? Please provide some proof of this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> See the link in my first post on the thread Half of CPC MPs are "Religious Conservatives" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, is this how you came to the 70% figure? "According to a 2003 Ipsos-Reid survey, only approximately 20% of the general Canadian population fits the description of a religious conservative. Mackey’s analysis adds that of the 308 MPs in Ottawa, 100 – over 32 percent – fit the description of a religious conservative. "[ that would reflect from all parties & MP's] “Take today's Tories and Stephen Harper out of Canada and plunk them in New Zealand and they would be to the left of Helen Clark's Labour government,” he said, as reported by the National Post. [ So much for being far right. ]

Martin had to make cuts and grabs for how else could he create a surplus. He even threw in the civil servants pension fund into his surplus funds. Nice guy while he registers CSL in a foreign country, builds ships in China; gets loans from Canada; pays slave labour wages; and avoids paying his share of Canadian taxes. Now there's someone to worship as a leader of our country.

Quebec is left leaning which is why they elect Liberals who are also left leaning otherwise why would Martin court NDP to unite with their party. Well maybe, to dissolve the competition and a win for Liberals - hey Layton, are you getting it?

A good 70% of Canadians are not social or religious conservatives. That's why the former Progressive Conservative vote has eluded poor Stephen Harper. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did you get the 70% figure? Please provide some proof of this.

How true - also, can you imagine a country controlled by unions? If we think we have it bad now - Hargrove is just licking his chops to get to the trough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1 cannot imagine it, I can only image how much industry would flee Canada in a minute, if the NDP should ever become the government. How anyone NDPer can support Buzz is a mystery <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Easy - self interest; fill my pockets and be damned with everyone else and how it affects them.

Ah, it seems freedom of religion comes with socialist restrictions. Do as we say and not do as your beliefs command. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What restrictions? The court upheld the right of the Knights of Columbus not to rent their hall to lesbians. How does this relate to socialism? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well that's a change - must have been a CPC Judge.

That is my opinion and not that of the CPC campaign team - I am not even a member of the CPC or any party for that matter. Martin does look like he stressed and the jowls do show.

Did they work? Two women won a law suit against the Knights of Columbus this week after their wedding plans were canceled due to religous reasons. These women when booking would have know that the KofC would not support same sex marriages in there facilities. This is a slipery slop and the case law will now build in the favour of "human rights" and not religous freedom. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, it seems freedom of religion comes with socialist restrictions. Do as we say and not do as your beliefs command.

How true - also, can you imagine a country controlled by unions? If we think we have it bad now - Hargrove is just licking his chops to get to the trough.

Marriage is a relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies. Marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements. In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized.

After spending a whole pile of taxpayers $$ to study medicare, the Liberals have not even made an attempt to follow any of the recommended guidelines. Of course, they would not inject money into medicare because if they do, then the surplus might get smaller and Martin's private clinic he goes to might be put out of business. Martin was too busy manipulating power away from Chretien and Chretien was too busy building his legacy & Shawinigate coverup. During the last election, Martin said he was going to save medicare but instead he was busy dithering.

My friend you are over stating your case and doing it in the wrong section. This topic is about polls. This morning Ispo had nationally Libs 33 and Cons 31. If you take into account a more efficient vote. (Unfortunatly the Tories are still not gaining ground in Quebec)The Conservatives are in the lead. Feels good to back a winner. Now before the Chicken Littles starts to say the sky is falling realize the practical reality. Harper is acting with integrity and being consistent with party policy. This policy would only change the title and not any associated rights. We would be like England or many of the other European countries. To do this in a minority government would mean the majority of the house would have to vote for this debate to continue. Considering the positions of the other parties (30 of Libs were not in favour) this is still very unlikely. The Conservatives are democrats and they didn’t see the party whip behaviour as a good sign for our democracy. If the house votes to move on they will. Willy’s Back <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whipped votes are never democratic. Yup, I sure agree that Harper is acting with integrity etc. He's making a good start. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for bringing the topic back on course and a very good post as well. I certainly agree with you. Yes, I hope Harper stays the course. We need change badly and I for one am willing to give the CPC's that chance to make a difference. To NormanC if you wish to discuss human rights, please open a separate thread for discussion. Please do not deteriorate this thread. Thank you.

I can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? :angry: What if Harper had planned to take away the rights of a particular racial group? An ethnic group? A religious group? A group with physical disabilities? Should we not discuss this because it only affects "a select few"? Is this really how CPC supporters think? How about if a Muslim country decided that they would take away the legal right of Christians in their country to marry and in future, Christians could form "unions" only. Suppose only a few radical, political Christian activists spoke out about this issue which did not "affect all citizens" but only "a select few." Should the Muslim majority in that country not care about the human rights of the Christian minority? Would it be more worthy of discussing stripping away human rights if we broadened the group so that it included a larger number of people? Suppose Harper had said marriage should only be reserved for couples who can reproduce and therefore the future marriages of anyone else would henceforth be called unions. Any infertile women, gay men, hysterectomized women, sterile men and postmenopausal women would not be permitted to marry but they would be permitted to form unions. Since such a group would include more than "a select few", would the Liberals, NDP and BQ be wasting tax dollars debating this issue, or would the human rights of this larger minority group be irrelevant? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You have quoted a lot of supposition and I doubt very much human rights will be violated in the manner which you stipulate - just a bunch of fear mongering & so far fetched it is laughable, because you want your agenda on the top of the list which is quite evident. The issue of SSM has been debated and dealt with through the Courts and there is nothing more to discuss. You got what you pushed for so move on to issues that have been left for far too long and must be dealt with. Yes, I do not want my tax dollars spent on something that has been discussed & settled and laws now in place. Nor am I prepared to discuss suppositions which have absolutely no foundation to them other than fear mongering. How about dealing with the rights of fathers who have been denied liberal access to their children and criminalized without any proof - yes, thanks Liberals and NDP for their humanitarian compassion - does ssm take precedence over the rights of children and their fathers? But, hey we do not talk about this for fear of upsetting the feminists and losing their vote.

Right now polls mean nothing but a hill of beans, it can change in 24 hours - I think the conservatives have some momentum going for them at the moment, I'm guessing as they release their platform bit by bit we'll see bigger changes. Hmmm, sorta like a strip tease you know, maybe they are saving the best for last LOL (maybe a lesbian or two for NormanC ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ssssh!! I got it, a hidden agenda gift especially for NormanC.

I agree. Harper should say nothing about his socially conservative agenda and his plans to strip rights away from lesbians until AFTER the election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong - the issue has been debated to death and we now have to move on to the needs of this country and not the select few who keep on and on about their issue that it become a turnoff. Get over it and get on to things important to ALL canadians. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's going to do whaaaattt, strip rights from lesbians..... (wonder if that includes gay men LOL ) maybe Normanchateau has a thing for lesbians hmmmmmm Man, this guys out to lunch, don't feed the trolls, specially ones who flood the boards with the same crappola. Isn't it spamming or something. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, it's beating his own drum!! It only took a few of his posts to see what this person is about. Bet there is no debate but ssm brought into every thread - must be hysteria setting in or what.

Well he wants a cushy job with no stress. And Martin, gotta hand it to him, is taking votes away from the NDP to feather his own nest. And the beat goes on!!

Martin always looks like he's losing. Don't read anything into that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually Martin has developed huge jowls and wrinkles and looks desperate. Poor guy I wonder how long it will take before he let's out the boogeyman out of the closet.

I agree. Harper should say nothing about his socially conservative agenda and his plans to strip rights away from lesbians until AFTER the election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong - the issue has been debated to death and we now have to move on to the needs of this country and not the select few who keep on and on about their issue that it become a turnoff. Get over it and get on to things important to ALL canadians.

The polls were taken Nov. 29th +/- ; the one I quoted was more recent.

I have listened to Harper speak and he did not blurt anything out. He spoke in a calm, collected and informative manner - in the same manner that Jack Layton made his first commentary. Martin is on the defensive and now in attack mode. Anyhew, should the issue crop up again, I hope Harper will ignore and move on to more pressing issues as there is nothing more to discuss regarding ssm.

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What you can't seem to realize is that you are a hypocrit. You came on this board slamming the CPC for a supposed anti gay bias, but you then call members of the party by all sorts of silly names. Criticism of any group is not the same as using slurs like bible thumper. If you fail to see that then perhaps I'm wasting MY time. Also, I'd like to see you call a Hindu or Sikh a 'Bible thumper.' You're really reaching now. You can try to invent new definitions but bible thumper has always been a slight on the Christian religion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You hit the nail right on the mark. I had this guy pegged from the first post that I read.

Yeah, Harper's promise to revisit same sex marriage had not yet been factored in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper has already spoken on the issue and made his views quite clear. It may be of significance to you but to the rest of the country we would like to see an election based on the needs of this country and not one specific activist group. I am interested in fixing Medicare; changing how our government works; government accountability; closing loopholes for corruption. Therefore, I want my tax dollars spent on debating the issues that affect all citizens and not a select few.