fracan

cybercoma, check out the Freedom Party too... They seem very libertarian to me. Read their platform! Freedom Party of Canada

Could we please leave the veterans out of this? Do you honestly think Canadians went to war to defend their political party of choice? That's rubbish. I can guarantee you no veteran would like to turn his/her weapons on any political leader in this country. All it would mark an end to is federally imposed social caring... You're more than welcome to vote in a provincial NDP government and enjoy all the "social caring" you want. The difference would be we wouldn't have it shoved down our throats by Ottawa.

Are there a lot of Americans on these forums?

I agree on that. Sovereignty will come at a very high price for Quebec. I will be the first protesting in the streets if it comes with an "economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada", too. It's all or nothing.

If you read Paul Wells' blog (although without comments I'm loathe to call it a blog) you might have caught a post a couple days ago that illustrated how the tuition cut will benefit students who do not have loans or grants, and that students with financial need are actually worse off thanks to Layton's deal... The blog doesn't even have proper archives or permalinks either... Here's the link though, for the time being.

As was discussed in the thread on proportional representation after the last federal election, the "regionalization" phenomenon is a bogus result of the "winner take all" electoral system. For example, the Conservatives in 2004 received just 52 per cent of the vote in the Parairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) yet took 82 per cent of the seats. By the same token, 300,000 Conservative voters in Qubec were unable to elect a single MP, yet 178,000 fellow Conservatives in Saskatchewan who elected 13 MPs. All because of FPTP. Any analysis that fails to take the system itself into account is, frankly, bullshit. But what I really really love about this thread is the utter disdain the Con partisans here have for the choices of Canadians. I'll remembe rthat next time I hear a Con talk of how theirs is the party of the people. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, I didn't expect a reaction like that... Sure, the iron's hot right now and my sentiment might wane in the next few weeks or months. I'm certainly in no position right now to leave the country. Who knows what'll happen in a few years time. But I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, and it's not even about Adscam itself anymore -- it's more about the polls showing strong support continuing for the Liberals, and the feeling that people have fallen for Martin's plea last Thursday. Edit: OK, seems the conversation left me for the hour I was gone watching Politics. lol...

As neither an Albertan nor a Quebecer, I guess I'm just being optimistic that both sides can reach common ground... The only animosity I have is for complacency with Liberalism, which has led us to this brink... As for SSM, I guess I'm being too much philosophical, not enough legal.

Whaddaya mean? The Gomery inquiry was in full swing when the budget came down. Everyone knew already how crooked the Liberals are. Sure, and then they worked it out, just as the NDP worked with the Libs to get some of their priorities put into the government. They weren't "getting in to bed" with them as much as they were on the same side of the issues. The Bloc and NDP are closer together on most policy points than the Cons, who were quite happy with the budget as long as it was giving wealthy corporations a tax break, and less so when it incorporated things like housing etc. So its hard to see the marriage of the left-progressive Bloc and the Cons as anything but a marriage of convienience for both (the end being power). So what? Is there same law that states that no one shall be more progressiv ethan them? Their stance on SSM is irrelevant to the Canadian debate. Under Canadian law, the sepreate-but-equal "civil unions" option is not an option at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It doesn't matter that Gomery was in "full swing"... Brault hadn't testified yet. The Conservatives and the Bloc are on the same side of the issue of federal encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. That's the issue underlying separatism, in my opinion. A Conservative minority would be able to work with the Bloc on many issues relating to this. The point about Sweden and the Netherlands wasn't in response to your post (I think), but I really do believe that other countries' handling of the SSM issue is very relevant to how we are going to handle it here.

Yes, the "mythology" of "harsh rule" appeals to me...

I'm so sick of hearing Canadians don't want an election...

Funny you should mention the United Empire Loyalists, because my Dad's family were UELs from Vermont. I'm sitting here on the family farm which is on King's land.

With voter turnout hovering around 60%, can we still claim the average Canadian is even a voter?

Keep in mind, though, that same sex marriage is already legal in Canada. The Conservative position is untenable. As fopr whether we need an election, I'm glad to see we have one party in Canada who wants to make Parliment work for the people of this country. An election will come soon enough. And with polls showing Conservative support has seemingly hit the high water mark, I expect that Harper will tone down and back off, just as he was willing to work with the "criminal" Liberals on the budget when his part trailed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First of all, the depths of Liberal criminality had not yet come to the surface when the Conservatives pledged not to vote against the budget (take note -- not to support the budget). Second, we then found that Dion tried to stick some ludicrous bit into the budget about Kyoto which the Conservatives took exception to and plainly stated they could not support. Third, (and kind of off-topic) I think it's funny (if it didn't make me angry) that the NDP for some reason were not "getting into bed with the separatists" when both the Bloc and NDP voted against the budget -- possibly because they don't have the numbers to bring down the government like the Conservatives do. Sweden and the Netherlands are two of the most socially progressive nations on the planet... There's really no argument you can make against that...

That's some very interesting history there... But it doesn't surprise me the feds aren't obeying our constitution. Just another example of the sad state of this country.

No, I really don't have any faith left in my fellow Canadians. It's too bad really, but I've already started making plans to become part of the "brain drain". Luckily my mother is American so I should have less problems getting American citizenship...

err believe that government should be "for the people" but wants/think corporations should pay for it? If you really thought government was the people's, then why shouldn't the people be the ones on the hook for its costs? Corporations don't exist -- they're legal fictions designed to make commerce easier to conduct. Corporations don't have children in the public education system, corporations don't need surgery... I could go on. It always sticks in my craw when I see punks protesting on Bay Street that banks (for example) should pay higher taxes. Who are the major shareholders in Canada's banks? Pension funds and mutual funds, not old guys wearing tophats and monocles. How would higher taxes not lead to less money for the shareholders and fewer jobs for bank workers, all the way down to tellers with little more than a high school diploma?

I think a lot of it has to do with what is being discussed in another thread right now -- the Liberals' skill with propaganda (oops, I mean marketing). The CBC also likes to puff up Trudeau every chance they get.

I'm sure at least 54% of Ontarians would favor "sovereignty" if it included an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada. It's pretty much what we should have right now according to the constitution, notwithstanding federal intrusion on our provincial jurisdiction of course. Thanks to the Clarity Act such a retarded question would either never be asked or would be struck down after the fact.

I saw his interview today on Newsworld's Politics. Apparently his job is to talk to Americans about Canada and explain our point of view. He seemed like an OK dude... But: Is it just me, or could we not find better people to do that? Americans love celebrities... Canadians basically run Hollywood. Couldn't we round up all the Canadian celebs and get them to pump up Canada to our American cousins? Wouldn't that be a better way to spend our Canada-advocating dollars?

I guess my main problem with religion is that it seeks and advocates easy answers to life's toughest problems. Edit: At one point I considered myself an agnostic too, and other times an atheist. These days I really could care less what people would choose to label me. If god exists, he's a jerk.

And the level of discourse in this topic plunges... The only leaders in this country acting like they have a mandate from god (ie. King) are (were) Chretien and Martin. Martin acts like the job of PM is his birthright, and Chretien plundered the public purse for his and his friends' benefit. And I happen to believe MacKay is still a small-P progressive Conservative. So is Belinda... They aren't all Gallants, Whites and Reids. And two of those three have already said they won't run in the next election, so who will Liberals point to and scream "Scary!"?

I could argue that businesses shouldn't be taxed at all. Profits from business are paid out to the owners in dividends, which are then taxed in the hands of individuals. What left-wingers don't get is that businesses aren't the enemy - they create wealth, they create jobs. Another thing I don't get is how big business is somehow the enemy, while small and medium businesses are the darlings of our system. Do you know what small and medium businesses are striving to become? Big businesses! That means they've been successful! We have capitalism and the pursuit of profit to thank for our high living standards and general level of wealth. It's not wrong to want to get rich, because you'll have to help others out along the way. You can't get rich on your own.

I don't fear "deep integration" or whatever you'd like to call it because I'm realistic about our position on this planet, and the shared history we have with our neighbors to the south. What Liberals like to pretend is that the entire population of the US was all for killing Iraqi babies, when the country itself is still deeply divided on that issue and pretty much reflects the same division we have here in our country. We don't need a military to protect ourselves - yet. There could come a day when we do, because Al Qaeda isn't stupid and they know who the allies of the Americans are and we are on the short list. What we do need a military for is getting into places like Darfur when we had a chance to actually prevent a massacre and provide a shining example to the world of our values -- values that are held by both conservative and liberal alike. Right now we're a laughingstock on the international stage. Catering to Christian phobias won't happen even if they get a majority because they'll like their power and want to keep it. They know if they pull social conservative stuff like a full ban on abortion (which they've come right out and said they wouldn't touch) or using the notwithstanding clause to ban SSM that they aren't going to be re-elected, and as we've seen from the Liberals, politicians love power and they love keeping power once they get it. And that's assuming they get a majority, which probably won't happen in which case you've got three opposition parties who skew left of centre on social issues anyways to stop anything like that.

First of all, calling the CPC the "Reform/Alliance/Conservatives" is just pretty lame and reminds me of the typical Liberal scare tactics. Referring to Mulroney's PC Party as the Conservatives is also incorrect, since there's very little in common between the new Conservative Party and the old early-90s PCs. Let's keep the discussion above the belt and accurate. Investing in health care, by a Federal government, is not an accomplishment, but an encroachment on constitutionally-granted provincial jurisdiction. Running surpluses while the provinces struggle with deficits is also no great accomplishment, just means they should've lowered the federal taxes so the provinces could have the ability to raise theirs. The responses of the three other party leaders to Martin's "I am not a crook" speech was, in my opinion, hardly flat and predictable. Harper did a wonderful job of pointing out the contradictions inherent in Martin's plea. Duceppe continues to impress me with his leadership, even if he does seek an independent Quebec. Layton, while a pinko crackpot who failed economics, did a good job of appealing to any left-of-centre Canadians who might think they have another option in a federal party. I really hope the people of Ontario do not vote in another Liberal minority. If they think that's the key to keeping Canada together, good luck. If Ontarians return the Libs to power, count on Quebec leaving and possibly Alberta's separatist movement to gain momentum too, and I don't blame them. The worst thing for the unity of this country would be putting the Liberals back in power. The best thing would probably be a Conservative majority, or a Conservative minority with the Bloc. Both parties are ardent provincial rights supporters, which is really what we need to quash both separatist movements in this country.

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up. Phew! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The same-sex marriage issue is more than just a religious issue. Not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriages is a religious extremist, contrary to popular belief. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you! The SSM issue is hardly a religious one. Sure, there are Christians who are against it on religious grounds, but polls continue to show a majority (50-60%) of Canadians do not want it called marriage. I'm not one of them. I'm a conservative (libertarian is probably closer) who is rabidly anti-religion (it's the source of the world's problems, not the solution to them) and strongly in favor of SSM... Yet I can't vote purely on this issue alone, given everything else that's happening in our fair country these days. Back on the stated topic, let's have the election asap!