Scotty

Exactly. I don't like most of his policies, but I believe he believes that they are well-meaning and will better society. I think Elizabeth May has some really dumb ideas, but I don't think she's evil. But you don't have to put any effort into finding people who sneer at Harper as evil, vicious, hateful, etc. Two years ago I worked with a lot of younger people, ie, in their twenties. Almost unanimously they were utterly dismissive of Harper and thought he was an awful man out to destroy health care, destroy the poor, destroy Canada, join it to the US, etc. etc. By and large, btw, these young people knew virtually nothing about the political process, rarely read newspapers or watched the news, understood little about how the economy or government functions, and - thankfully - rarely voted.

The Conservative Party is not "the right". There would be a host of political reasons why they might not take the compromise, including the fact this is such a winning issue for them with gun owners/hunters, and these could have little or nothing to do with a conservative philosophy.

[quote name='August1991' date='23 April 2011 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1303590131' post='660034'} In short, the stark nature of debate in Canada today is caused by the Left. The Left does not tolerate the Right or a right wing government. In a sense, the Left is saying that we can only have peace if the Left is in control. This is my take on it too. I am not even all that far to the right, in fact. I am not religious, have no huge objections to gay marriage, am pro choice, don't support the death penalty, and believe in public health care funding in a big way. To me, the Left is rigidly, even in some cases, violently intolerant to divergent views. I might think some of the left wing views are silly, naive, and too big-brotherish, but I don't question their morality the way the Left constantly does about the Right. This is a concern with Layton, for his views are of a similar nature and deeply entrenched. I would expect, in the unlikely event his party took power, a whole raft of new laws guiding public behaviour which would include criminal sanctions to anyone who uses intolerant/racist/homophobic language, even in private speech, mandatory minority hiring and promotion quotas, and wide ranging new censorship laws (much of the Left dislikes freedom of speech as an ideal).

Yeah, I mean, that guy has dragged the tories at least six, maybe seven millimeters off center! He's practically a Nazi! Agghhh!

You'll note that they did NOT ask which man they think would make the best prime minister, or which they trusted, or which the think is a strong leader, or anything else clear cut like that.

I never expressed the idea "tax hike bad". What I am expressing is the idea that tax hikes.. LARGE tax hikes, are the normal result of putting a leftish government into power. There are too many social wrongs they are ideologically committing to right without BIG HUGE tax hikes. Look at the McGuinty government in Ontario as an example. Dedicated to unions and the environment to the exclusion of all else, they hiked spending by 60% and produced the biggest budget deficit in Ontario history. And what do we have to show for it? A crippled economy which will continue to be crushed by ever growing electricity hikes as the full cost of his "green energy' initiatives kick in, doubling and tripling electricity costs.

I'm aware of that. I'm not making a statement about whether it is or isn't right to raise the minimum wage at any given point in time. That's dependent upon a number of factors. I'm just using it as the kind of simple solution the Left tends to come up with for all society's ills. Poverty? No problem! Just give poor people more money! Raise taxes on those who work hard, and give it to those who don't! There, problem solved! Oh, there's still poverty!? Well, give them more money, and introduce a whole bunch of free education and skills training programs? Still poverty? Geeze, well, gotta raise taxes again! Personal responsibility? What? What's that? Don't understand. You can't hold poor people responsible for anything. It's not like anything is their fault! And yes, I'm aware there is a somewhat similar reverse sentiment among a minority of the Right, but it's not nearly as sweeping and widespread and doesn't (other than in the US) usually make its way into government policy.

That reflexively leftist moralizing is something I can do without, too. Conservatives are not cavemen because they want low taxes. And btw, I was never a supporter of tax cuts. To my mind, you can have tax cuts when the debt is paid off. I would not have cut the GST. However, the Left has, over the years, demonstrated an anti-business tone, and an anti-middle (who they describe as rich, entitled white people) class tone in their fiscal policies. The NDP in particular seems to have long since dedicated itself as the champion of the underdog. And the underdog, to them, are the poor, minorities, immigrants, natives, gays and lesbians, the disabled, etc. That's all well and good, but I'm not any of those. I'm a middle class white guy. The only thing the NDP wants to do to me is raise my taxes and then put in laws to make it harder for me to get a job or get promoted. You talk about health care? It's bloody clear that the Canada Health Act is a problem, not the solution. And just throwing more money at it isn't going to do anything but bankrupt us. I'm in favour of abolishing our current system and replacing it with a European style system. But the NDP is shrill in their defense of the current system, so I'm not looking to them to improve things.

The problem with simplistic answers is they don't take any notice of corresponding effects which can be far reaching. An example would be minimum wage raises. To the left, it seems a no-brainer that raising the minimum wage is a good thing. All they think about are the people currently earning minimum wage, and how much better off they'll be if the rate is raised. Thinking about the difficulties of businesses trying to pay wages isn't in them. Thinking about how that will cause businesses to look for automation to get rid of jobs, thinking of the effect on all the other jobs, which will have to be bumped up in price, and the corresponding effect on employment and inflation - that's too complicated. They don't want to hear that stuff. So to an NDPer, sure, raise taxes. Why not? Affects? That's not something to bother worrying about.

I don't want the NDP to be second party. Because eventually, the second party winds up being the first party. The NDP in its present incarnation would be an unmitigated disaster for Canada. This is still, though you rarely hear much about it, a party committed to old style socialism, anti-Americanism, punitive taxes on the upper and middle classes, punitive taxes and rules on business, mandatory hiring quotas, and huge welfare to the poor and minorities.

It's funny to hear an NDP supporter complain about Harper economics! As if the NDP knows the first thing about economics! How about telling us how you guys are gonna pay for those thousands of new doctors and nurses? Oh wait, HIGHER TAXES! Right?!

What we bear in mind is how heavily influenced the NDP is by "heroes" like Fidel Castro and Che Guevera, and how eager they are to get their hands on the tax kitty so they can right what they perceive to be the world's wrongs. I wonder how long, presuming the country was ever insane enough to grant them power, till we had mandatory employment equity quotas in all industries.

No, he's not, he's just out campaigning arm in arm, with Ignatieff. You mean the imaginary disgrace you gutter dwellers keep flinging up like muck hoping desperately some of it will stick? Talk about dishonesty...

It wasn't far from it. Why dwell on a nothing story like this? A candidate went to a meeting at a school and one of the people there was a guy with terrorist sympathies. She didn't know he was there, and he has zero part in her campaign. So how is this a story? And even after being told that repeatedly why does he keep asking about it unless its in pursuit of an ideologically inspired agenda to try and embarrass the Conservatives? Where are all the reporters asking Ignatieff repeated questions about his knowingly having an interview with a terrorist supporter?

When the question is along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife" I can see where people would take offense.

Depends on how you define "left". A lot of people I think of as Left refuse to be described thusly, even though on virtually every topic and subject their views veer off to the Left. I think that most journalists are reflexively very 'liberal' in their attitudes, especially regarding social beliefs and the duty of government to improve the lives of everyone who isn't doing well for whatever reason. Journalists tend to see it as government's job to right all the wrongs of society, be they social, economic or whatever. This clearly clashes with the conservative belief of individual responsibility and small government. And so it's not hard to see why so many journalists see the Conservatives as crass, backward, uncaring, and socially regressive.

Cite?

All through the years Harper has consistently surpassed all other leaders when Canadians are asked who would make the better prime minister. That has not changed.

And what does that make Ignatieff and Layton who can only dream of reaching 30%?

I care very much about corruption. if you find any, let me know. That a candidate went to a meeting, and one of the guys who attended was a former accused terrorist doesn't strike me as 'corruption'. But tell you what, if the Liberals fire Ignatieff, force him out of the party because he held a meeting, knowingly, with a known terrorist supporter who had actually applauded the beating of one of Ignatieff's ministers, then I'll at least agree you guys have the right to bitch about such things.

I hear it all the time, from people who are not at all political, really. I know several couples who have moved to get their kids away from schools which are overrun with immigrants, as an example. The Board of Education has had trouble trying to control "white flight" from several immigrant heavy schools, esp high schools.

I acknowledge that I think our culture is superior. But I'm HERE. If I went to India or China or Pakistan and started sneering at their culture and telling everyone how much better mine was I suspect they might not appreciate it. And if I moved in along with a couple of million Canadians who felt pretty much like I did I suspect the locals would start getting pretty pissed off.

Nobody is defending the terrorist guy. We're just mocking your cheap, stupid smear tactics.

Your toaster tell you that?

Maybe they figured it was a stupid, unfair, partisan question? Just a guess. Kinda like the cheap ass lying headline you picked for this topic. I suppose Robert Pikton and Paul Bernardo are going to vote for someone or other. If they announced it would this impute something terrible about whomever they chose to vote for? Would that candidate have to get down on their knees and beg everyones forgiveness?