Canada Needs the Old Liberal Party

[Alta4ever]

in short you're a yank and your knowledge of socialism would fit on the head of a pin...

He seems to understand it better then you.

[jbg]

1. The Great Leap Forward;
   
2. The Cultural Revolution;
   
3. The collectivization of the Ukraine and the accompanying Holodomer famines; and
   
4. The Pol Pot collectivization.
   

In short, you've got to be kidding.

in short you're a yank and your knowledge of socialism would fit on the head of a pin...

Show my one example that I cited that doesn't relate to socialism? And what does my being a "Yank" have to do with anything?

You know what, why don't you answer how much you'd like North Korean to be your neighbor rather than the "Yanks"?

[PIK]

I miss Cretien too. If you want a fscally responsible socially liberal government, Jack Layton has one waiting in the wings. The New NDP is a lot like the old liberal party, that is why I WAS a Liberal and NOW I AM a New Democrat.

jack layton ,man of the people always there for the working man, well after jack runs the corporations out of this country ,who is going to hire the working man?

[DrGreenthumb]

jack layton ,man of the people always there for the working man, well after jack runs the corporations out of this country ,who is going to hire the working man?

The corporations aren't going anywhere, as long as there is money to be made we do not need to bribe them to do business here. They are making billions, even if they make 2 billion in a year instead of 3 they aren't going to leave. Less million dollar bonus's to give out I guess.

[Wild Bill]

The corporations aren't going anywhere, as long as there is money to be made we do not need to bribe them to do business here. They are making billions, even if they make 2 billion in a year instead of 3 they aren't going to leave. Less million dollar bonus's to give out I guess.

Here we have the perpetual leftwing fallacy! Business folks will always be there to be taxed 'cuz they are genetically programmed to do business! They will never leave!

That's a pile of crap! Look around your own little pond! Business has been leaving for the past couple of decades! Countries like China and Ireland have been taking our business people, with all their jobs.

Business migrates to where it can make the most money with the least aggravation. Leftwingers migrate to where they can get the most welfare!

Here in Hamilton, Ontario we have seen this trend plainer than most. We've lost literally thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs. The city lost so much business tax that they've had no choice but to try to make it up by taxing the homeowners. Now we are about to lose our Tiger Cats, a 141 year tradition in this town. Why? Because our leftwing municipal politicians took it for granted that the owner would stay here forever and accept a stadium venue that would have him continue losing money forever! When he complained about it they accused him of "not having enough civic spirit"!

As a businessman, that's how lefties see his place in the scheme of things. He's supposed to just run his team at a loss, out of civic charity.

Dr. Greenthumb, it's people with views like yours that are going to have us end up with no jobs in this country at all! What are you going to do, hold a shotgun to a CEO's head and tell him he HAS to have his business here in Canada?

Edited August 27, 2010 by Wild Bill

[DrGreenthumb]

Here we have the perpetual leftwing fallacy! Business folks will always be there to be taxed 'cuz they are genetically programmed to do business! They will never leave!

That's a pile of crap! Look around your own little pond! Business has been leaving for the past couple of decades! Countries like China and Ireland have been taking our business people, with all their jobs.

Business migrates to where it can make the most money with the least aggravation. Leftwingers migrate to where they can get the most welfare!

Here in Hamilton, Ontario we have seen this trend plainer than most. We've lost literally thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs. The city lost so much business tax that they've had no choice but to try to make it up by taxing the homeowners. Now we are about to lose our Tiger Cats, a 141 year tradition in this town. Why? Because our leftwing municipal politicians took it for granted that the owner would stay here forever and accept a stadium venue that would have him continue losing money forever! When he complained about it they accused him of "not having enough civic spirit"!

As a businessman, that's how lefties see his place in the scheme of things. He's supposed to just run his team at a loss, out of civic charity.

Dr. Greenthumb, it's people with views like yours that are going to have us end up with no jobs in this country at all! What are you going to do, hold a shotgun to a CEO's head and tell him he HAS to have his business here in Canada?

Bullshit, the reason those jobs were lost is because the corporations would rather pay slave wages to some kids in a 3rd world country than pay fair wages here. They want to pay the workers nothing so they have more millions in bonus's to pay their executives.

Edited August 27, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Wild Bill]

Bullshit, the reason those jobs were lost is because the corporations would rather pay slave wages to some kids in a 3rd world country than pay fair wages here. They want to pay the workers nothing so they have more millions in bonus's to pay their executives.

So you just contradicted your own premise! You agree that corporations move to 3rd world countries!

That was precisely my point! YOU said they would always be here! Now you agree that many have left and more are leaving today.

[DrGreenthumb]

So you just contradicted your own premise! You agree that corporations move to 3rd world countries!

That was precisely my point! YOU said they would always be here! Now you agree that many have left and more are leaving today.

I would just tell those companies that if they want access to the Canadian market they must have x number of jobs here, or produce X% of their products here etc. Fuck Free trade, and the "global economy". If you want access to the Canadian market you play by our rules.

[Wild Bill]

I would just tell those companies that if they want access to the Canadian market they must have x number of jobs here, or produce X% of their products here etc. Fuck Free trade, and the "global economy". If you want access to the Canadian market you play by our rules.

Really? You would see the vast majority of them simply walk away!

The entire Canadian marketplace is smaller than that of one American state, California.

Unlike you, my entire career was spent selling all those high tech computer chips, ICs, resistors, capacitors and such. I worked for large American distributors and several of the few Canadian ones that are left.

After 9/11, that industry totally collapsed! Almost all of it left the country. They went to China and Ireland, not really for cheaper labour but more for less taxes and drastically reduced government paperwork. Thousands of us lost our jobs.

Go on, Don Quixote! Chase those companies and demand they play by our rules! I could use a good laugh!

Edited August 27, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Evening Star]

I think the NDP's plan, for better or for worse, would be to use tax credits and subsidies to promote business/investment in the areas they favour, especially green technology, to promote community-owned and co-operative businesses and industries, and to greatly expand the public sector (especially through heavy investment in e.g. public transportation) so that the Canadian economy would be less dependent on multinational corporations, particularly those in environmentally unsustainable industries. I think they would actually provide many tax breaks and/or subsidies to businesses that operate with the environment and social justice in mind. To be honest, I probably don't know enough about economics to know how well this would actually work in practice. (While I support some of these principles, I do generally think that we should be moving towards a knowledge-based economy and greatly encouraging the high-tech innovation, e.g. of Research in Motion or Bombardier or even Corel. I don't know how well the NDP appreciates technological R&D if it doesn't have some sort of overt 'green' angle to it.)

All this said, I don't really see how their economic plan resembles that of the Chretien Liberals, who signed NAFTA, privatized Crown corporations, and pretty much shrank the government's investment in everything. If anything, they might be a little closer to an up-to-date, more budget-conscious, hyper-environmentalist version of the Trudeau Liberals in their protectionist streak, belief in expansion of the public sector, and admiration of Scandinavian social democracy. (Of course, they don't really have anyone with Trudeau's Machiavellian political skills and autocratic temperament, which would make it easier to actually push through a fairly radical agenda.)

[segnosaur]

left leaning socialists don't take away personal freedoms....

Not quite true (at least in Canada).

Remember, many NDP members have been members of the Human Rights Commissions (and if I remember, the NDP supports their existence). Yet the commissions are often seen as having a negative effect on human rights (most notably the right of free speech.)

Granted, the extreme religious right may also want to limit speech (nudity, etc.) in ways I don't agree with either. But claiming that the "left" is somehow the only ones that believe in freedom is incorrect. Most people in the political spectrum want to limit freedoms; its just a case of what freedoms.

[segnosaur]

I AM a Libertarian.

I would just tell those companies that if they want access to the Canadian market they must have x number of jobs here, or produce X% of their products here etc. Fuck Free trade, and the "global economy".

Do you even recognize the discrepancy of those 2 statements?

Here's a little hint... being a 'libertarian' does not just mean that you want to smoke dope. It also means that you support economic freedom, including the right to engage in commerce with individuals from other countries (i.e. free trade). Your 'suggestion' to impose such trade barriers is completely anti-libertarian.

[wyly]

Not quite true (at least in Canada).

Remember, many NDP members have been members of the Human Rights Commissions (and if I remember, the NDP supports their existence). Yet the commissions are often seen as having a negative effect on human rights (most notably the right of free speech.)

Granted, the extreme religious right may also want to limit speech (nudity, etc.) in ways I don't agree with either. But claiming that the "left" is somehow the only ones that believe in freedom is incorrect. Most people in the political spectrum want to limit freedoms; its just a case of what freedoms.

one person's freedom ends when it infringes upon on anothers...so freedom of speech is limited/ends when it hurts someone else, that does not qualify as limiting anyone's freedom of speech, there are limits in social behaviour, "freedom" is not carte blanche and never will be...

the left has always promoted personal freedom and limited coroporate freedom...the right traditionally wants to limit personal freedom and leave coroporate unrestricted...the push for more social freedoms has always come from the left with the right digging in it's heels to change...

[wyly]

Really? You would see the vast majority of them simply walk away!

The entire Canadian marketplace is smaller than that of one American state, California.

Unlike you, my entire career was spent selling all those high tech computer chips, ICs, resistors, capacitors and such. I worked for large American distributors and several of the few Canadian ones that are left.

After 9/11, that industry totally collapsed! Almost all of it left the country. They went to China and Ireland, not really for cheaper labour but more for less taxes and drastically reduced government paperwork. Thousands of us lost our jobs.

Go on, Don Quixote! Chase those companies and demand they play by our rules! I could use a good laugh!

that's the efect of globalization and the shrinking planet and the same is happening in China with manufacturers there moving production jobs to countries with lower pay standards, take a look at your newer clothing labels where it used to say MADE IN CHINA now you'll find made in Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia ....

[segnosaur]

one person's freedom ends when it infringes upon on anothers...so freedom of speech is limited/ends when it hurts someone else...

I'm sure those on the religious right will be happy to know that they can use the argument "But seeing nudity in movies is hurting me and must end!"

I doubt many people will feel that our list of freedoms includes the right "not to be offended". And many of the cases that the Human Rights Commissions look at are just that... the right "not to be offended". (The only time Freedom of Speech should be curtailed is when it causes an immediate and direct danger.)

[wyly]

I'm sure those on the religious right will be happy to know that they can use the argument "But seeing nudity in movies is hurting me and must end!"

as my mother used to say "If you don't like it, then don't watch it", your watching nudity doesn't hurt someone who isn't present, if they were forced to watch it then that would be a different matter...

I doubt many people will feel that our list of freedoms includes the right "not to be offended". And many of the cases that the Human Rights Commissions look at are just that... the right "not to be offended". (The only time Freedom of Speech should be curtailed is when it causes an immediate and direct danger.)

hate speech and spreading hatred is dangerous...there's a fine line deciding when an opinion goes to far...

[DrGreenthumb]

Do you even recognize the discrepancy of those 2 statements?

Here's a little hint... being a 'libertarian' does not just mean that you want to smoke dope. It also means that you support economic freedom, including the right to engage in commerce with individuals from other countries (i.e. free trade). Your 'suggestion' to impose such trade barriers is completely anti-libertarian.

Oh please whine about the free market and then vote for a prohibitionist government, the hypocricy is delicious.

[segnosaur]

I'm sure those on the religious right will be happy to know that they can use the argument "But seeing nudity in movies is hurting me and must end!"

as my mother used to say "If you don't like it, then don't watch it"...

The same principle should also be applied to things like (for example) the Mohammmed cartoons that were subject of cases brought before the Human rights commissions.

hate speech and spreading hatred is dangerous...there's a fine line deciding when an opinion goes to far...

The fact that hate speech is bad is not the issue... the question is how to get rid of it. Some of us believe the idea of "suppressing" hate speech is naive, since it will only encourage such speech to go underground. The best solution is to allow all speech to flourish, and to counteract hate speech with actual facts, holding it up to the ridicule that it so richly deserves.

The fact that you seem to think "hate speech" is a valid excuse for suppression of human rights is symptomatic of the issue... people all across the political spectrum have no problem suppressing things they disagree with, always with some justification.

[wyly]

The same principle should also be applied to things like (for example) the Mohammmed cartoons that were subject of cases brought before the Human rights commissions.

there was a time not long ago you could be thrown in jail for saying anything annoying to the establishment would you prefer going back to those times?...or back to the time of Nazi Germany where cartoons depicting the Jews and Roma as sub humans?...we have freedom of speech now entrenched in our culture but there still needs to be limits finding/defining those limits is an ongoing issue that will evolve with time...

The fact that hate speech is bad is not the issue... the question is how to get rid of it. Some of us believe the idea of "suppressing" hate speech is naive, since it will only encourage such speech to go underground. The best solution is to allow all speech to flourish, and to counteract hate speech with actual facts, holding it up to the ridicule that it so richly deserves.

The fact that you seem to think "hate speech" is a valid excuse for suppression of human rights is symptomatic of the issue... people all across the political spectrum have no problem suppressing things they disagree with, always with some justification.

history supports my position, hate speech does not not dissappear on it's own...you can't outlaw stupidity but you can control it's spread...

[segnosaur]

On DrGreenthumb claiming to be a "Libertarian", yet making anti-free trade statements...

Do you even recognize the discrepancy of those 2 statements?

Here's a little hint... being a 'libertarian' does not just mean that you want to smoke dope. It also means that you support economic freedom, including the right to engage in commerce with individuals from other countries (i.e. free trade). Your 'suggestion' to impose such trade barriers is completely anti-libertarian.

Oh please whine about the free market and then vote for a prohibitionist government, the hypocricy is delicious.

First of all, the issue is you. YOU made the claim to be a Libertarian. Then YOU made a statement that illustrated a lack of Libertarian principles. Whether I or anyone else has made hypocritical statements is not the issue. What YOU stand for (or what you claim to stand for) is.

If you want to argue for reform of drug policy, fine. (I'd probably even agree on many points). If you want to express concern over the influence of the religious right then fine, do so. But don't call your one-issue (or 2 issue) calls for "freedom" as being "Libertarian". Libertarianism involves both social AND economic freedoms. Calling for one set of freedoms and ignoring the others does not make you "Libertarian" (at least in the modern political sense).

Secondly, I've never been hypocritical. I've always labeled myself a "moderate libertarian", and when I've given any sort of support to the conservative party, I've always been clear about why I might have supported them and the things that I am not happy with. I am not claiming to have a particular belief system of political beliefs, then turning around and making all sorts of statements contradicting those political beliefs.

[segnosaur]

The same principle should also be applied to things like (for example) the Mohammmed cartoons that were subject of cases brought before the Human rights commissions.

there was a time not long ago you could be thrown in jail for saying anything annoying to the establishment would you prefer going back to those times?

I find it very ironic that you would bring that up as an example, considering I'm arguing for just the opposite. In fact, it is people like you who are quite willing to prosecute people for saying things that are not approved of. I want the opposite... I want all speech (including the distasteful stuff) to be protected (except of course the exception of yelling movie in a crowded firehouse.).

The fact that hate speech is bad is not the issue... the question is how to get rid of it. Some of us believe the idea of "suppressing" hate speech is naive, since it will only encourage such speech to go underground. The best solution is to allow all speech to flourish, and to counteract hate speech with actual facts, holding it up to the ridicule that it so richly deserves.

history supports my position

Uhhh... no it doesn't.

hate speech does not not dissappear on it's own.

There is no guarantee that suppressing it will cause it to disappear either.

Many countries in Europe have had "hate speech" laws in place for years/decades. Yet there are still regularly incidences of such speech occurring (e.g. Le Pen, Aake Greene, etc.) . If quashing the right to free speech was supposed to stop such incidences from happening, it has certainly failed.

Edited August 30, 2010 by segnosaur

[wyly]

I find it very ironic that you would bring that up as an example, considering I'm arguing for just the opposite. In fact, it is people like you who are quite willing to prosecute people for saying things that are not approved of. I want the opposite... I want all speech (including the distasteful stuff) to be protected (except of course the exception of yelling movie in a crowded firehouse.).

it's people like you who want to spread ignorance and hate as it suits you under the guise of "freedom"

Uhhh... no it doesn't.

ya it does, where it isn't suppressed we end up with genocide, Bosnia, Rwanda...

There is no guarantee that suppressing it will cause it to disappear either.

Many countries in Europe have had "hate speech" laws in place for years/decades. Yet there are still regularly incidences of such speech occurring (e.g. Le Pen, Aake Greene, etc.) . If quashing the right to free speech was supposed to stop such incidences from happening, it has certainly failed.

we have traffic laws for speeding do the laws prevent people breaking those laws? no but without those laws the roads would be chaos and carnage...as I clearly stated stupidity can't be stopped but we can stop it being spread...

proponents of "free speech" as you envision it have the mistaken belief there are no limits on speech, sorry that is wrong every society has limits...freedom of speech does not allow you to slander and has not for a very long time nor does it allow anyone incite hatred...no one has issues with slander laws that protect them personally why is it you have issues with laws that protect minorities or identifiable groups?

[William Ashley]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20090327/ignatieff_harper_090327/

Liberals have a chance for majority next election. If it isn't this fall.

compare that with this

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/613925--liberals-gain-but-not-ignatieff-poll

The trend here shows the liberals taking a huge chunk of the vote.

Edited August 31, 2010 by William Ashley