Defending the indefensible

[BigGunner]

Two opposing factors are at work in this election..

1. A desire to punish Martin and Liberal party corruption;

2. The progressive nature of an overwhelming majority of Canadians

Point 1

Martin signed the cheques as finance minister. The buck should have stopped at his desk, but he refused to allow the light of day shine down on the facts surrounding the AdScam and other Liberal stunts.

The Liberals have been in power since 1993 and oversaw the worst cuts to health and education ever since this country has had public healthcare and education

Point 2

Canadians are Liberal minded. Speaking in a pure generic term, Canadians are Liberal on social policy. They are pro-choice, they are warming up to same-sex marriages, they are pro-peace/anti-war (aggressive war), they support the notion of an adequate social safety net, and measures to protect the environment

For the Conservatives, point one works in their favour. The tories have always been identified as the other natural governing party in Canada. Or at least the entity that used to be the Progressive Conservatives had that identity.

But point number two completely works against the Conservatives. Most of the conservatives are not progressive at all. Most are pro-life, most are opposed to same sex marraiges, most would have wanted Canada to participate in the Iraq war, and most have no use for Kyoto despite the fact that Canadians support Kyoto by over 70%.

There is very little left of the progressives of the old PC party that are a part of the inner circle of the new Conservatives. But Canadians aren't that willing to run back to the Liberal party to stop this Conservative party (US Republican farm team) from winning. Instead, progressive from both sides have left the Liberals and Conservatives and are finding new homes in the NDP.

For Conservatives to campaign on similiar themes as George Bush will not get them victory.

[Argus]

Canadians are Liberal minded. Speaking in a pure generic term, Canadians are Liberal on social policy. They are pro-choice, they are warming up to same-sex marriages,

I guess then that the over half of Canadians who expressed a desire for some kind of laws against abortion, and who oppose same-sex marriage are uh, what? Un-Canadian? Do they not count in your reasoning?

But point number two completely works against the Conservatives. Most of the conservatives are not progressive at all. Most are pro-life, most are opposed to same sex marraiges, most would have wanted Canada to participate in the Iraq war, and most have no use for Kyoto despite the fact that Canadians support Kyoto by over 70%.

if most Conservatives are pro-life would you care to tell me why an attempt to put an anti-abortion policy in the Reform Party's platform, then the Alliance's platform, were soundly defeated in both instances?

As for same-sex marriage, the majority of Canadians are also opposed, or very nearly the majority. So? Oh, but they don't count, right? Kyoto? Every single person I spoke to who has said he supports Kyoto does so in a sort of wishy-washy "well, it means cutting back on pollution, right" kind of way. They have absolutely no knowledge of what Kyoto means, what it will cost, or what the end results would be.

For Conservatives to campaign on similiar themes as George Bush will not get them victory.

Can you name any of these "similar themes"? No? I thought not.

[BigGunner]

if most Conservatives are pro-life would you care to tell me why an attempt to put an anti-abortion policy in the Reform Party's platform, then the Alliance's platform, were soundly defeated in both instances?

Simple...members of both parties clearly understand that passing such a policy is supremely unpopular in Canada and that they would lose loads of support in the cities.

As for same-sex marriage, the majority of Canadians are also opposed, or very nearly the majority.

Same sex marriage question is a 50/50 split. Consider that its not even close in America.

Every single person I spoke to who has said he supports Kyoto does so in a sort of wishy-washy "well, it means cutting back on pollution, right" kind of way. They have absolutely no knowledge of what Kyoto means, what it will cost, or what the end results would be.

Kyoto is a set of principles that every member-country must find its own way to achieve. In Canada, cutting car exhaust emmissions would be a good start, as would finding rewnewable energy as opposed to buring coal for hydro power...to start with.

Wind farms in the praries or coastal regions would produce enegy with little or no impact on the surrounding landscape, and produce zero pollution. And the air is free - no need to dig it out of the earth or refine it with chemicals, etc.

Can you name any of these "similar themes"? No? I thought not.

1. Massive tax cuts...Gordon Campbell style. Just like George Bush, the massive tax cuts have created massive deficits, and ballooning debt.

2. Massive military buildup...this will make AdScam look cheap by comparison. And deficit spending has long been dismissed by economists

3. Cutting social service funding...the conservative platform calls for $13.1 billion in spending cuts.

[takeanumber]

right on Gunner!

[Slavik44]

if most Conservatives are pro-life would you care to tell me why an attempt to put an anti-abortion policy in the Reform Party's platform, then the Alliance's platform, were soundly defeated in both instances?

Simple...members of both parties clearly understand that passing such a policy is supremely unpopular in Canada and that they would lose loads of support in the cities.

As for same-sex marriage, the majority of Canadians are also opposed, or very nearly the majority.

Same sex marriage question is a 50/50 split. Consider that its not even close in America.

Every single person I spoke to who has said he supports Kyoto does so in a sort of wishy-washy "well, it means cutting back on pollution, right" kind of way. They have absolutely no knowledge of what Kyoto means, what it will cost, or what the end results would be.

Kyoto is a set of principles that every member-country must find its own way to achieve. In Canada, cutting car exhaust emmissions would be a good start, as would finding rewnewable energy as opposed to buring coal for hydro power...to start with.

Wind farms in the praries or coastal regions would produce enegy with little or no impact on the surrounding landscape, and produce zero pollution. And the air is free - no need to dig it out of the earth or refine it with chemicals, etc.

Can you name any of these "similar themes"? No? I thought not.

1. Massive tax cuts...Gordon Campbell style. Just like George Bush, the massive tax cuts have created massive deficits, and ballooning debt.

2. Massive military buildup...this will make AdScam look cheap by comparison. And deficit spending has long been dismissed by economists

3. Cutting social service funding...the conservative platform calls for $13.1 billion in spending cuts.

unfortunantly

there was this plane and it flew into a building, and then there was this other plane and it flew into a building, and then there was this other plane, and it flew into a building, and the there was this other plane and it flew into the ground. It caused numerous economic problems and put the U.S into a bit of a recesion. People were scared so scared that the principel behind the tax cuts couldn't take affect for the first little while, that coupled together with the actual economic impacts of september 11th, is what is mainly responsible for the debt. then there was this war in afgahnistan, not iraq, Afgahnistan that by anyones standard was justifiable, it too cost some money.

[takeanumber]

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane change my life, or my world.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane take away my Charter rights.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane justify the torturing/humiliation of another human being.

If you want to let those 17 men take away your Charter rights, then sign up for that kind of treatment. That's your choice.

But not me. Not in my Canada.

I choose freedom.

[jordan]

From what I heard The Tories never met to Define their Issues and Platform--they are scattered,fragmented Party that each of it's members believes their former Alliance Ideas are it's Agenda and Platform-It was never voted on by the Party members and Defined before this Election because their wasn't any time.....

[BigGunner]

unfortunantly

there was this plane and it flew into a building, and then there was this other plane and it flew into a building, and then there was this other plane, and it flew into a building, and the there was this other plane and it flew into the ground. It caused numerous economic problems and put the U.S into a bit of a recesion. People were scared so scared that the principel behind the tax cuts couldn't take affect for the first little while, that coupled together with the actual economic impacts of september 11th, is what is mainly responsible for the debt. then there was this war in afgahnistan, not iraq, Afgahnistan that by anyones standard was justifiable, it too cost some money.

Unfortunately, the financial impact of 9/11 lasted 6 months. The mini-recession it created is supposed to be over.

The tax cuts failed to generate more jobs. The tax cuts however did inflate the off-shore account holders of America's super-wealthy.

But thanks to some idiotic amendment that George Bush's admin. brought it, corporations now get a tax break when they EXPORT jobs to other countries, such as India or Indonesia. This is something that Harper needs to avoid like the plague.

Bush's tax cuts created the largest deficits in American history - $500 billion this year alone...and balooned the USA debt to its worst ever at $7 trillion dollars.

This is the kind of trickle down economics that Gordon Campbell has attempted here in BC...and met with the same painful results. The largest deficits in BC's history, and $10 billion in new debt in less than three years.

This unfortunately is the kind of electoral bribery being attempted by Harper and the Conservatives.

Tax cuts...bought and paid for by Canada's hard working people by user fees and $13 billion in service cuts.

Harper is running for election on the WRONG COUNTRY.

[Bionic Antboy]

I guess then that the over half of Canadians who expressed a desire for some kind of laws against abortion, and who oppose same-sex marriage are uh, what? Un-Canadian? Do they not count in your reasoning?

Okay, you say that over half of Canadians want laws against abortion. When you say that, do you mean over half of Canadians want a ban on abortions, or set limits as to when they can be performed? Your wording is kind of fuzzy, so if you have some data to back that up, that would be swell...

(what the hey, I'll google it myself )

On abortion, you imply that over half of Canadians want laws against abortion. Let's take a look at this first...

According to a poll conducted by Ledger Marketing, and commissioned by the Christian Coalition International Canada (not exactly a pro-choice champion), the fact is that the large majority of Canadians support access to abortion although they don't say the exact number, interestingly enough.

They also say that over 75% of Canadians support restrictions to abortion but they don't qualify that with what types of restriction.

Here's the link...

http://www.ccicinc.org/editorials/111003.html

So you're statement regarding Canadian opinions on the issue misleading, to say the least. I'm sure I could dig up some less biased data, but hey, when even the CCI© says the "large majority supports access to abortions" why belabour the point.

As for the same-sex marriage issue, as Gunner stated, it's basically a 50/50 split, and fluctuates in a minor way. That's besides the point, because same-sex marriage is a Charter of Rights issue. It wouldn't matter if 80% of the population is against it, because it's WRONG. Gays are equal under the law as straights and deserve the same rights and freedoms we enjoy.

Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights. Giving gays the right to marriage does NOTHING to diminish the rights of straight couple.

Despite the red herring some Conservatives have implied, gay marriage doesn't mean that churches would EVER be forced to perform a same-sex wedding. Religious rights are already protects, and would be in no way diminished.

Plain and simple.

[August1991]

Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question.

Canadians are Liberal minded. Speaking in a pure generic term, Canadians are Liberal on social policy. They are pro-choice, they are warming up to same-sex marriages, they are pro-peace/anti-war (aggressive war), they support the notion of an adequate social safety net, and measures to protect the environment

That is so much kitsch that it amounts to a series of falsehoods. What the hell do you mean by "warming up to same-sex marriages"? What is "aggressive war"?

Capital-L Liberal on social policy? What is an "adequate" social safety net? What environmental "measures"?

That's not an argument. It's Canadian pablum.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane change my life, or my world.

Have no fear of the 17 men. They're dead and of no danger to anyone.

IT'S THE NEXT 17 YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF.

A dfifferent generation of Canadians stood up to bullies. In fact, they stood up to the bullies before the Americans did. Are you saying you're a coward, takenumber?

[Bionic Antboy]

Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question.

Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights. Keeping gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will see it that way.

[August1991]

Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights.

You are in the business now of interpreting spirits?

[Bionic Antboy]

Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights.

You are in the business now of interpreting spirits?

Just stating my opinion. Is there a problem with that?

[idealisttotheend]

takeanumber:

  I refuse to let 17 men in a plane change my life, or my world.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane take away my Charter rights.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane justify the torturing/humiliation of another human being.

If you want to let those 17 men take away your Charter rights, then sign up for that kind of treatment. That's your choice.

But not me. Not in my Canada.

I choose freedom.

August:

  A dfifferent generation of Canadians stood up to bullies. In fact, they stood up to the bullies before the Americans did. Are you saying you're a coward, takenumber?

I think takeanumber just said he/she isn't a coward. It takes courage to recognize that Sept. 11th was not the first shot in some sort of misbegotten war but a criminal act of mass murder. It takes courage not to let Sept 11 push your economy into recession. It takes courage not to lose your values and strengths when times get a little tougher, (the White House is now undertaking to redefine the word torture to exclude almost everything that doesn't cause death -- Big Brother wants control of language just like Wells said he would).

If you told this last generation about how you could have this one attack (in going on three years now) would be compared by the American president to WW2, I don't know what would happen but it wouldn't be pretty.

IT'S THE NEXT 17 YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF.

No I'm not afraid of seventeen men in airplanes. Even if they get through the new security than whatever happens is what will happen and I will deal with it as it comes. I will not be afraid because that is what those seventeen men want and I won't give it to them under any circumstances.

[Argus]

if most Conservatives are pro-life would you care to tell me why an attempt to put an anti-abortion policy in the Reform Party's platform, then the Alliance's platform, were soundly defeated in both instances?

Simple...members of both parties clearly understand that passing such a policy is supremely unpopular in Canada and that they would lose loads of support in the cities.

Ah, I see, which uh, is why they're going to immediately ban abortion when they get into power. Riiiiiight. How clever of them.

Every single person I spoke to who has said he supports Kyoto does so in a sort of wishy-washy "well, it means cutting back on pollution, right" kind of way. They have absolutely no knowledge of what Kyoto means, what it will cost, or what the end results would be.

Kyoto is a set of principles that every member-country must find its own way to achieve. In Canada, cutting car exhaust emmissions would be a good start, as would finding rewnewable energy as opposed to buring coal for hydro power...to start with.

Kyoto is a set-in-stone requirement that we reduce emmisions by about 20%, which would cost billions and God only knows how many jobs. Nor would it result in an improvement in the air quality. It would merely slow the build-up of greenhouse gases by a small amount.

Can you name any of these "similar themes"? No? I thought not.

1. Massive tax cuts...Gordon Campbell style. Just like George Bush, the massive tax cuts have created massive deficits, and ballooning debt.

The tax cut Harper is proposing is half the one Martin proudly announced four years ago. Does that make Harper only half as similar to George Bush as Paul Martin is?

2. Massive military buildup...this will make AdScam look cheap by comparison. And deficit spending has long been dismissed by economists

Uhm, the Americans haven't launched a "massive military build-up" as such. They already had a huge military. Harper, on the other hand, merely wants a "rebuilding" of our military, which is on the brink of collapse. Not quite the same thing.

3. Cutting social service funding...the conservative platform calls for $13.1 billion in spending cuts.

Sorry, but that's a lie. There are no announced plans for cuts to social program spending, On the contrary there are plans for a major infusion of funds, particularly to health care.

So I guess you really don't know what you're talking about, eh?

[idealisttotheend]

Kyoto is a set-in-stone requirement that we reduce emmisions by about 20%, which would cost billions and God only knows how many jobs.

How can it cost money and jobs? If it costs money that is because money will have to be spent reducing emissions which will create jobs implimenting the changes. New technologies require people to work at them just as the old ones do.

Nor would it result in an improvement in the air quality.

Huh? You just said it would reduce emissions by 20%.

It would merely slow the build-up of greenhouse gases by a small amount.

As opposed to quickening the build up of gases, sounds good to me. Or are you arguing for stricter emission controls?

[Argus]

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane change my life, or my world.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane take away my Charter rights.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane justify the torturing/humiliation of another human being.

If you want to let those 17 men take away your Charter rights, then sign up for that kind of treatment.  That's your choice.

But not me. Not in my Canada. 

I choose freedom.

The young are so uh... uh... dramatic. Bravo! Thank God there's people like you to stand up to those evil conservatives and stop them from taking all your freedom away! And destroying Canada! And putting babies in concentration camps! And eating puppies! And ... and... and bringing back the new coke! Ahhh! Their evil will never ends! Thanks be to God for clever people like you who can see through them!!

[Argus]

Unfortunately, the financial impact of 9/11 lasted 6 months. The mini-recession it created is supposed to be over.

The tax cuts failed to generate more jobs. The tax cuts however did inflate the off-shore account holders of America's super-wealthy.

Are you operating under the odd belief that all tax cuts are exactly the same? I agree that Bush's tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy. That does not mean or even imply that the tax cuts the Tories have announced will be similar.

[Argus]

I guess then that the over half of Canadians who expressed a desire for some kind of laws against abortion, and who oppose same-sex marriage are uh, what? Un-Canadian? Do they not count in your reasoning?

Okay, you say that over half of Canadians want laws against abortion. When you say that, do you mean over half of Canadians want a ban on abortions, or set limits as to when they can be performed?

If I had meant to say that over half of Canadians wanted to ban abortion I would have said so. I meant precisely what I said. Most Canadians want access to abortions, but most do not want total access to abortion on demand. They want some laws, particularly with regard to late term abortions. The statistics were posted here earlier by someone, not in this thread, but on one of the other threads related to abortion or social policies.

As for the same-sex marriage issue, as Gunner stated, it's basically a 50/50 split, and fluctuates in a minor way.  That's besides the point, because same-sex marriage is a Charter of Rights issue.  It wouldn't matter if 80% of the population is against it, because it's WRONG.  Gays are equal under the law as straights and deserve the same rights and freedoms we enjoy.

I love this complete and total faith some people express in the political appointees to the Supreme Court. So tell me this, if Harper appoints some born against so the SC and they rule that abortion is not a legal right will you immediately turn about and say that abortion is wrong and illegal?

[Argus]

Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question.

Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights. Keeping gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will see it that way.

How do you know what was the spirit of the Charter? Were you around when it was written? Are you aware that the attempt by some, such as Svend Robinson, to include sexual orientation in the charter was trounced by a huge vote? If a constitution is to have any moral authority it ought to be interpreted the way the framers of that constitution wanted it, not whichever way the political hack judges of today choose to interpret it. Remember, an arch conservative could appoint conservative judges to the bench tomorrow and hey, presto, suddenly the Charter was not meant to protect sexual orientation!

[Argus]

I think takeanumber just said he/she isn't a coward.  It takes courage to recognize that Sept. 11th was not the first shot in some sort of misbegotten war but a criminal act of mass murder.  It takes courage not to let Sept 11 push your economy into recession.  It takes courage not to lose your values and strengths when times get a little tougher,

It takes no courage to stick your head in a hole in the ground and pretend nothing's happening.

IT'S THE NEXT 17 YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF.

No I'm not afraid of seventeen men in airplanes. Even if they get through the new security

You are aware, aren't you, that there is NO new security in Canada? Canada has done basically nothing to tighten security since 911.

[Argus]

Kyoto is a set-in-stone requirement that we reduce emmisions by about 20%, which would cost billions and God only knows how many jobs.

How can it cost money and jobs? If it costs money that is because money will have to be spent reducing emissions which will create jobs implimenting the changes. New technologies require people to work at them just as the old ones do.

Oh please. Idealism is nice and all, but when dealing with scientific realities and economics you need a much colder, harsher eye. It will cost money because we will have to spend billions and billions in environmental controls for factories, close down coal burning plants and build new plants, likely nuclear. That will cost our economy both in terms of higher taxes and in terms of more expensive production of goods. Meanwhile, most of the world, including the Americans, who we compete with, will be under no such burden. Their goods will become cheaper while ours will be more expensive. That will cost many, many jobs.

Nor would it result in an improvement in the air quality.

Huh? You just said it would reduce emissions by 20%.

OUR emissions, not the world's emissions. Most of the world won't have to reduce emissions because their emissions are already low (third world countries mostly). But the reduction of emissions does not translate into an equal 1 for 1 reduction in the buildup of greenhouse gases. many things are responsible for greenhouse gases, not just factory and auto emissions.

It would merely slow the build-up of greenhouse gases by a small amount.

As opposed to quickening the build up of gases, sounds good to me. Or are you arguing for stricter emission controls?

The only way we're going to get a handle on greenhouse gases is through new technologies, which tend to come better with health economies.

[idealisttotheend]

It takes no courage to stick your head in a hole in the ground and pretend nothing's happening.

I didn't say anything about a hole in the ground. Acts of mass murder are investigated and those directly responsible brought to justice. Perhaps I should have mentioned also the courage to admit you made a mistake instead of declearing war to divert attention.

And the courage to call a spade a spade.

The young are so uh... uh... dramatic. Bravo! Thank God there's people like you to stand up to those evil conservatives and stop them from taking all your freedom away! And destroying Canada! And putting babies in concentration camps! And eating puppies! And ... and... and bringing back the new coke! Ahhh! Their evil will never ends! Thanks be to God for clever people like you who can see through them!!

You can be quite dramatic yourself Argus, and funny. But in this case I think I will put takeanumber's post up on my wall. Canada is defined by it's values and freedoms, no one will remember or care about tax rates or transfer payments levels 10 years from now. While I don't think we are in big trouble here yet the US is going that way and the Arar case shows us that we must defend Canadian values or lose them forever.

[Bionic Antboy]

Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question.

Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights. Keeping gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will see it that way.

How do you know what was the spirit of the Charter? Were you around when it was written? Are you aware that the attempt by some, such as Svend Robinson, to include sexual orientation in the charter was trounced by a huge vote? If a constitution is to have any moral authority it ought to be interpreted the way the framers of that constitution wanted it, not whichever way the political hack judges of today choose to interpret it. Remember, an arch conservative could appoint conservative judges to the bench tomorrow and hey, presto, suddenly the Charter was not meant to protect sexual orientation!

....

I can't see how denying matrimonial rights to gays can be seen as anything other than treating gays as second-class citizens, and contrary to that spirit, in the context of a free and democratic society.

More to the point, you haven't expressed one clear reason why you are against same-sex marriages.

[Argus]

I can't see how denying matrimonial rights to gays can be seen as anything other than treating gays as second-class citizens, and contrary to that spirit, in the context of a free and democratic society.

Don't be naive. Pick the right judge and you'll get whatever interpretation you want.

More to the point, you haven't expressed one clear reason why you are against same-sex marriages.

That's difficult to articulate in a forum such as this one where posts are essentially limited to a few paragraphs. It involves a number of things such as the breakdown of the family, the ease of divorces, the number of children born out of wedlock and being raised by single parents. The right of Marriage does not have the respect or reverence it once had. People get divorced a couple of years later over minor disagreements or unhappiness. Or don't bother getting married at all. Marriage was once the most important institution in our society, central to the family and the raising of children. To death do us part meant something. And yes, I know that was not always a good thing given some of the losers who got married, but overall, for society, it was a good thing. Hell, there's so little importance placed on marriage and family now we're not even reproducing ourselves. Letting gay people "marry" just seems one more degredation of the term "marriage".

On top of that is my extreme distrust for lawyers and our political loser judges. I am convinced the present permisiveness will lead to a court judgement legalizing multiple mariages within a few years, and have a strong suspicion that, in concert with the recent "reading in" of sexual preference to the Charter we will see courts trying to order religious institutions to marry gays.