Who is best to be the next PM of Canada?

[Argus]

So "Might makes Right" and wealth makes right, Argus, and it is childish and communistic  to oppose that idea. What a good little follower of certain Fascist princoples you are becoming.

Oh grow up. Your infantile whining is becoming tiresome. I said nothing about might being right. I pointed out the reality of life in a capitalist system; that when you have more money you get more and better of everything. If you have any reason why this should not apply specifically to health care while applying to everything else then do try and articulate your beliefs.

We all have equal rights to access to healthcare. If it were not so, then we would all have the right to say that society has abandoned us and to commit any act necessary for our own survival - or even pleasure.

To suggest we all have equal access to health care is just plain idiocy. I have already pointed out, using examples, that those with connections or wealth skip ahead of lines or simply go to the US. To which you have chosen not to respond. My interest is in a general improvement of the health care system for everyone. Your interest appears to be a wild-eyed jealous opposition to the notion that someone with more money than you will get treated faster - even if such a process does speed up your own eventual treatment. I am interested in results, not ideological extremism. If adding private money to the health care mix will make for a better system for everyone I'm all for it.

Rich people have better stuff than you. Deal with it.

[Guest eureka]

We should definitely look at those countries, Cybercoma, as I have suggested several times. We should look at them, not because our system is a "failed" one but to see whether there is anything that can be taken that would improve ours. We should also analyse why they can with their equally funded public systems do it more economically than we.

France, BTW, is beginning to run into problems because of its co-payment provisions.

We should also look int the Japanes idea of payment for parent and relative homecare for many of the elederly that we keep in hospitals and drain our funding thereby.

There are lots of publically funded systems out there that we might be able to learn something from just as many could get a few ideas from us.

What there is not is a private system that can provide us with any tips. The only essentially private system that ranks as better than ours is Switzerland. There, the cost, in GDp terms, is almost double the Canadian cost.

What there is not, also, is one country where the system is subjected to provincial jurisdicitons and accessibly ato the citizens of provinces if the province can afford to provide care.

What there is not is a country where heathcare differs in its coverage from one part of the country to another.

Your argument about MRI's comes down to nothing more than that we need some more machines. So, stop arguing for wealth is health and support the initiatives to improve the funding for the system.

[Guest eureka]

You argue for nothing of the sort, Argus, and you are an extremely bitter person. Your posts are always a tirade of abuse for anyone who does not agree with you or for political systems that are not in accord with your favoured ideology.

The whining is all yours. You can never reaosn until you get some of the red out of your eyes.

[Argus]

You argue for nothing of the sort, Argus, and you are an extremely bitter person. Your posts are always a tirade of abuse for anyone who does not agree with you or for political systems that are not in accord with your favoured ideology.

The whining is all yours. You can never reaosn until you get some of the red out of your eyes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual; sullen complaints about my not being nice to you, complete evasion about the question at hand.

[last_niceguy]

I have always liked Harper. Even during the years that I was a Liberal I hated the man because he just said the right stuff and seemed the best man to lead the country.

Lately he has said some things that bother me, such as the little slip about the multi-parliaments a few months ago, and I am edgy about his ties with the Bloc. However, out of Paul (I don't know what I am doing) Martin and Jack (Trade union party) Layton I see Stephen Harper as the best canidate. (no need to include the Bloc in there at all!)

[cybercoma]

I have always liked Harper. Even during the years that I was a Liberal I hated the man because he just said the right stuff and seemed the best man to lead the country.

Lately he has said some things that bother me, such as the little slip about the multi-parliaments a few months ago, and I am edgy about his ties with the Bloc. However, out of Paul (I don't know what I am doing) Martin and Jack (Trade union party) Layton I see Stephen Harper as the best canidate. (no need to include the Bloc in there at all!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper hardly has "ties" with the Bloc, they simply have a common enemy.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have always liked Harper. Even during the years that I was a Liberal I hated the man because he just said the right stuff and seemed the best man to lead the country.

Lately he has said some things that bother me, such as the little slip about the multi-parliaments a few months ago, and I am edgy about his ties with the Bloc. However, out of Paul (I don't know what I am doing) Martin and Jack (Trade union party) Layton I see Stephen Harper as the best canidate. (no need to include the Bloc in there at all!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper hardly has "ties" with the Bloc, they simply have a common enemy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have more in common than that. Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

[August1991]

They have more in common than that. Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

The only way that the BQ and the Tories are allied is in their desire to defeat a corrupt Liberal government that wants to cut corporate taxes one day and then wants to spend $4.5 billion on an NDP shopping list the next.

If you believe this Liberal government is "a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole" then, as they say, I've got a nice bridge for sale...

The old argument that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for national unity since only the Liberals can win seats in Quebec is laughable now. To think, some people are afraid of a Tory government because it will have no Quebec seats and won't properly represent the country! Well, that's what we've got now with the Liberals!

At least the Tories are honest and upfront about what they are. The Liberals still carry on with this fiction that they represent the party of national unity.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The only way that the BQ and the Tories are allied is in their desire to defeat a corrupt Liberal government that wants to cut corporate taxes one day and then wants to spend $4.5 billion on an NDP shopping list the next.

Please have a little respect for our intelligence. The Bloq wants a separate Quebec. 'Firewall' Harper wants a diminished federal government. Anyone can see how these interests run together.

If you believe this Liberal government is "a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole" then, as they say, I've got a nice bridge for sale...

I don't think it has to do with the fact that the Liberal party forms the present government.

The old argument that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for national unity since only the Liberals can win seats in Quebec is laughable now. 

After the Bloq, there will still be more Liberals from Quebec than either of the other parties. But the reason Liberals represent national unity now is that the Tories don't anymore. (And haven't ever since Mulphoney.)

At least the Tories are honest and upfront about what they are. 

What!?! The Tories are trapped in a continuous helix of on the one hand fighting eachother over what they are, and on the other hand hiding whatever that is.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why should you be able to dictate to me what I spend my money on?

No-one is doing that. The Canada Health Act doesn't stop you from spending your money. What it does is require health care providers to offer services through certain channels. Like broadcasting, banking, and all sorts of other regulated industries.

Why should it be that while I save my money, not splurging on a car, and trips down south, I am then not free to use it to get an MRI and thus save myself months and months of pain?

Why should it be that while feeding six kids, volunteering for local community services, and working 40 hours per week for $45,000/year my neighbor could be bankrupted by an illness or just die, while a selfish, single person who happens to have inherited a few million gets to live?

The idea that you shouldn't be able to buy better health care is ludicrous.

The idea that a society would allow money to be the criteria of whether you get quality health care is barbaric.

The well-off, the well-connected, get better health care.

Isn't that what you advocate? Then what exactly are you complaining about?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

The idea that a society would allow money to be the criteria of whether you get quality health care is barbaric.

Why? This is merely an extension of the free-enterprise ideal of 'Everyman for himself'. Perhaps it goes back to your thread "Fundamental Q#4", "What is a right?" and certainly, as a 'leftie', I agree with you regarding universal health care, but that does not mean the majority will. Some will argue that the 'quality' of health care can only improve if it is driven by the profit motive.

Just think, if health care were to be privatized, the rich could afford the real doctors, and after the funding was cut to all Canadian hospitals, Wal-mart could buy them up and offer us wholesale rates from 'minimum wage Doctorbs' (The 'B' is for 'bargain!')

[Black Dog]

Canada will not implode if the CPC is elected into office, contrary to what propaganda tells you. They're NOT going to cutoff public healthcare in one swoop, leaving millions of people dying in the streets...among all the other ridiculous nonsense people keep citing.

Indeed, not much wil change if the Liberal-lite CPC gets into power. They don't have a vision or a plan for the country beyond just grabbing their share of the pie.

That's not to say they don't harbour a deep-seeded desire to roll back most progressive social reforms and hurry us along the path of division and marginalization, but most of the nutjobs wil be held in check by political inertia.

So I'll break the deadlock and say Jack Layton and watch the hyperbole fly.

[Argus]

Harper hardly has "ties" with the Bloc, they simply have a common enemy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have more in common than that. Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposition, and biased supposition at that.

[Argus]

Why should you be able to dictate to me what I spend my money on?

No-one is doing that. The Canada Health Act doesn't stop you from spending your money. What it does is require health care providers to offer services through certain channels. Like broadcasting, banking, and all sorts of other regulated industries.

Let's not be disingenuous, hmm? By forbidding anyone from selling me a service you are implicitely forbidding me from purchasing that service.

Why should it be that while I save my money, not splurging on a car, and trips down south, I am then not free to use it to get an MRI and thus save myself months and months of pain?

Why should it be that while feeding six kids, volunteering for local community services, and working 40 hours per week for $45,000/year my neighbor could be bankrupted by an illness or just die, while a selfish, single person who happens to have inherited a few million gets to live?

In a capitalist system your purchasing power decides what goods and services you can get, and what the quality of those goods and services will be. That is why I live in a bungalow and not a mansion, and why I don't have a limosine driving me to work. You can take the tack that all people, regardless of abilities, skills or efforts, should have the same purchasing power, should be "equal" in their ability to obtain housing, food, medicine, etc., but that just is not the case in our system, and never has been.

The idea that you shouldn't be able to buy better health care is ludicrous.

The idea that a society would allow money to be the criteria of whether you get quality health care is barbaric.

Why? Money determines what food and shelter you get. You need to be reasonably well off to get good dental care, vision care, chiropractic care, physiotherapy, to pay for medicine, etc. (unless you're elderly or dirt poor and can get the government to pay). All services are governed by the market, which, btw, if you compare dentistry to other medical services, seems to work pretty darned well.

So why is it different for most health care services?

The well-off, the well-connected, get better health care.

Isn't that what you advocate? Then what exactly are you complaining about?

What I advocate is that lefties wake up and smell the coffee. Their ideolistic, communistic belief in absolute equality has never been more than a joke, no matter where it's been tried. There is and always has been preferential treatment for the wealthy. Clinging to this childish belief merely serves to keep the health care system starved of funds so that it is unable to properly serve most Canadians.

[Melanie_]

I will support the Liberals in the next election. As I stated before, the Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals; the Conservatives are just as vulnerable to opportunists within their party as anyone else. And while Harper himself doesn't inspire me with confidence, some of the Reform/Alliance diehards in his party make me worry about minority rights, gay rights, women's rights, the list goes on. There is too much of a discrepency in what I hold to be important and what the traditional Conservatives hold to be important for me to support them, and the chances that the Conservatives would hold power for any length of time without a political scandal or two seem too slim to use that as a justification for compromising other strong values.

[Argus]

I will support the Liberals in the next election. As I stated before, the Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals;

Yes, in point of fact they do. There is no such suggestion of corruption, kickbacks, deals with organized crime, or election fraud about the Conservatives or New Democrats or Greens. Only about the Liberals. You are attempting that world-weary, utterly self-defeating suggestion that since 'all politicians" are corrupt, well then, there's no point in trying to punish those that get caught. If you try to use this in any other walk of life you'd see at once how foolish and destructive that sort of belief is. You can see already how destructive the belief that "all politicians lie" has been to politics already. Since the belief is "all politicians lie" people shrug and go ahead and vote repeatedly for politicians even though they lie. In point of fact, not all politicians lie. But by refusing to punish those that do lie you are increasing the lies and dishonesty in politics. Now by shrugging and accepting gross corruption and racketeering, saying you'll vote for the Liberals regardless, what you are saying is that you don't care about corruption and theft, which of course, if many feel as you do, will without question have the result of increasing the amount of corruption and theft in government. Why wouldn't it? If people don't care about it?

he Conservatives are just as vulnerable to opportunists within their party as anyone else.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Do I trust lawyers? No. But when I have to hire one I will pass over one who is known to be dishonest. Maybe the one I hire will be dishonest too, but at least there's no certainty about it.

And while Harper himself doesn't inspire me with confidence,

And Martin, a liar, a thief, a man willing to twist the tax laws to his own benefit, a man who in a year or more of being PM has drawn the derisive label "Mr. Dithers" from a foreign magazine which really has no axe to grind?

some of the Reform/Alliance diehards in his party make me worry about minority rights,

Are you aware that the Tories have more visible minority MPs than any other partyf\, and habitually field more visible minority candidates and have more visible minority members than any other party?

gay rights, women's rights, the list goes on.

So far a very short list indeed, consisting of no specifics at all. Clearly not wanting same sex marriage would be what you call "gay rights" obstacle, but what kind of womens rights do you imagine the Tories are going to threaten?

There is too much of a discrepency in what I hold to be important and what the traditional Conservatives hold to be important for me to support them,

Like what?

Tell me, do you hold honesty to be important? How about a government which keeps its promises? Do you think a judiciary made up of learned men as opposed to those who bought their positions is important? Health care reform? Is that important? What about financial integrity? Is it important to you that the party you support does not steal your money and commit election fraud with it? Yes? No?

Just not as important as homosexual marriage, though? Hmm.

[Melanie_]

It is very brave of you to suggest that anyone in politics is above scandal or corruption; perhaps I am as cynical as you think, although for the most part I am an optimist. At this point, I am still waiting for the inquiry's results, so maybe that shows just how optimistic I really am. It is misleading for you to challenge my belief in honesty and contrast it with my other statements - I did not say I didn't value honesty, just that I didn't see it as being any more (or less) likely from the Conservatives than the Liberals, and that the current scandal is not enough for me to back the Conservatives on the issues they support.

Yes, I do think same sex marriage is valid.

Despite having visible minorities, I have heard a number of bigoted comments over the years from Reform/Alliance members that still sting.

As for women's rights, I have yet to hear a Conservative support a woman's right to choose termination of an unplanned pregnancy.

Privatization of health care would favour the rich living in large, mainly southern, urban centres - we have a vast country that requires the money and resources to be spread out to all.

That may seem like a short list, but it seems like a good start to me.

[Argus]

It is very brave of you to suggest that anyone in politics is above scandal or corruption; perhaps I am as cynical as you think, although for the most part I am an optimist. At this point, I am still waiting for the inquiry's results, so maybe that shows just how optimistic I really am. It is misleading for you to challenge my belief in honesty and contrast it with my other statements - I did not say I didn't value honesty, just that I didn't see it as being any more (or less) likely from the Conservatives than the Liberals, and that the current scandal is not enough for me to back the Conservatives on the issues they support.

I am a cynic myself, but not even I believe that all politicians are corrupt - nor even all lawyers, believe it or not. And by accepting lies and corruption when it is found all we do is encourage more of it. I don't know that another government won't be corrupt. I do know that if the corruption of the Liberals leads to an avalanche of people voting against them then the next party in power will be much more careful about how they raise money. At the same time, if the voters yawn and shrug and think it's no big deal, I can practically guarantee there will be more such creative accounting form our political parties.

Yes, I do think same sex marriage is valid.

So do I! I just don't think it's very important on a national scale which includes people dying in waiting rooms for lack of doctors. It affects a miniscule number of people, and to be blunt, does not affect them very much.

Despite having visible minorities, I have heard a number of bigoted comments over the years from Reform/Alliance members that still sting.

I'm sure you have. There was a time when if the friend of the uncle of the guy who services the taxi which occasionally drove the riding secretary's aged granny around was heard to use a pejorative term against a minority it would be front page on the Star and leading every national newscast. It made for a good story, and played into the prejudices of Toronto reporters. But generally speaking, the same comment when spoken by an unimportant Liberal or New Democrat never made the media as it wasn't considered newsworthy. I remember the time Jean Chretien said he liked Black people "because of their big white smiles", and boastingly told the Chinese during a visit "I have a guy in my cabinet he look like a Chinese too!" - referring to a Philipino Rey Pagtakhan. This was the Prime Minister, and such churlish, breathtakingly idiotic statements and more went almost entirely unremarked upon. Meanwhile, the sister of the guy who once worked for the uncle of a friend of the husband of a former reform candidate would make national headlines when he said there were too many immigrants in Canada.

As for women's rights, I have yet to hear a Conservative support a woman's right to choose termination of an unplanned pregnancy.

You haven't been listening too closely then. There are many pro-choice Conservative MPs, and there were always many Pro-Choice Alliance and Reform Mps. In fact, the Reform party voted down a motion at one of their earlier conventions which would have called for the outlawing of abortion.

Privatization of health care would favour the rich living in large, mainly southern, urban centres -

Do you honestly think the "rich" living in large, southern urban centres are going to hospital emergency rooms and waiting ten hours to see a doctor, or waiting eighteen months for an MRI? Come on! Wake up! Paul Martin and people of his type wave their pinkies and a servant runs to fetch a doctor. If they need a diagnostic tool they're pushed into line ahead of everyone else, or simply take a quick jaunt to the US. Alan Rock, former Health minister, got surgery in a few weeks that others had been waiting many, many months for. Chretien went to the US for surgery. The Liberals don't care about health care except as a tool to use against the tories every election. They don't care if it falls apart, and Martin has all but admitted he has no ideas and no plans to improve it. It's "fixed for a generation" you know. Moving our system into line with those in Europe would help relieve much of the stress from the public system by providing a secondary source of funding and services. It would not be the rich who would make use of it but the middle class. And this could well help improve the public system.

God knows something has to be done. And the Liberals are not going to do it.

[August1991]

I will support the Liberals in the next election. As I stated before, the Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals; the Conservatives are just as vulnerable to opportunists within their party as anyone else.

Melanie, it is this quote that I find most depressing. I don't know if you really believe it or you choose to believe it as an excuse for voting Liberal.

If you prefer to vote Liberal despite their corruption, don't be ashamed to say so. But don't rely on the frail argument that these Liberals are no different from all other politicians. I disagree.

There have been numerous politicians in Canada and abroad who are or were honest while having to accept many compromises. Politics need not be a criminal game. I will mention three names: René Lévesque, John Crosbie and Eric Kierans. There are many others. Paul Martin is clearly not one of them.

If Canada is to exist as a country, surely we must first have reliable people leading us. They do exist.

[Guest eureka]

Are you not falling into the same trap as so many, August? You are selling the "truth" of, as yet, unsupported allegations.

There is, as yet, no evidence of dishonesty on the part of the Liberals. Still, only some bureaucrats and some on the periphery of the Party are alleged to have been involved. There is as much "evidence" against the PQ.

I would agree with your three and I could name a lot of others, Liberals as well. Your insinuation that Martin is dishonest has no foundation. He is a lot of things that I could not support - for one, he is a closet conservative in the new sense of that word - but there is no taint of dishonesty.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Oh grow up. Your infantile whining is becoming tiresome.

What hasbecome tiresome is your frequent resort to vapid and insulting repudiations rather than argument.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Harper hardly has "ties" with the Bloc, they simply have a common enemy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have more in common than that. Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposition, and biased supposition at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt. It is not supposition, it is ratiocination. Surely you don't deny that the CPC stands for limiting the federal government?

Don't blame the Liberals if your agenda is showing. They didn't dress you.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I don't know if you really believe it or you choose to believe it as an excuse for voting Liberal.

If you prefer to vote Liberal despite their corruption, don't be ashamed to say so. But don't rely on the frail argument that these Liberals are no different from all other politicians.  I disagree.

Your position contains an inherent inconsistency. You say one mustn't judge all politicans the same, but you also say one must judge all Liberals the same. My Sovereigntist friend, your fangs are showing!

Politics need not be a criminal  game.  I will mention three names: René Lévesque, John Crosbie and Eric Kierans.  There are many others.  Paul Martin is clearly not one of them.

I continue to await anyone presnting some evidence implicating Martin in this. I don't know Kierans. But John Crosbie??? Get real!

[August1991]

All three were Liberals at one point in their careers and all three resigned on principle - two chose to leave the Liberal Party and go elsewhere. John Crosbie left the Liberal Party because of the appalling behaviour of Joey Smallwood. Rene Levesque founded the Parti Quebecois and went on to become premier. Eric Kierans remained a Liberal although he resigned from the Trudeau cabinet.

As to PM PM, he of course is involved in this Adscam. It would be impossible for him not to be. He was a major figure in the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party. And of course he will deny it very strongly. Martin's stock in trade - like many politicians - is his ability to appear sincere. I suspect he truly believes what he is saying when he says it. But that doesn't make it true.

In some ways, I prefer such politicians to the honest ones who try to do good. The ones who try to do good often get caught up in grand schemes that usually go nowhere.

In this case though, PM PM appears to want to make the government bigger and he has thoroughly botched the delicate relations between regions in this country. And all things considered, Canadians in general are happier with honest politicians who administer the government well.

Paul Martin and this Liberal government must go.

You may not like the source but I suggest you read this column. I. F. Stone would be proud of such journalism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

All three were Liberals at one point in their careers and all three resigned on principle - two chose to leave the Liberal Party and go elsewhere.  John Crosbie left the Liberal Party because of the appalling behaviour of Joey Smallwood.  Rene Levesque founded the Parti Quebecois and went on to become premier.  Eric Kierans remained a Liberal although he resigned from the Trudeau cabinet.

To me, this passage simply reinforces your prejudice. Your criterion for honesty is leaving the Liberal party. A modern-day Robespierre, you'd send every Liberal to the guillotine.

As to PM PM, he of course is involved in this Adscam.  It would be impossible for him not to be.  He was a major figure in the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party.  And of course he will deny it very strongly. 

And still, no evidence.