When Should Harper Pull the Plug?

[The Terrible Sweal]

In the meantime, Jack Layton should send Harper a thank-you note, reading something like this:

"Dear Stephen,

Thank you showing the Liberals that they can't keep a non-confidence motion off the agenda. This really gives my party a boost in our efforts to try and get the Liberals to make some compromises on socially progressive legislation.

Thanks a bunch;

Action Jack."

-kimmy

You're onto something here, kimmy. As f...ed as the Liberals seem right now, the other parties are also completely jammed up.

The NDP desperately wants to avoid an election because they need some kind of success out of this minority government before they face voters. Still, they can't be seen to condone corruption or they will write themselves off.

Meanwhile, Harper can't bring down the government in conjuction only with a party that wants to destroy the state. It would look ... troubling.

[August1991]

Well here is my two cents on the election matter...

Keep in mind that despite my handle I do not exclusively belong to this line of political thinking...

Conservative1, I would quibble with some of your points but I tend to agree with your basic idea.

It's time for a change. And a change that would mean smaller, less intrusive government.

We need a new crew.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It's time for a change.  And a change that would mean smaller, less intrusive government.

And who is going to do this, exactly?

The party that wants to force Canadians to comply with its religious morality? Real unintrusive.

[daniel]

It's time for a change.  And a change that would mean smaller, less intrusive government.

We need a new crew.

In Ontario, we had a government that campaigned on smaller less intrusive government. It turned out the Tory governmetn under Mike Harris was the most intrusive we've ever had.

[Argus]

It's time for a change.  And a change that would mean smaller, less intrusive government.

We need a new crew.

In Ontario, we had a government that campaigned on smaller less intrusive government. It turned out the Tory governmetn under Mike Harris was the most intrusive we've ever had.

In what way was the Tory government more intrusive than others?

[Argus]

It's time for a change.  And a change that would mean smaller, less intrusive government.

And who is going to do this, exactly?

I'm guessing that would be the Tories.

The party that wants to force Canadians to comply with its religious morality? Real unintrusive.

There is no evidence of this. None. It's just mindless fearmongering.

[Argus]

Think about centrism. It means combining the best interests of the greatest number and accommodating as much diversity as possible. That includes regional interests.

A better description would be forming a compromise between different extremes in order to appeal to those on both sides of the political fence.

Fascism is what we get when we are like you in negating the basic principles of representative democracy.

As I suspected, not only do you not know what fascism is, you don't know what democracy is.

How old are you, btw? Have you graduated from high school yet?

A Fascist position is to vote for a party knowing that it espouses Facsist principles. And, latent Fascism is very apparent when so many on these boards proclaim their support for a party (the CPC) that has all the ingredients of Fascism but is saved from it only by the knowledge that the great majority of Canadians will consign it to the grave if it allows the Fascist element to take control.

What "ingredients" of Fascism do the Tories possess? Hint: Disagreeing with you is not Fascism. Actually, agreeing with you comes closer to Fascism.

[Guest eureka]

You might refer to the threads, Argus, where I have gone into Fascism in some detail. I also gave a list on one of the points where the "Conservative" party approahces Fascism.

For democracy, I have also given several detailed accounts of what this means and our comparatively working democracy. I even gave a definition of democracy that, though short, is truly comprehensive and one that has found acceptance in a much better informed strata of the world than this.

If you ever really want to debate those issues, I will actually devote time to that. I will fill in the great voids in your understanding.

[I Miss Trudeau]

There is no evidence of this. None. It's just mindless fearmongering.

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up.

Phew!

[cybercoma]

There is no evidence of this. None. It's just mindless fearmongering.

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up.

Phew!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same-sex marriage issue is more than just a religious issue. Not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriages is a religious extremist, contrary to popular belief.

[BQSupporter]

Harper and the BQ should pull the plug as soon has possible. They can not allow themselves to be dirty like the NDP by proping up criminals and liars.

[fracan]

There is no evidence of this. None. It's just mindless fearmongering.

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up.

Phew!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same-sex marriage issue is more than just a religious issue. Not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriages is a religious extremist, contrary to popular belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you! The SSM issue is hardly a religious one. Sure, there are Christians who are against it on religious grounds, but polls continue to show a majority (50-60%) of Canadians do not want it called marriage. I'm not one of them. I'm a conservative (libertarian is probably closer) who is rabidly anti-religion (it's the source of the world's problems, not the solution to them) and strongly in favor of SSM... Yet I can't vote purely on this issue alone, given everything else that's happening in our fair country these days.

Back on the stated topic, let's have the election asap!

[cybercoma]

Thank you!  The SSM issue is hardly a religious one.  Sure, there are Christians who are against it on religious grounds, but polls continue to show a majority (50-60%) of Canadians do not want it called marriage.  I'm not one of them.  I'm a conservative (libertarian is probably closer) who is rabidly anti-religion (it's the source of the world's problems, not the solution to them) and strongly in favor of SSM...  Yet I can't vote purely on this issue alone, given everything else that's happening in our fair country these days.

Back on the stated topic, let's have the election asap!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We could argue all day about the religion thing, although I'm agnostic, I really hate to see people say religion itself is the source of the world's problems. I don't know of a single religion that advocates murder, in fact all of them advocate loving one another etc. The point being, corrupt people ruin religion and use it as a tool for corrupt purposes. I find it awfully difficult to blame the religions.

[fracan]

I guess my main problem with religion is that it seeks and advocates easy answers to life's toughest problems.

Edit: At one point I considered myself an agnostic too, and other times an atheist. These days I really could care less what people would choose to label me. If god exists, he's a jerk.

[kimmy]

There is no evidence of this. None. It's just mindless fearmongering.

Thank goodness! Its comforting to know that the whole same sex marriage debacle has just been a nightmare, and the conservatives are going to stop their religious moralising as soon as I wake up.

Phew!

The same-sex marriage position adopted by the Conservatives is the same position adopted by theocracies like Holland and Sweden, and by hard-core right-wing religious kooks like Eureka. It is, in fact, a reasonable stance that nobody except hard-liners on either side of the issue should find objectionable.

Myself, I have an equally hard time figuring out why the religious types are opposed to using the word marriage in that context and why the homosexual community is insistent on using the word marriage in that context. I just don't get why it's such a big issue for either side... isn't it the rights that's the important part?

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Myself, I have an equally hard time figuring out why the religious types are opposed to using the word marriage in that context and why the homosexual community is insistent on using the word marriage in that context. I just don't get why it's such a big issue for either side... isn't it the rights that's the important part?

So I assume that you have no problem being a "non-person," given that you lack a penis, as long as you have all the rights of a person?

[kimmy]

The point you're trying to make was addressed repeatedly by people smarter than I am during the last SSM debate, so I'll just suggest that you use the forum's thrifty Search function to locate that thread and review. One problem with your example is that the comparison of "persons" and "non-persons" has a load of historical baggage that's simply not applicable in a discussion of "marriage" vs "civil union".

I'll just add that there are a multitude of instances where the term "men" or male pronouns, rather than gender-neutral language, are used in our society but taken to extend to women as well. Sensible people decided it was possible to simply understand the concepts to apply equally to women, without rechristening women as men. While I suspect RB will have some histrionics to get off her chest, I think most people weigh in on the side of "not that big a deal" on the subject of gender-neutral language, because the understanding that the principles apply to women as well as men has become universal in our society. While the belief that the rights and privileges of marriage will apply to civil unions as well is far from universal in our society, codifying it into law makes that a moot point.

However, my point wasn't to reopen that debate. It was simply to point out that given the number of socially progressive nations that have adopted a policy identical to the Conservatives', trying to characterize it as theocratic or barbaric seems like a real stretch.

-k

[RonnieWood]

Figue I'd add this to the mix:

'Poll puts Liberals in front'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

[Black Dog]

However, my point wasn't to reopen that debate. It was simply to point out that given the number of socially progressive nations that have adopted a policy identical to the Conservatives', trying to characterize it as theocratic or barbaric seems like a real stretch.

Keep in mind, though, that same sex marriage is already legal in Canada. The Conservative position is untenable.

As fopr whether we need an election, I'm glad to see we have one party in Canada who wants to make Parliment work for the people of this country. An election will come soon enough. And with polls showing Conservative support has seemingly hit the high water mark, I expect that Harper will tone down and back off, just as he was willing to work with the "criminal" Liberals on the budget when his part trailed.

[The Terrible Sweal]

However, my point wasn't to reopen that debate. It was simply to point out that given the number of socially progressive nations that have adopted a policy identical to the Conservatives', trying to characterize it as theocratic or barbaric seems like a real stretch.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if you start, as you have done, with your conclusion firmly established: that these nations are 'socially progressive' and thus automatically anything they do must not be barbaric.

The fallacy is clear.

[fracan]

However, my point wasn't to reopen that debate. It was simply to point out that given the number of socially progressive nations that have adopted a policy identical to the Conservatives', trying to characterize it as theocratic or barbaric seems like a real stretch.

Keep in mind, though, that same sex marriage is already legal in Canada. The Conservative position is untenable.

As fopr whether we need an election, I'm glad to see we have one party in Canada who wants to make Parliment work for the people of this country. An election will come soon enough. And with polls showing Conservative support has seemingly hit the high water mark, I expect that Harper will tone down and back off, just as he was willing to work with the "criminal" Liberals on the budget when his part trailed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, the depths of Liberal criminality had not yet come to the surface when the Conservatives pledged not to vote against the budget (take note -- not to support the budget). Second, we then found that Dion tried to stick some ludicrous bit into the budget about Kyoto which the Conservatives took exception to and plainly stated they could not support. Third, (and kind of off-topic) I think it's funny (if it didn't make me angry) that the NDP for some reason were not "getting into bed with the separatists" when both the Bloc and NDP voted against the budget -- possibly because they don't have the numbers to bring down the government like the Conservatives do.

Sweden and the Netherlands are two of the most socially progressive nations on the planet... There's really no argument you can make against that...

[Black Dog]

First of all, the depths of Liberal criminality had not yet come to the surface when the Conservatives pledged not to vote against the budget (take note -- not to support the budget).

Whaddaya mean? The Gomery inquiry was in full swing when the budget came down. Everyone knew already how crooked the Liberals are.

Second, we then found that Dion tried to stick some ludicrous bit into the budget about Kyoto which the Conservatives took exception to and plainly stated they could not support.

Sure, and then they worked it out, just as the NDP worked with the Libs to get some of their priorities put into the government.

Third, (and kind of off-topic) I think it's funny (if it didn't make me angry) that the NDP for some reason were not "getting into bed with the separatists" when both the Bloc and NDP voted against the budget -- possibly because they don't have the numbers to bring down the government like the Conservatives do

They weren't "getting in to bed" with them as much as they were on the same side of the issues. The Bloc and NDP are closer together on most policy points than the Cons, who were quite happy with the budget as long as it was giving wealthy corporations a tax break, and less so when it incorporated things like housing etc. So its hard to see the marriage of the left-progressive Bloc and the Cons as anything but a marriage of convienience for both (the end being power).

Sweden and the Netherlands are two of the most socially progressive nations on the planet... There's really no argument you can make against that...

So what? Is there same law that states that no one shall be more progressiv ethan them? Their stance on SSM is irrelevant to the Canadian debate. Under Canadian law, the sepreate-but-equal "civil unions" option is not an option at all.

[Argus]

As fopr whether we need an election, I'm glad to see we have one party in Canada who wants to make Parliment work for the people of this country. An election will come soon enough. And with polls showing Conservative support has seemingly hit the high water mark,

All Layton has done is reveal himself to be a whore. A whore with a high price, to be sure; $4.5 billion of our money. And Martin showed he didn't mind spending that money, billions of dollars, to prop up his government.

Then again, he and his people have been running around the country for the last few weeks scattering our money around as "gifts" for us.

[fracan]

First of all, the depths of Liberal criminality had not yet come to the surface when the Conservatives pledged not to vote against the budget (take note -- not to support the budget).

Whaddaya mean? The Gomery inquiry was in full swing when the budget came down. Everyone knew already how crooked the Liberals are.

Second, we then found that Dion tried to stick some ludicrous bit into the budget about Kyoto which the Conservatives took exception to and plainly stated they could not support.

Sure, and then they worked it out, just as the NDP worked with the Libs to get some of their priorities put into the government.

Third, (and kind of off-topic) I think it's funny (if it didn't make me angry) that the NDP for some reason were not "getting into bed with the separatists" when both the Bloc and NDP voted against the budget -- possibly because they don't have the numbers to bring down the government like the Conservatives do

They weren't "getting in to bed" with them as much as they were on the same side of the issues. The Bloc and NDP are closer together on most policy points than the Cons, who were quite happy with the budget as long as it was giving wealthy corporations a tax break, and less so when it incorporated things like housing etc. So its hard to see the marriage of the left-progressive Bloc and the Cons as anything but a marriage of convienience for both (the end being power).

Sweden and the Netherlands are two of the most socially progressive nations on the planet... There's really no argument you can make against that...

So what? Is there same law that states that no one shall be more progressiv ethan them? Their stance on SSM is irrelevant to the Canadian debate. Under Canadian law, the sepreate-but-equal "civil unions" option is not an option at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't matter that Gomery was in "full swing"... Brault hadn't testified yet.

The Conservatives and the Bloc are on the same side of the issue of federal encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. That's the issue underlying separatism, in my opinion. A Conservative minority would be able to work with the Bloc on many issues relating to this.

The point about Sweden and the Netherlands wasn't in response to your post (I think), but I really do believe that other countries' handling of the SSM issue is very relevant to how we are going to handle it here.

[Black Dog]

As fopr whether we need an election, I'm glad to see we have one party in Canada who wants to make Parliment work for the people of this country. An election will come soon enough. And with polls showing Conservative support has seemingly hit the high water mark,

All Layton has done is reveal himself to be a whore. A whore with a high price, to be sure; $4.5 billion of our money. And Martin showed he didn't mind spending that money, billions of dollars, to prop up his government.

Then again, he and his people have been running around the country for the last few weeks scattering our money around as "gifts" for us.

When a Con gets pissy about Layton, you know Jack's on to something.

When the polls are showing the Cons dropping, the Libs rising and the NDP's holding, expect that dull whine to build to a thundering crescendo. Over to you, maestro...

EDITED:

The Conservatives and the Bloc are on the same side of the issue of federal encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. That's the issue underlying separatism, in my opinion. A Conservative minority would be able to work with the Bloc on many issues relating to this.

As an Abertan, I know that provincial autonomy is a big issue. but I can't imagine the idea of the Cons playing footsies with the Kay-beckers (as they're known out here) playing well with their western base, given the traditional western (read: Albertan) animosity towards all things Quebec.

The point about Sweden and the Netherlands wasn't in response to your post (I think), but I really do believe that other countries' handling of the SSM issue is very relevant to how we are going to handle it here.

Not really relevant, since we're talking about different legal system, diffeent precedants and the single, overriding fact that SSM is already legal in most of Canada.