Looks like we're going to the polls.

[shoop]

I wouldn't be able to dig up enough facts for your satisfaction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We'll never find out unless you provide some!

[Guest eureka]

Wellandboy:

Would it not depend on one's definition of evil. There is some justification for thinking that someone who is bent on exacerbating the income differentials for people; for destroying public health care; for driving wedges into the cracks in Canadian unity; and a few more things, as evil.

Probably most would not consider those things as "evil:" just a selfish and self centred view of the world as it should be.

However, I can well understand one who actually cares about his country and its people thinking that is evil.

[wellandboy]

Eureka,

Actually there is no justification for considering Conservative policy or for that matter any mainstream political party policy evil. It simply doesn't exist in this country.

However, if I subscribe to your argument for a moment, let's look at a contemporary issue to see if evil applies.

Canada has a crisis on aborginal reserves concerning housing, unsafe drinking water and sewage treatment. The Federal Government has known for years about the conditions and done little or nothing to correct the situation until the recent mess in Northern Ontario.

By your definition the woeful neglect of this group of people is evil, whether by incompetence, stupidity or perhaps racism. A two term majority Chretien government demonstrated little concern for aboriginals while babies became sick and died.

By my definition, this sad and unfortunate situation isn't evil, but horrible government.

Making this forthcoming election about good and evil is just wrong. This is not Germany in 1932, but Canada in 2005. We as Canadians, regardless of our political stripes are fundamentally too decent to allow evil to rule us. Evil has no place in the political rhetoric in this country today by any definition or standard.

[shoop]

Eureka,

It's ignorant and beyond the rules of the forum. If poster's can't call Martin Mr. Dither's for the sake of decorum than calling Harper evil is definitely out of bounds. I, for one, definitely think Martin is a ditherer. but it simply isn't allowed.

Wellandboy:

Would it not depend on one's definition of evil. There is some justification for thinking that someone who is bent on exacerbating the income differentials for people; for destroying public health care; for driving wedges into the cracks in Canadian unity; and a few more things, as evil.

Probably most would not consider those things as "evil:" just a selfish and self centred view of the world as it should be.

However, I can well understand one who actually cares about his country and its people thinking that is evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[wellandboy]

Shoop it may well beyond the rules of the forum but it's realy beyond the rules of decency. The moral indignation and extreme statements I hear continually from these so called Liberals makes me ill. It proves that their belief that only Liberals are able to run this country and they are right and everybody else is wrong leads to bad government and worse, scandal. These people won't apologize for their statements because in their smug way they actually believe they hold the high moral ground.

The Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not purge the ADscammers in any meaningful way for this exact reason. It's why they need to sit on the other side of Parliament for four years. The sky will not fall in with a Conservative government and Canada will still be here. The only difference is somebody other than them will be making decisions. That's unacceptable to them so the ends will always justify the means.

[Guest eureka]

First, ir is not my definition of evil. Evil is a concept I do not accept. However, for those who do believe in evil, it is not a great leap to see the wilfull destruction of what was a decent nation as evil. I do not accept your definition of decency if you are measuring current Canadian mores as decent.

With a Conservative government of this persuasion, I do indeed think the sky will fall. The Harper clique is hell bent on reducing social programs to those of some long gone days of misery. It is determined to reduce the role of the federal government to that of a security guard. Its avowed aim is to reduce Canada to a collection of semi-autonomous states.

It is bent on continuing the Mulronry policy of "integrating" Canada into the US economy and, possibly, its polity.

I really do not care what anyone thinks of the Liberals at this time in Canada's history. If Canada is to survive as a nation and as a society worthy of the name of society, then it is anyone but the Conservatives.

And, if someone wants to describe that Conservative dream as evil it is alright by me.

[shoop]

Don't do describe a legitimate political party as evil here dickwad. The rules are what they are. You had no problem insulting me and quoting the rules when I fairly referred to your terrible leader as Mr. Dithers.

You do not have a god given right to come on this forum and blatantly disregard the rules.

Just like your party doesn't have the god given right to govern this country. The sky will fall when Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister? How convenient come from an idealogue of the only other party capable of forming national government.

If you can't respect the rules of the forum just leave.

And, if someone wants to describe that Conservative dream as evil it is alright by me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[wellandboy]

Eureka,

The sky will not fall, Canada is not a decent country it is a great country, if I measure current Canadian mores I cannot accept a Liberal Government whose behaviour is criminal, we are a country made up of 9 provinces, the Territories and Quebec a semi-autonomous state, social programs that are ineptly conceived & administered

(thank you Madame Auditor General), a strong economy based on policies implimented by the Mulroney Gov't., vowed to be removed in 1993 by Chretien, but never did because they were good policies, a country now lead by Mr. Martin the biggest tax evader in Canada's history who is supposedly the new defender of all that is Canadian,

it goes on and on.

Friday morning I will take some time off work to go to the Cenotaph in Welland, Ontario and pay my respects to those who died for Canada and humbly acknowledge those surviving veterans for their selflessness and sacrifice. It's on those aged faces I see one more reason this country is great. They witnessed first hand what is truly evil.

No matter how much you people want to turn up the rhetoric, the greatness of this country is not in it's leaders, but in it's citizens. We can disagree on politics but Canada will be okay because of Canadians.

[tml12]

Don't do describe a legitimate political party as evil here dickwad. The rules are what they are. You had no problem insulting me and quoting the rules when I fairly referred to your terrible leader as Mr. Dithers.

You do not have a god given right to come on this forum and blatantly disregard the rules.

Just like your party doesn't have the god given right to govern this country. The sky will fall when Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister? How convenient come from an idealogue of the only other party capable of forming national government.

If you can't respect the rules of the forum just leave.

And, if someone wants to describe that Conservative dream as evil it is alright by me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Shoop, while a much stronger Conservative voter than I, makes a point.

It is very hard for me to hear someone say the current Liberal Party is the protector of this country's social programs and healthcare. It may have been the Liberal Party that introduced many of them, but it was also the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and has recorded many consecutive underestimated surpluses since then by cutting various programs and reducing corporate taxes. Just because the Conservatives may be willing to take it a step further, that suddenly makes the Liberals the protectors of all of our programs? Paul Martin and the Liberal elite are well taken care of, as are the Conservatives.

While I certainly do not endorse the NDP, I will say that if any party's voter has any right to say there party will stop cutting programs, it is the NDP voter.

[shoop]

Very fair post tml. I may not agree with everything you say, but I appreciate the fact that we can have a reasonable discussion while disagreeing.

I would say it would be fairer if you said the NDP is the only party that would spend signicifantly more money on social programs, unless it is another Liberal minority and they are looking for the NDPs support again.

I think Shoop, while a much stronger Conservative voter than I, makes a point. 

It is very hard for me to hear someone say the current Liberal Party is the protector of this country's social programs and healthcare.  It may have been the Liberal Party that introduced many of them, but it was also the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and has recorded many consecutive underestimated surpluses since then by cutting various programs and reducing corporate taxes.  Just because the Conservatives may be willing to take it a step further, that suddenly makes the Liberals the protectors of all of our programs?  Paul Martin and the Liberal elite are well taken care of, as are the Conservatives.

While I certainly do not endorse the NDP, I will say that if any party's voter has any right to say there party will stop cutting programs, it is the NDP voter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

Very fair post tml. I may not agree with everything you say, but I appreciate the fact that we can have a reasonable discussion while disagreeing.

I would say it would be fairer if you said the NDP is the only party that would spend signicifantly more money on social programs, unless it is another Liberal minority and they are looking for the NDPs support again. 

I think Shoop, while a much stronger Conservative voter than I, makes a point. 

It is very hard for me to hear someone say the current Liberal Party is the protector of this country's social programs and healthcare.  It may have been the Liberal Party that introduced many of them, but it was also the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and has recorded many consecutive underestimated surpluses since then by cutting various programs and reducing corporate taxes.  Just because the Conservatives may be willing to take it a step further, that suddenly makes the Liberals the protectors of all of our programs?  Paul Martin and the Liberal elite are well taken care of, as are the Conservatives.

While I certainly do not endorse the NDP, I will say that if any party's voter has any right to say there party will stop cutting programs, it is the NDP voter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Shoop. I do not consider myself a very partisan voter, and none of the parties match me on every issue. While I know where I am on the political compass (such as the one August put up awhile back), I do not know which Canadian party that translats to.

A friend of mine suggested I take this test (http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=canpoliparties)

the only one online (I think) that grades you according to our political parties. And what are my results? Something like Martin=98 and Harper=96 with Layton and Duceppe down far below that. That must mean I am somewhere near the two of them. Of course, I would also need to know the criteria by which the makers of that test grade the party leaders by.

At this point, I cannot say who I will officially endorse in the next election. Perhaps I'll vote for a minor party.

[Argus]

First, ir is not my definition of evil. Evil is a concept I do not accept. However, for those who do believe in evil, it is not a great leap to see the wilfull destruction of what was a decent nation as evil.

This is a matter of interpretation. First, no policy by any party is "wilfully" going to destroy the country. To suspect otherwise is, frankly, cause for others to question your sanity. A policy might well be wrong-headed and stupid, but those who put it in certainly don't believe it is going to destroy or even damage the country. I don't even think that of the idiot Liberals. But let's examine, for a moment, immigration.

Now given the level of immigration, and the type and belief of immigrants over the last twenty five years, we can say that much of what WAS Canada, has been destroyed by mass immigration. The cultural value set and belief systems of the newcomers are vastly at odds with what was here before, and in large measure because of this, much of what Canada was - is no more. And given continued mass immigration, which the Liberals plan to actually greatly increase, plus the much greater birth rate of the cultures which are coming here, it is not unreasonable to believe Canada will continue to change in the direction of foreign cultures. I posted, on another thread, the statement that 40% of the children being born in France now are Muslim, and that given current numbers, France will be a majority Muslim state in just two generations. What is to become of the Canada that is, in another generation? I could easily say the Liberals are wilfully destroying Canada. But I don't think it's wilful. I just think they're stupid, thoughtless, and think only of their own short-term electoral hopes.

With a Conservative government of this persuasion, I do indeed think the sky will fall. The Harper clique is hell bent on reducing social programs to those of some long gone days of misery.

Like what? I mean, given social programs are a provincial responsibility.

It is determined to reduce the role of the federal government to that of a security guard. Its avowed aim is to reduce Canada to a collection of semi-autonomous states.

I really don't care as long as things get done properly. The government is not my mommy, and I don't want it to be. I think that is the major diference between us. You need the government to be there for every little problem which crops up in your life, or with society as a whole. I want them to take out the garbage and see to the sewers and stuff like that.

[wellandboy]

Very fair post tml. I may not agree with everything you say, but I appreciate the fact that we can have a reasonable discussion while disagreeing.

Thanks for that. One of the reason I participate in Forums is that not only can I express my views but listening to others I can actually learn something. All in all not a bad thing!

[tml12]

Very fair post tml. I may not agree with everything you say, but I appreciate the fact that we can have a reasonable discussion while disagreeing.

Thanks for that. One of the reason I participate in Forums is that not only can I express my views but listening to others I can actually learn something. All in all not a bad thing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have always thought that the best way to have more respect for your opinion is to listen to the opposing viewpoint.

[Guest eureka]

Shoop: you are very good at sneaking in insulting words while crying about being insulted. I do not insult you since it would be too easy a task.

Neither have I ever quoted Forum rules or run to Greg about your ignorance or anyone else's.

Try debate; you might get to like it. It is much to be preferred to your snivelling.

[Guest eureka]

Wellandboy: If you take the trouble to read whay I posted and have posted consistently for a long time, you might find something to argue with rather than doing an imitation of Dr. Pangloss.

This is wilfull destruction of the country and its civil society that the Harper clique presents. I have given reasons. Perhaps you should also read Argus who, though wrong as always, does present argument and agreement with the aim of the "Conservatives"

[Guest eureka]

You know, Argus, that I do, in some measure, agree with you about immigration. The change in the origin of our immigrants has been too large and too rapid so that the cultural values that you and I would want to maintain have been adulterated. There many, though, who would say that is no bad thing.

I do think that you are unnecessarily alarmist and that we are not going to be swamped. It is estimated, btw, that France will be 20% Muslim by 2025: nowhere near a majority. Also, many of those Muslims are as French as De Gaulle. It is the last generation of immigrants who have not been integrated because of the economic realites of France. That is what needs to be faced.

Social programs are not entirely a provincial responsibility. It is the federal government's overriding responsibility to ensure that the provinces do have basic standards and to ensure that the provinces do have the resources to maintain them.

As for not caring that the aim of the Harper gang is to create a nation of semi-autonomous regions, I think you should start to care. There is not an example in history of any such system surviving. If the end of Canada is a desirable goal, then feel free to cater to Harper's Albertan-American dream.

[shoop]

Your insults really are sad. Explain how calling Harper and/or the Conservative Party of Canada 'evil' is fostering debate. Split hairs if you want about not 'starting' it, but your reasons for defending ScottBrison's use of the term. See that would be reasonable debate, if you are being honest about wanting to see debate here.

Try debate; you might get to like it. It is much to be preferred to your snivelling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[I Miss Trudeau]

Explain how calling Harper and/or the Conservative Party of Canada 'evil' is fostering debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Calling Martin and/or the Liberal Party of Canada "corrupt" is, clearly, much different.

Split hairs if you want about not 'starting' it, but your reasons for defending ScottBrison's use of the term. See that would be reasonable debate, if you are being honest about wanting to see debate here.

While I find the term evil to be generally nonsensical, something like it could easily, and justifiably, be applied to a group determined to prevent the equal treatment of all people.

]

[shoop]

How is it different? The Liberal Party just admitted to corruptly obtaining 1.14 Million dollars from the public trust. And now that they have been caught they have *promised* to pay it back.

Any such clear cut evidence to support calling the Conservative Party of Canada "evil"?

Calling Martin and/or the Liberal Party of Canada "corrupt" is, clearly, much different.

[tml12]

How is it different? The Liberal Party just admitted to corruptly obtaining 1.14 Million dollars from the public trust. And now that they have been caught they have *promised* to pay it back.

Any such clear cut evidence to support calling the Conservative Party of Canada "evil"?

Calling Martin and/or the Liberal Party of Canada "corrupt" is, clearly, much different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once you are that partisan, Shoop, you rarely come back and see reality.

[err]

First, ir is not my definition of evil. Evil is a concept I do not accept. However, for those who do believe in evil, it is not a great leap to see the wilfull destruction of what was a decent nation as evil.

This is a matter of interpretation. First, no policy by any party is "wilfully" going to destroy the country.

No... just dismantle our public health-care system, under-fund education, restrict and reduce UI benefits, practice tight-money policies which benefit only the wealthy.... That's not destroying the country... It's making it better for the really wealthy....

With a Conservative government of this persuasion, I do indeed think the sky will fall. The Harper clique is hell bent on reducing social programs to those of some long gone days of misery.

Like what? I mean, given social programs are a provincial responsibility.

And much of the funding for social programs, like health care, subsidized housing, etc... comes from the federal government and is doled out by the provincial government.... So when the federal government cuts transfers to the province, it has to cut something.... and social programs seem to be the easy target...

It is determined to reduce the role of the federal government to that of a security guard. Its avowed aim is to reduce Canada to a collection of semi-autonomous states.

I really don't care as long as things get done properly. The government is not my mommy, and I don't want it to be. I think that is the major diference between us. You need the government to be there for every little problem which crops up in your life, or with society as a whole. I want them to take out the garbage and see to the sewers and stuff like that.

Well, to go back to one of your earlier arguments.... garbage and sewers are a provincial responsability...

An example of the necessity of the federal government would be health care... which is a "provincial responsibility".... however, the Feds hand out the money to the province, and can and should stipulate how and where it is spent. Ie. on public health care rather than private..... You'll note that this is significant enough of an issue to tear down our liberal government...

[wellandboy]

Dr. Pangloss? Ouch

I don't have to go back too far and read your posts because the mantra is the same. Liberals- good, Conservatives- bad (evil)

As for debate, I can and will debate but every argument you present is based upon castastrophe and dire consequences. The premise that Canada will suddenly implode because of a non-Liberal government is ridiculous. This fear mongering is is how the Liberal Party does business and this is how Liberals highjack real debate.

Canada was presented with these so-called imminent castrophe scenerios regarding GST and Free Trade. Wasn't so bad after all because we still have both. Now it's a challenge to Trudeau's notion of Federalism and we will suddenly become semi-autonomous states. Health care isn't debated because if you open your mouth you are assailed with the fact that you want to turn Canada's system into an American style system, not possibly some of the very successful European models. Just read our Minister of Health's quotes in the last six months.

When all else fails there's personal attacks. Dr. Pangloss indeed.

[shoop]

Touché! The Liberals have gone to that well one too many times methinks. Poor poor Martin...

As for debate, I can and will debate but every argument you present is based upon castastrophe and dire consequences. The premise that Canada will suddenly implode because of a non-Liberal government is ridiculous. This fear mongering is is how the Liberal Party does business and this is how Liberals highjack real debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[err]

As for debate, I can and will debate but every argument you present is based upon castastrophe and dire consequences. The premise that Canada will suddenly implode because of a non-Liberal government is ridiculous.

It would appear to me that postion presented is that the dire consequences would be a result of a Conservative government rather than a "non-Liberal" one...

Canada was presented with these so-called imminent castrophe scenerios regarding  GST and Free Trade. Wasn't so bad after all because we still have both.

I know a guy who was devastated because he got Herpes... but, using your logic, it isn't so bad, because he still has it....