Harper Dragging Canada into Exteme Danger

[geoffrey]

Your last post, Geoffrey, was intriguing. The sentiments put you in the tory line and away from the Conservatives.

What people do not seem to understand is that the current Conservatives are not tory at all - not even close to it. They are more clasical liberals. It is the Liberals and the NDP who are more tory.

It shows that selfishness never dies in the human race. People can still be seduced by the flattery of the appeal to their "rugged individualism" and to personal responsibility.

Only when they fall on hard times do they develop a social conscience.

I feel I'm kind of a socialist that took too much economics.

If your calling me more of the old school PC type, I would tend to agree to some extent. However, I have been moulded towards the Calgary School (I'm a finance/economics major at the u of c) with the economics aspects so really I'm more in line with Harper on this then I ever would be with a Mulroney or Clark. I also really contend towards the personal responsibility idea, induviduals are ultimately responsible for their place in society. That doesn't mean we should just leave everyone to struggle however.

I am supporting the Conservatives because I think its unethical to vote for a criminal party. I also have concerns about Liberal social engineering policy, something I could never support. I have supported the Liberals before, and before that the PC's when they existed.

I disagree that either the Liberals or NDP are tory at all, they are definately in the socialist category currently. The Liberals have acted tory before.

Agreed that the CPC is definately more classical Liberal then Canada has ever seen before.

[mar]

In gneral, sage. I agree with you. However, the reasons for the "poor" who will always be with us are not generally those that you list and that are claimed by the Right. The poor are poor mostly, because they are intellectually or physically inferior to put it in a simple way. They are incapable of "succeeding" in a complex world.

The Left has always been motivated by this truism and its purpose is to use government to give the disadvantaged a reason to live. The whole of human history has been the success of the species following its community values and care for its own. Only in the last few centuries have the doctrines of Personal responsibility and individualism been extended to economic life.

Every "civilization" has been buit on slavery and those economic ideas (in a rudimentary way before this one), and every civilization has collapsed, always in part at least, because of its uneven benefits.

You gettin' tired, eureka?

I really disagree with your first paragraph. Most of us - if we're lucky - go through life not realizing that we're walking a tightrope over the abyss, that we're totally unprepared for and totally incapable of dealing with a catastrophic change in our life or the lives of those in our immediate family.

Many of the poor were not always so. Some of them lost their careers through a long illness. Some of them found themselves in a family situation where a parent or child was terminally ill and the burden of providing care and trying to survive financially proved to much and they ended up with neither career or money or the family member who ultimately died.

Some of them made one mistake that landed them in prison, after which your life is never the same. And lets not be naive or sententious about this, most of us have made at least one mistake in our lives that could have landed us in prison. Did you ever drive drunk, maybe have an accident but without any fatalities? As a teenager did you ever in one stupid moment do something that could have killed or seriously injured someone else? I could go on, but pretty much everyone I know has one of those "there but for the Grace of God go I" moments.

Some of them were just so screwed over and brutalized by the time they reached 18 that "normal life" was no longer an option.

I'll stop now.

[Guest eureka]

I would not disagree with you at all, mar. However, it is transparently clear that a substantial portion of every population is unfitted by nature to survive without help.

All the factors you mention are only too real but they do not make up the majority of the "poor." And charity is no answer for the needs are too great.

You and I would seem to have had some similar life experiences, though!

[Hollus]

I would not disagree with you at all, mar. However, it is transparently clear that a substantial portion of every population is unfitted by nature to survive without help.

All the factors you mention are only too real but they do not make up the majority of the "poor." And charity is no answer for the needs are too great.

You and I would seem to have had some similar life experiences, though!

This substantial portion you speak of, are you saying their unfit to survive because of born ability?

If so I hope you've got some valid studies to back this up.

[geoffrey]

I would not disagree with you at all, mar. However, it is transparently clear that a substantial portion of every population is unfitted by nature to survive without help.

All the factors you mention are only too real but they do not make up the majority of the "poor." And charity is no answer for the needs are too great.

You and I would seem to have had some similar life experiences, though!

This substantial portion you speak of, are you saying their unfit to survive because of born ability?

If so I hope you've got some valid studies to back this up.

Never though I'd see the day where I defend eureka...

I think eureka is saying that some people are born without the capability to live without assistance. This is obviously true.

[Hollus]

I would not disagree with you at all, mar. However, it is transparently clear that a substantial portion of every population is unfitted by nature to survive without help.

All the factors you mention are only too real but they do not make up the majority of the "poor." And charity is no answer for the needs are too great.

You and I would seem to have had some similar life experiences, though!

This substantial portion you speak of, are you saying their unfit to survive because of born ability?

If so I hope you've got some valid studies to back this up.

Never though I'd see the day where I defend eureka...

I think eureka is saying that some people are born without the capability to live without assistance. This is obviously true.

thats exactly what eureka is saying. Sorry if Im being a little thick, but it sounds to me like your talking about special needs children.

But not to digresslink

[hiti]

I dare any Harper supporter to dispute that Harper will use the Belgium model to change Canada into his own image.

'' BELGIUM: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch. Under the 1994 constitution, autonomy was granted to the Walloon region (Wallonia), the Flemish region (Flanders), and the bilingual Brussels-Capital region; autonomy was also guaranteed for the Flemish-, French-, and German speaking “communities.” The central government retains responsibility for foreign policy, defense, taxation, and social security.'' ( SOURCE: © 2000–2005 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease)

That's what you can expect IF you were to ever elect HARPER and the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives!! But Harper does NOT tell you this in plain words. He just glibly suggests that Canada might adopt the Belgium model of federal government; that he would give more powers to the provinces/territories, and reduce the role of the federal government, without spelling out the details. His hidden agenda are in the details.

Here are some of the details: Harper supports an elected SENATE highly influenced by the provinces. An elected Senate would trump the primary parliamentary function and responsibilities of the House of Commons -- just as it does the House of R. in the USA.

You would be paying very large salaries to Harper and his caucus for doing little work-- (remember when Harper and his neo-con caucus refused to show-up in the H or C for one of the readings of Godale's finance bill?, or when they refused to show up for work in committees? and when Stockwell Day suggested that the H of C should shut down from Thursdays through Mondays? -- and for their vastly reduced responsibilities --four in total, ''a la Harper's Belgium model,'' expressed some months ago: (1) foreign policy, (2) defence; and Harper and his western group would only (3) collect your taxes to build up and maintain the Armed forces (to help George Bush); and his ''soc-con'' policies would probably make it very difficult for you to get (4) social security benefits (Harper and the ''soc-cons'' are promising you reduced taxes, but they don't tell you ( hidden agenda) that if they let you keep more in your pocket to spend, then you are going to have to look after yourself and families by paying much more than you are allowed to keep, for ALL the services and health benefits that you may/will need.

The federal civil service would be drastically reduced since ALL other federal government services but these four areas, would be handed over to the provinces. Imagine Canadians having NO federal department of Justice, no Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC would be useless since each autonomous province would be administering and pronouncing on its own laws), of health, of immigration, of employment/unemployment insurance, of fisheries, of agriculture, of human resources, of public works, of communications and transportation, of language, culture/Arts and bilingualism, of security, RCMP, and CiSIS; and all the other federal departments now in existence!!

When Harper and his Reform-Alliancers/Neo-cons went out last Summer trying to re-design and soften his ice-cold, angry, straight-jacket, stoic image, just remember what's behind the fake smile, the nice guy, the smoothe, it's-okay-to-trust-me image. Just recall the Harris ''common-nonsense Revolution, and the anguished legacy that that government left for Ontarians. Recall the Harris-Manning 'think-tank' report on Canada's health system, as opposed to the Romanov report!!

If we elect (Harper to govern), we will deeply regret it!!!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mar,

Many of the poor were not always so. Some of them lost their careers through a long illness. Some of them found themselves in a family situation where a parent or child was terminally ill and the burden of providing care and trying to survive financially proved to much and they ended up with neither career or money or the family member who ultimately died

I would say that this represents perhaps 1% of the 'poor', because in all cases above, the financial brunt of illness is not borne solely by the individual.

Another few percent of the 'clinically poor' are mentally ill, perhaps even 10%. I would estimate that at least 75% of those getting 'wlfare' are those who are directly responsible for their lot.

[sage]

Another way of looking at the reason to help the "impoverished" is not necessarily out of a sense of altruism, but rather in self interest.

As for myself, I justify the broad spending on social programs out of a sense that it inherently benefits society by not having a rogue and hungry lower class. This is starkly different to an altruistic purpose, but is one which I do not regret.

Of course this is a cold statement, but I hate to break it to everyone: life is short and rough generally speaking.

[sage]

As for Hiti's comments regarding the evolution of the senate, what else other then an elected senate with equal regional representation will move this country away from its stark regional conflicts?

I'd remind you that in part the current system is responsible for the mess we have now.

Generally speaking the model you describe limiting the role of the federal government to "foreign policy, defense, taxation, and social security'' is the one envisioned under the constitution and its division of powers.

Health care for example, is one area of complete provincial jurisdiction, yet somehow the fed's have their hands on the strings? The reason you will counter is the lack of funding available to provincial coffers. To this I would agree, and the question is how do we address it? Have an inflexible federal government tax us to the us and remit it to the provinces? Why not simply let the provinces have the taxing capacity to address this on their own?

The problem is that convention has become the complete disregard for provincial jurisdiction.

[Guest eureka]

To simplify! take a Bell curve of IQ. 25% of any population is below 90. That is High grade morons, imbeciles or idiots in psychological parlance.

That 25% will never develop computer skills or any skills that are necessary to the earning of a competence in a complex economic world. (It also puts many of our participants in the 90-100 category - barely able to cope and fodder for Conservative propaganda).

Many of the 25% will be doomed to poverty in a Conservative dominated society. That does not include the portion of the population that is intelligent enough to deal with the world but is hampered by other physical or mental impairments.

[Guest eureka]

sage! An elected senate will increase regional confrontation. The idea behind such a Senate is to increase regional unanimity in its dealings with Parliament. It would simply give another layer of highly politicised action: politically bound to its provincial electorate.

The Senate, as it is, does reflect the regions equally. However, its purpose os to represent the regions and to care for the National interest. The appointment method ensures that it can do that without being beholden to whatever Provincial Party causes the members to be elected.

[shoop]

Wow, you keep proving the point as to why the Liberals have lost this election. *arrogance*

Are you referring to the participants on this board in the 90-100 category?

Are you actually saying that only the Liberals appeal to those with IQs above 100?

I ain't too shure but I am thinkin my IQ ia probly over 100. mebbe 102 or 103?

To simplify! take a Bell curve of IQ. 25% of any population is below 90. That is High grade morons, imbeciles or idiots in psychological parlance.

That 25% will never develop computer skills or any skills that are necessary to the earning of a competence in a complex economic world. (It also puts many of our participants in the 90-100 category - barely able to cope and fodder for Conservative propaganda).

[scribblet]

Wow, you keep proving the point as to why the Liberals have lost this election. *arrogance*

Are you referring to the participants on this board in the 90-100 category?

Are you actually saying that only the Liberals appeal to those with IQs above 100?

I ain't too shure but I am thinkin my IQ ia probly over 100. mebbe 102 or 103?

To simplify! take a Bell curve of IQ. 25% of any population is below 90. That is High grade morons, imbeciles or idiots in psychological parlance.

That 25% will never develop computer skills or any skills that are necessary to the earning of a competence in a complex economic world. (It also puts many of our participants in the 90-100 category - barely able to cope and fodder for Conservative propaganda).

gee guess only socialists have IQ's over 90 eh! whoda thunk it

[sage]

Eureka if we are ever going to keep this country together we have to recognize and embrace regional diversity. To ignore this is to simply beg individual provinces to perpetually throw out the sovereignty card and bully Ottawa into whatever they want.

The current senate does not represent regional interests, as it has no real authority. Take a very current example, gun legislation. We had the federal government ram it down everyone's throats when really only Ontario and Quebec wanted it, despite this so-called chamber of sober second thought. This is the scheme that will unify the country? Hardly.

I would actually go one step further and suggest that there are not that many values common to this country; some to be sure, but certainly not as many as people are led to believe. This shouldn't be such a surprise. How can a largely urban, manufacturing based economy province such as Ontario and Quebec have much in common with a primarily rural, agricultural Saskatchewan, or Newfoundland, or the maritimes for that matter?

We already have regional confrontation. The question is how do we manage it, and currently nothing is being done to address it.

As for the appointment process, what exactly does that cure? Historically it was meant to ensure that the electorate's wishes were kept in check, as they could not be trusted with all of the political power. But when the people appointing the senate are the very same people who are voted in, what has been accomplished?

One last point, how does the senate represent regions equally anyway? Last time I looked, the senate distribution was scewed far to the original provinces favour. Look at PEI in this regard. Also does the west have the same say in the senate as Ontario and Quebec? Of course not so the regional problem found in the House of Commons is simply mirrored in the Senate.

[Hicksey]

It doesn't take much to score over 100 on an IQ test. I can score 125-140 on any given day and I'm no rocket scientist.

To assume that most people are that stupid (score<100) I think is arrogant.

Now there's a revelation. An arrogant L(l)iberal -- who would have thought?

[Hicksey]

It doesn't take much to score over 100 on an IQ test. I can score 125-140 on any given day and I'm no rocket scientist.

To assume that most people are that stupid (score<100) I think is arrogant.

Now there's a revelation. An arrogant L(l)iberal -- who would have thought?

Just to add to this. If anyone were going to portray Canadians as uneducated sheep one would figure it would have been a conservative. I have heard for years conservative people (not leaders, people I know) talking about the Liberals using the attack ads as sheep dogs to round up the voters and bring them in to check Liberal on the ballot. I find it at least a little humorous to hear this coming from a supporter of the party that has been in power for more than a decade. Usually its the challenger that plays this card, not the incumbent.

Under Martin, the Liberals have overstayed their welcome in Ottawa and Canadians are letting them know that so far if one believes poll numbers verbatim.

[sage]

On another point Eureka, if you're definition of "national interest" equates to the St. Lawrence corridor then I would aree that the system as it currently stands adequately reflects "the nation's" will.

[mar]

I would say that this represents perhaps 1% of the 'poor', because in all cases above, the financial brunt of illness is not borne solely by the individual.

Another few percent of the 'clinically poor' are mentally ill, perhaps even 10%. I would estimate that at least 75% of those getting 'wlfare' are those who are directly responsible for their lot.

And you base this on?

This board seems to have taken a decidedly Mathusian tone, and from some unexpected sources.

However, since we seem to be returning to the fiscal policy of the ninetheenth century, I suppose we might as well regress to the social values as well.

Whether people are suggesting that the poor are mentally defective, lazy or whatever else, we have the paradigm of 'US" vs "THEM," Them being some inferior sub-species of humanity who represent a drag on the country and must be eliminated.

Well, there are lots of models; Malthus preferred they simply be allowed to starve and die of disease, something all of the post 1492 North American immigrants have already put into practice with considerable success in "the new world." The Third Reich preferred a more active approach, apparently being an impatient lot.

I am not sure which prospect I find worse:

a) that we have become not a nation, not even a society, but a collection of greedy, unthinking, selfish bastards who happen to occupy a certain geographic area and can only grasp one idea: "I want more."

or

that people who used to know better have succumbed to the worst of human impulses.

Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't matter; if we are to destroy the immense promise of Canada, is it really important who is beating the drum and who is merely pulling on the oars?

Every imperialist power has its hangers on, its collaborators, its willing servants. Perhaps the miracle of Canada is that we had managed to produce a few giants who resisted this pressure, but apparently that was a different generation, a different time. Shed a tear for Canada as it slides noiselessly into the stinking cesspool that engulfs us from the South.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mar,

The Third Reich preferred a more active approach, apparently being an impatient lot.

Indeed, I just read a book called "Doctors of Death", about the T-4 euthanasia programme in Nazi Germany.

I am not sure which prospect I find worse:

a) that we have become not a nation, not even a society, but a collection of greedy, unthinking, selfish bastards who happen to occupy a certain geographic area and can only grasp one idea: "I want more."

This is the silent mantra of those who embrace unfettered capitalism, and I agree that it should be resisted.

or

that people who used to know better have succumbed to the worst of human impulses.

I am neither of these, just an embittered realist who works beside the 'drop out' centre and see on a daily basis the worst element of society.

[sage]

Mar, the question isn't necessarily "I want more", its "I'm sick of giving my labour to someone else", its "I'm sick of a civil servant who gets more then myself, and I'm paying for it".

Ultimately wanting something for yourself isn't the worst thing in the world. We are where we are today because of this system based on greed. Do you have air conditioning? You seem to have the internet. A car perhaps? You've probably took medicine once in your life? All of these items you take for granted come from the system that you're belittling.

It wasn't out of a sense of greater humanity that Dell makes computers on a level so people like you and me can afford them. Nor is that why someone stands on an assembly line somewhere. Its out and out personal greed that leads people to do these things.

I apologize for coming as such a right wing idealogue, but anytime people start discussing these items in the abstract, all we seem to focus on is the ugliness of capitalism, the fact that some people are left behind. There is a tangible benefit to the system as well, as can be seen in everystroke I read of yours from hundreds of miles away.

I'm not saying that we do not need a social safety net. But we need a net, not a ceiling.