Canuck E Stan Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Spar, 1) Harper is a pragmatist. He is a person that is driven by certain principals, however, he also realizes that politics requires compromise. For that reason, I feel Harper will not let his caucus hijack his economic agenda with social issues.2) National unity. The Liberals have disgraced the federalist option in Quebec. No amount of hand wringing about how Martin was not really involved will change that. The Conservatives are the only party that has a chance of convincing Quebequers that federalism is worth preserving. 3) The conservatives can be voted out. Any policy enacted by even a majority conservative gov't can be reversed by the next gov't. So if the conservatives try impose policies that goes against the principals of the majority of Canadians then they will not get re-elected and those policies will be reversed. I agree with all of your points, and the issue of national unity is the surprise bonus in this election with the Conservatives winning. I don't think anyone would have believed that Quebec federalists would have shown the support for the Conservatives over the Liberals as they have. Add to that an Albertan leading the country,the separation talk from that province will diminish. A conservative win may be our last best hope to keep this nation from falling apart. A Liberal win will only increase the animosity between provinces and the Federal government,and the likelihood of Quebec separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Harper is a pragmatist. He is a person that is driven by certain principals, however, he also realizes that politics requires compromise. For that reason, I feel Harper will not let his caucus hijack his economic agenda with social issues. Well said, and now watch that be illustrated by the upcoming free vote on same sex marriage. Here is how Harpers pragmatism will be exercised. 1. About 1/2 of Canadians are against SSM, but some of that opposition is soft, they don't really care. The rest are vocal and committed. 2. Harper needs to address this anti-SSM segment of Canadian society forecfully and soon. 3. Any way you count it, less than 1/2 of the new or old MPs in the house will support SSM. Harper can count and knows that he cannot win a vote on SSM. They are not voting on repealing the existing law anyway, just in reviewing it. 4. Harper knows he must placate the social conservatives, yet try to eventually attract the social liberals. 5. He has promised not to use the notwithstanding clause. It's easy to do that because the SSM vote would be defeated anyway. Why else would he handcuff himself in advance? 6. So, in the end, he can tell the social cons: I've done my bit, it was defeated again in the House, now shut up - the governemnt is moving on. 7. Easy peasy. A conservative win may be our last best hope to keep this nation from falling apart. A Liberal win will only increase the animosity between provinces and the Federal government,and the likelihood of Quebec separation Exactly. Duceppe must be very angry over this turn of events. He was counting on a Liberal win, ideally another minority. Soon his tiny perfect whipping boy, Mr. Martin , will be gone too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 He has??? Wasn't it less than two months ago thatr Harper announced in Vancouver that he would not reintroduce the decriminalization of marijuana legislation favoured by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and two thirds of the Canadian population? In other words, Harper still favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. You don't think this zero tolerance US social policy is extreme?How about Harper's opposition to C-250? Most Canadians I suspect view killing a man merely because he's gay as a hate crime. But not Stephen Harper. He fears that will result in the Bible being banned. Now that's extreme even by religious nut standards. Other than no longer speaking publicly about his extremely conservative social views, what evidence is there that he has changed his position on any of them? It's up to people to not break the law, not use to lawmakers to bend the law so people can break it and not be punished. If he killed a guy, he should be locked away and the key thrown away regardless of his motivation. But by your logic, if a gay man kills a straight man because solely he hates straight people thats a hate crime too? Aside from peace officers, there can't be a higher punishment for killing one man than another. Its against the basic concept of equality among men to value one man's life above another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 It's up to people to not break the law, not use to lawmakers to bend the law so people can break it and not be punished.If he killed a guy, he should be locked away and the key thrown away regardless of his motivation. But by your logic, if a gay man kills a straight man because solely he hates straight people thats a hate crime too? Aside from peace officers, there can't be a higher punishment for killing one man than another. Its against the basic concept of equality among men to value one man's life above another. Agreed completely. A minority's life is no more valuable than mine. Punishment should be equal for murder regardless of who is killed (with the exception of peace officers like Hicksey said). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisparker Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 wouldn't it be a good idea if you really want change not to vote for any established party or person? change only comes through replacing the status quo. so if you really want change you won't vote liberal, conservative or ndp. simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Throw around all the insults you like. It would seem to about your speed. "Thoughtful debate process" my eye. I have not seen a thought from a Conservative supporter since this election discussion began. Case in point. My post that you are unable to understand was a fairly simple phrasing for simpletons (Conservatives) to illustrate the Unity question. The only unity in Canada is through its social programmes - on the level of a political structure. Every idiot in the country is has banded together to sing the song of devolution of powers a la Harper. What powers would they be since the federal government has virtually no Constitutional powers remaining? The only significant power is the money power and there it must negotiate with the Provinces to establish and maintain social programmes. Harper has expressed his determination to get the federal government out of our existing social programmes and turn them over to the tender mercy of whatever provincial government happens to be in power at any time. How is that standing for Canada? Harper has also said that he will deregulate all manner of things. Like Harris with the Walkerton consequence, he wants to play games with the lives of Canadians in the few areas where he can "legally" murder some of its citizens. How is that standing for Canada? Why do you think many Quebeckers are considering the Conservatives? Not because they think Harper or the Conservatives are worth the vote. They are moving because the Harper plan will, without question, end the central government in Canada as a government and make Canada an alliance of autonomous regions. That is what most Quebeckers want, A separate country with a trade and defense alliance with the provinces. Only it will not be with provinces but autonomous regions if Harper gets his way. The man is a bloody fool and so is anyone who buys into his message - or is someone who like a couple of the posters want it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Eureka, Why don't you ressurect your old socialist fringe party platform of yesteryear and tell us why your perfect government didn't get the support from the masses. Why do you constantly mock other people's choices. Give it a break and stop demeaning the people who post here with their ideas. If your ideas were so righteous you would be running for office and running this country. Your not,so loosen up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Harper has come along way from his extreme right of centre social views. He has??? Wasn't it less than two months ago thatr Harper announced in Vancouver that he would not reintroduce the decriminalization of marijuana legislation favoured by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and two thirds of the Canadian population? In other words, Harper still favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. You don't think this zero tolerance US social policy is extreme? How about Harper's opposition to C-250? Most Canadians I suspect view killing a man merely because he's gay as a hate crime. But not Stephen Harper. He fears that will result in the Bible being banned. Now that's extreme even by religious nut standards. Other than no longer speaking publicly about his extremely conservative social views, what evidence is there that he has changed his position on any of them? He has to be more mainstream otherwise he'd lose. He's not gonna walk into parliament and reneg on the gay marriage issue, nor is he going to make the bible required reading in public schools. He knows that these things just won't wash with the Canadian public. OMG I can't believe I'm actually defending Harper!! LOL And, not all US states have a zero tolerance policy regarding pot. California and Alaska are just two that come to mind, they have decrim laws. tml12 said Norman,Since when is decrimalizing marijuana such a mainstream view? Among people my age (20s) and I personally support it but most people I know 40 and over don't. LOL I'm over 40. Anyone over 40 grew up in the 60's and 70's and yessiree there was pot around. Many boomer still smoke it. I don't think anyone should have a criminal record for smoking pot. Actually they should hand it out free at public events to keep everyone mellow and happy. When I was your age I was SURE that by the time I reached 40 those antiquated laws regarding marijuana would be long gone. I guess we have to wait a while yet, till all the old buggers are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Eureka,Why don't you ressurect your old socialist fringe party platform of yesteryear and tell us why your perfect government didn't get the support from the masses. Why do you constantly mock other people's choices. Give it a break and stop demeaning the people who post here with their ideas. If your ideas were so righteous you would be running for office and running this country. Your not,so loosen up. You notice where Martin went when he realized that his own ideas were inferior? On the attack. It seems he's followed Martin on to the attack. Don't see his way of debate? The arrogance? He basically tells us over and over that if we weren't such idiots we would be able to understand why his ideas are so much better. It's that liberal "If only you weren't so stupid you might understand ..." mentality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Throw around all the insults you like. It would seem to about your speed."Thoughtful debate process" my eye. I have not seen a thought from a Conservative supporter since this election discussion began. Case in point. My post that you are unable to understand was a fairly simple phrasing for simpletons (Conservatives) to illustrate the Unity question. The only unity in Canada is through its social programmes - on the level of a political structure. Every idiot in the country is has banded together to sing the song of devolution of powers a la Harper. What powers would they be since the federal government has virtually no Constitutional powers remaining? The only significant power is the money power and there it must negotiate with the Provinces to establish and maintain social programmes. Harper has expressed his determination to get the federal government out of our existing social programmes and turn them over to the tender mercy of whatever provincial government happens to be in power at any time. How is that standing for Canada? Harper has also said that he will deregulate all manner of things. Like Harris with the Walkerton consequence, he wants to play games with the lives of Canadians in the few areas where he can "legally" murder some of its citizens. How is that standing for Canada? Why do you think many Quebeckers are considering the Conservatives? Not because they think Harper or the Conservatives are worth the vote. They are moving because the Harper plan will, without question, end the central government in Canada as a government and make Canada an alliance of autonomous regions. That is what most Quebeckers want, A separate country with a trade and defense alliance with the provinces. Only it will not be with provinces but autonomous regions if Harper gets his way. The man is a bloody fool and so is anyone who buys into his message - or is someone who like a couple of the posters want it that way. "legally murder some of its citizens."? Are you still playing with your Yu-Gi-Oh cards? Do you understand what outright liebel is? Murder? "simpletons (Conservatives)"? Insults are the last defence of those of limited intelligence. Do you want to speak to the pros/cons of devolving central power in a government? Fine, lets do that. However, if these are the only types of statements you can muster, please go back and write your grade 12 departmentals. Scratch that. I know high school students that could have this conversation sans insults. (sans means "without") Go away, and come back when yer all growed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 I'm over 40. Anyone over 40 grew up in the 60's and 70's and yessiree there was pot around. Many boomer still smoke it. I don't think anyone should have a criminal record for smoking pot. Actually they should hand it out free at public events to keep everyone mellow and happy.When I was your age I was SURE that by the time I reached 40 those antiquated laws regarding marijuana would be long gone. I guess we have to wait a while yet, till all the old buggers are dead. I'm one of those rare youngins that doesn't support decrim so you might have to wait until I kick off too if I can do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Decriminalization only matters to me in the context of whether or not a person has the right to show up to work stoned. What they do on their own time, I couldn't care less about (with the exception of exposing children to the smoke). However, if any of the guys that work for me show up baked, they could EASILY kill someone. So, if they decriminalize possession, how will this trickle down to prohibition at work. "I can have this here, and if you don't like it...call the cops." If the most they will receive is a fine, then that is not a deterent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Harper has come along way from his extreme right of centre social views. He has??? Wasn't it less than two months ago thatr Harper announced in Vancouver that he would not reintroduce the decriminalization of marijuana legislation favoured by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and two thirds of the Canadian population? In other words, Harper still favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. You don't think this zero tolerance US social policy is extreme? How about Harper's opposition to C-250? Most Canadians I suspect view killing a man merely because he's gay as a hate crime. But not Stephen Harper. He fears that will result in the Bible being banned. Now that's extreme even by religious nut standards. Other than no longer speaking publicly about his extremely conservative social views, what evidence is there that he has changed his position on any of them? As far as I know, killing anyone is a hate crime, and Bill C-250 wasn't partiuclarly about 'killing gays', it was about adding sexual orientation to the list of hate crimes. Opposed by many because it limited freedom of speech and religion. You seem to have a knack for twisting these issues into spurious allegations. And as a matter of opinion, why should killing a gay person be worse than killing a young woman or an elderly vet? Any killing is hateful and deserves the full weight of the law, one person's life should not be held to be less worth than anothers in law. Pot is not an election issue, certainly not a mainstream one and is barely on the election radar. No one is suggesting we use U.S. social policy, there will just not be any new leglisation introduced, in other words the status quo. I would suggest you havn't read the CPC policy or listened to Harper throughout the campaign, or else you would not be making such ill informed statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 The only unity in Canada is through its social programmes - on the level of a political structure. Every idiot in the country is has banded together to sing the song of devolution of powers a la Harper.Canada is so much more than "social programmes". The truly valuable things about Canada have nothing to do with government at all.Harper has expressed his determination to get the federal government out of our existing social programmes and turn them over to the tender mercy of whatever provincial government happens to be in power at any time.How is that standing for Canada? Harper has said that he will simply respect the Constitution and how it divides jurisdiction.Harper has also said that he will deregulate all manner of things. Like Harris with the Walkerton consequence, he wants to play games with the lives of Canadians in the few areas where he can "legally" murder some of its citizens.[sigh]How can he deregulate all manner of things if he devolves them all to the provinces?[/sigh]And as a matter of opinion, why should killing a gay person be worse than killing a young woman or an elderly vet? Any killing is hateful and deserves the full weight of the law, one person's life should not be held to be less worth than anothers in law.There is a difference between murder and the murder of someone in an identifiable group. We are all threatened by murder but members of an identifiable group are threatened more greatly. Hence, the penalty for such a crime must be greater.Policemen in uniform and blacks are clearly identifiable. It's not so obvious if someone is gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 "Thoughtful debate process" my eye. I have not seen a thought from a Conservative supporter since this election discussion began. Like you'd recognize one. The only unity in Canada is through its social programmes - on the level of a political structure. Odd how we got along fine without social programs for most of our history. Most of us have considerably more emotional attachment to Canada than what cheques and services we can wring out of the govenrment. If government social programs are all this country means to you then why do you even care what happens to it? What powers would they be since the federal government has virtually no Constitutional powers remaining? The power to make laws? The military? Foreign affairs? Probably pensions and unemployment insurance, customs and trade, border security, coast guard, fisheries patrols, federal policing and intelligence, aka RCMP and CSIS, regulatory control over activities which span provincial borders, like communications - ports, airports, and air travel, seaways, oh a bunch of things, I expect. Harper has expressed his determination to get the federal government out of our existing social programmes and turn them over to the tender mercy of whatever provincial government happens to be in power at any time. What possible difference does that make? The provinces are closer to the population, and will be punished faster if health care isn't maintained - or improved. Your idea that the provinces are somehow in the nature of grasping, greedy, evil people who just can't wait to slash and burn health care and social programs is patently absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 But the federal government has taken responsibility for traditionally provincial responsibilities like health care and (almost) daycare to distribute resources towards a minimum standard for all provinces (see Canada Health Act). That way Alberta doesn't have cadillac care and Newfoundland no care at all. You may disagree with that because you probably don't live in a have-not province, but without such equalization we would wind up with a situation of first and third world provinces even worse than we have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 But the federal government has taken responsibility for traditionally provincial responsibilities like health care and (almost) daycare to distribute resources towards a minimum standard for all provinces (see Canada Health Act). That way Alberta doesn't have cadillac care and Newfoundland no care at all. You may disagree with that because you probably don't live in a have-not province, but without such equalization we would wind up with a situation of first and third world provinces even worse than we have now. It is one thing to provide financing through equalization payments or other shared cost programmes, but it is quite another to get involved in the management of programmes or establishing standards. Different parts of the country work differently. One size does not fit all. As Duceppe repeats constantly, there are 10,000 civil servants in the Department of Health in Ottawa but they manage no hospitals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 But the federal government has taken responsibility for traditionally provincial responsibilities like health care and (almost) daycare to distribute resources towards a minimum standard for all provinces (see Canada Health Act). That way Alberta doesn't have cadillac care and Newfoundland no care at all. You may disagree with that because you probably don't live in a have-not province, but without such equalization we would wind up with a situation of first and third world provinces even worse than we have now. It is one thing to provide financing through equalization payments or other shared cost programmes, but it is quite another to get involved in the management of programmes or establishing standards. Different parts of the country work differently. One size does not fit all. As Duceppe repeats constantly, there are 10,000 civil servants in the Department of Health in Ottawa but they manage no hospitals. Like it or not we're really no more than a commonwealth of different regions right now. Unity and cohesiveness in Canada is at a serious low right now. And unless the federal government realizes that a top down approach will not work and a cookie cutter funding equation is not serving and can not serve our country this will continue. When Martin and his Liberals took the money out of the provinces he committed a grave error in judgement. Since then the federal government keeps sending new programs, mandating new spending and not sending the money for it down the pipeline. Well, it should have been there to begin with. It's no wonder every province except Alberta has run a deficit ever since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Then try to find a "pro" for devolving any of the remaining powers. Try it and it will be the first attempt by a Conservative to justify the programme since this election got under way - certainly the first on these boards. Argus listed a few of the powers, but, of course, some of those are already in Provincial jurisdiction and exist as social programmes only because federal governments negotiated agreements with the Provinces. For others, they serve only trade and defense and little more. Let me see you finally put your pens where your mouths are. You, Hydra, keep the growing up to yourself. you have a long way to go and if that is your idea of effective insulting, you are a rank amateur and I don't take advantage of amateurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Argus, the feds have the power to make laws only wuth respect to its jurisdictions. And isn't that the point? They won't have many jurisdictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Harper has come along way from his extreme right of centre social views. He has??? Wasn't it less than two months ago thatr Harper announced in Vancouver that he would not reintroduce the decriminalization of marijuana legislation favoured by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and two thirds of the Canadian population? In other words, Harper still favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. You don't think this zero tolerance US social policy is extreme? How about Harper's opposition to C-250? Most Canadians I suspect view killing a man merely because he's gay as a hate crime. But not Stephen Harper. He fears that will result in the Bible being banned. Now that's extreme even by religious nut standards. Other than no longer speaking publicly about his extremely conservative social views, what evidence is there that he has changed his position on any of them? He has to be more mainstream otherwise he'd lose. He's not gonna walk into parliament and reneg on the gay marriage issue, nor is he going to make the bible required reading in public schools. He knows that these things just won't wash with the Canadian public. OMG I can't believe I'm actually defending Harper!! LOL And, not all US states have a zero tolerance policy regarding pot. California and Alaska are just two that come to mind, they have decrim laws. tml12 said Norman,Since when is decrimalizing marijuana such a mainstream view? Among people my age (20s) and I personally support it but most people I know 40 and over don't. LOL I'm over 40. Anyone over 40 grew up in the 60's and 70's and yessiree there was pot around. Many boomer still smoke it. I don't think anyone should have a criminal record for smoking pot. Actually they should hand it out free at public events to keep everyone mellow and happy. When I was your age I was SURE that by the time I reached 40 those antiquated laws regarding marijuana would be long gone. I guess we have to wait a while yet, till all the old buggers are dead. Drea, Marijuana kills brain cells and destroys lives. I have smoked pot many times in my life but quit forever when I realized how much it was affecting my everyday life and burning me out. There is a reason why pot is a controlled substance. I know 40 year-olds still smoke today...it doesn't make it right and, you surely know, they are not the most intelligent people around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 August! I would say that no country is more than its social programmes. Without them; national programmes, a country is no more than a forcibly held piece of territory inhabited by barbarians. I would be interested in what you think makes Canada more than that, though. What are the "truly valuable things about Canada?" We are agreed that Harper has said he will respect the Constitution and respect the division of powers. He has also said that he will turn back the clock and get out of the responsibilities that the federal government has negotiated with the Provinces. Healthcare for one. Childcare for another. Employment Insurance. Equalization is on the chopping block. The list goes on and includes just about everything that makes Canada work. What Harper has said he will deregulate are those things that are within the federal jurisdiction: it has nothing to do with devolution of powers. Things like Food inspection, pollution controls - learned from Bush and Thatcher who produced disastrous results, and a number of others. Things that affect the health and safety of Canadians. Just as Harris did in Ontario and caused a significant number of deaths. And, because of the accompanying agenda of tax reductions, Ontario is still in a precarious situation in that regard. Harper wants to do the same. I call that a callous disregard for the safety of Canadians and, with the experience of Harris to light the way, I would call any deaths as much murder as is Capital Punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 August!I would say that no country is more than its social programmes. Without them; national programmes, a country is no more than a forcibly held piece of territory inhabited by barbarians. I would be interested in what you think makes Canada more than that, though. What are the "truly valuable things about Canada?" We are agreed that Harper has said he will respect the Constitution and respect the division of powers. He has also said that he will turn back the clock and get out of the responsibilities that the federal government has negotiated with the Provinces. Healthcare for one. Childcare for another. Employment Insurance. Equalization is on the chopping block. The list goes on and includes just about everything that makes Canada work. What Harper has said he will deregulate are those things that are within the federal jurisdiction: it has nothing to do with devolution of powers. Things like Food inspection, pollution controls - learned from Bush and Thatcher who produced disastrous results, and a number of others. Things that affect the health and safety of Canadians. Just as Harris did in Ontario and caused a significant number of deaths. And, because of the accompanying agenda of tax reductions, Ontario is still in a precarious situation in that regard. Harper wants to do the same. I call that a callous disregard for the safety of Canadians and, with the experience of Harris to light the way, I would call any deaths as much murder as is Capital Punishment. I am supportive of social programs as long as they are delivered to those who deserve them. BTW Eureka...did you know that most Canadians favour capital punishment? I hope at some point a Harper government brings it back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 And you also support e-coli? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 And you also support e-coli? You can't possibly expect me to believe that anyone at any lever of government would go soft on e-coli??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.