D.B. Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 But, that doesnt change my opinion on the NDP. No one on this site will ever change my mind about that party, I hate their policies and their ideology with a passion. they are so far to the left, and I am centered to the right. So you're admitting that you use political labels like right or left to determine if an idea has merit rather than thinking about it objectively? :poke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Sweet crap, ur a lefty arent ya? I am center-right. I simply have no patience for simplistic arguments that do not take into account the complexities of the world. Think about it: you say tax cuts are never a bad thing. Then why don't we simply eliminate all taxes and shut down the gov't? A few people on this forum would agree that we should do that - I don't believe you are one of them. That means you want the govt to tax and spend money so the only difference between you and Jack Layton is the amount of tax and spending. I have no problem in providing a social safety-net to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, but if you read what the NDP is all about, they want the government to look after Canadian's from birth to death, as if Canadian's do not know what we ourselves want. I am definitely not in favour of universal day-care. If couples want to have children, let them stay home and look after those children instead of farming them out to strangers to bring up. What the NDP is proposing is a hold out from the communist era where government was involved in people's lives from birth to death. Myself I do not want some bureaucrat deciding for me how I am to live my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 If couples want to have children, let them stay home and look after those children instead of farming them out to strangers to bring up. If we had an economy where it wasn't practically impossible to raise kids on a single income, your idea would make a lot of sense. As it is, you just demonstrate how out of touch with reality you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 NDP is out to lunch. They propose a lot of social fundings and claim to be working for the working people. They are so anti-corporations! How many big businesses closed down and moved elsewhere? How many people had lost their jobs? How can they even think of financing all these grandiose policies they promise...if they keep bashing corporations who provide jobs for the working people? Who will be saddled with all these expenses? And yet they promise tax breaks for everyone. Yeah, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 NDP is out to lunch. They propose a lot of social fundings and claim to be working for the working people.They are so anti-corporations! How many big businesses closed down and moved elsewhere? How many people had lost their jobs? How can they even think of financing all these grandiose policies they promise...if they keep bashing corporations who provide jobs for the working people? Who will be saddled with all these expenses? And yet they promise tax breaks for everyone. Yeah, right. It's the "screw the man" until you lose your paycheque that they go for. And then they blame 'the man' for closing shop and moving to greener labour pastures. The NDP need corporations more than even the Liberals or Conservatives though. Without big business, unions cease to exist. And with the NDP, that can' t be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 As an NDPer, I was always inspired by the lyrics to a song sung by violent punk rockers on a Quincy episode in the early 80s: "Get a job working for the Man. Blow his brains out if you can!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamStranger Posted February 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I am very pleased to see that 11 people (as of now) support my vision, of a Canada with only centered parties, not Parties too far to the left (NDP) or too far to the right (Green). Just the USA, Democrats and Republicans are both centered, theirs no "Ndp" style party over there-- they must be smarter then us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 As long as the government pays parties $1.75 for each vote that they get there will be more of these parties showing up on your ballot box not less. The government should do away with getting involved in the voting process by giving $$ to any party. If these parties can't support themselves, they will won't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 As long as the government pays parties $1.75 for each vote that they get there will be more of these parties showing up on your ballot box not less. The government should do away with getting involved in the voting process by giving $$ to any party. If these parties can't support themselves, they will won't exist. Agreed Stan, why the hell is the government giving parties money. If they have support, they'll have money. It's just too bad the Liberals, NDP and Greens have no widespread donation base, so this law has to exist to sustain themselves (well, the Liberals just keep going further in debt to win so I guess that works too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 As long as the government pays parties $1.75 for each vote that they get there will be more of these parties showing up on your ballot box not less. The government should do away with getting involved in the voting process by giving $$ to any party. If these parties can't support themselves, they will won't exist. Agreed Stan, why the hell is the government giving parties money. If they have support, they'll have money. It's just too bad the Liberals, NDP and Greens have no widespread donation base, so this law has to exist to sustain themselves (well, the Liberals just keep going further in debt to win so I guess that works too). The gov't gives them money as a way to increase voter turnout and quiet people who say "why should I vote for a party that will never in my riding anyway?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I am very pleased to see that 11 people (as of now) support my vision, of a Canada with only centered parties, not Parties too far to the left (NDP) or too far to the right (Green). Just the USA, Democrats and Republicans are both centered, theirs no "Ndp" style party over there-- they must be smarter then us? The U.S. was founded as a society that would be more libertarian a la Alexander Hamilton. The neo-cons hijacked the Republican Party and turned it into a big government. Not that I am his biggest fan, but Reagan would not recognize his former party if he were around today, in fact, I think he'd be terrified about it. Many Americans will not vote for a party that is for big government, yet they only associate big government with the far left, not neo-conservatism. This is how the neo con movement gets elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The gov't gives them money as a way to increase voter turnout and quiet people who say "why should I vote for a party that will never in my riding anyway?" That makes no sense,giving money to the party to increase voter turn out. Give incentives to the voter....the one that votes, or better yet, do the Australian way,fine people if they don't vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I am very pleased to see that 11 people (as of now) support my vision, of a Canada with only centered parties, not Parties too far to the left (NDP) or too far to the right (Green). Pretty soon you'll have a movement going, Sam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The neo-cons hijacked the Republican Party and turned it into a big government. Not that I am his biggest fan, but Reagan would not recognize his former party if he were around today, in fact, I think he'd be terrified about it. Reagan started the neocon movement. And his deficits were...well. not nearly as big, but pretty big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The gov't gives them money as a way to increase voter turnout and quiet people who say "why should I vote for a party that will never in my riding anyway?" That makes no sense,giving money to the party to increase voter turn out. Give incentives to the voter....the one that votes, or better yet, do the Australian way,fine people if they don't vote. I didn't say it made sense, I said it was why they did it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The neo-cons hijacked the Republican Party and turned it into a big government. Not that I am his biggest fan, but Reagan would not recognize his former party if he were around today, in fact, I think he'd be terrified about it. Reagan started the neocon movement. And his deficits were...well. not nearly as big, but pretty big. Reagan did not start the neo-con movement...no no no!!! Reagan took the Republican Party and moved it farther to the right with "trickle-down" economics theories which created huge deficits...yes that much is true. When Bush Sr. took over the reigns of the party he moved it back to it's original centre-right position. Neo-cons may advocate some trickle-down economics but neo-con budget deficits are caused by big military spending and, basically, big spending in general all under the guise of religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think the guise of religion is necessary for neoconservativism to exist. And Reagan was huge on military spending, and spending in general. Liked tax cuts for the wealthy. Had a cabinet of guys you see in the neocon admin today (though admittedly Cheney was a more moderate Cheney back then--and probably a safer hunter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think the guise of religion is necessary for neoconservativism to exist. And Reagan was huge on military spending, and spending in general. Liked tax cuts for the wealthy. Had a cabinet of guys you see in the neocon admin today (though admittedly Cheney was a more moderate Cheney back then). Inherent to neo-conservatism is nation-building and spreading the ideas of one's culture around the world...I don't think Reagan was as nutty about that as Bush. Not saying Reagan was not right-wing (he was) but a different kind of right-wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well. sure he wasn't as nutty as Bush. No president was as nutty as Bush. You may think nutty and neoconservative are synonyms, but I'm still willing to make some distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well. sure he wasn't as nutty as Bush. No president was as nutty as Bush. You may think nutty and neoconservative are synonyms, but I'm still willing to make some distinction. Bush's problem isn't his extreme views (although they are a problem too). His problem is he is stubborn, does not understand patience and planning ahead, and an ideologue unwilling to comprehend and study views that are not his own. Those are qualities that NO ONE should have, regardless of their political views. They will get you into a lot of trouble and ruin you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Oh, also that he's totally incompetent. That's a problem too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Oh, also that he's totally incompetent. That's a problem too. Bubber, are you stoned again??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike22 Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 The NDP does have a role in government however lately their moral voice for the poor and middle class has been somewhat foggy. He should provide that moral guidance for social issues to the governement in power. He just can't seem to be overheard over the noise of the two other clowns running the liberals and conservatives. I wonder where this country would be if the issue like medicare was never raised by the NDP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politika Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Yes, Layton runs aorund like he owns the plays with a small 40 Aprox. seat count. It is riduclus. Layton will never have power so why does he bother campaigning wasting tax payers money. In my oppinion I think our election system should change. I think we should only have two national parties the Conservatives and the Liberals, and in order to become a national party you would have to get more seats than one of the two national parties. I think it would work well any way it would save Canadians from wasting votes anyways. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Though without an NDP, the CPC would never have power again. Forcing the NDP supporters to vote Liberal would make a powerhouse party that could never be defeated. That's why the Republicans were funding Ralph Nader in the last U.S. election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.