Time to get rid of the CPC?

[uOttawaMan]

You people are blinded by Stephen Harper's "Stand up for Canada".

So let's get the CPC eliminated , because that superficial statement is all I need around here to make an arguement worthy.

[shoop]

And replace it with?

[uOttawaMan]

And replace it with?

Oh nothing. Since people want to get rid of the NDP, figured another stance should be taken saying the same thing. Let's just get rid of random parties. Why not.

[fixer1]

but that then would leave us LIBERALs eeeecchh yyyyuuucckk oooowwww.

Boy it stinbks in here. Honey can you let the LIBERAL out I think he just went on the rug.

[uOttawaMan]

but that then would leave us LIBERALs eeeecchh yyyyuuucckk oooowwww.

Boy it stinbks in here. Honey can you let the LIBERAL out I think he just went on the rug.

Let's get rid of the Liberals too, because some people don't like them.

[shoop]

Is this considered starting a thread of the "I know you are but what am I" variety?

There were some valid points made in the NDP thread. Your thread is just sad and irrational. Kinda like a lot of people's gutteral hatred for our Prime Minister.

Oh yeah, wasn't the reason that thread was started because the NDP has never formed government and no realistic prospects for doing so in the short to medium term?

Oh nothing. Since people want to get rid of the NDP, figured another stance should be taken saying the same thing. Let's just get rid of random parties. Why not.

[fixer1]

If we had to start all over today, and decided that we were going to develop a method of government where we all got to choose the leader and the people who woulfd represent us as grou[ps with certain boundaries. We would probably come up with something near to the American system. I do not see the party system as being a good method, and it does have very little to do with equal representation. So if that is what you are looking for. Well you can not get there from here.

[BubberMiley]

There were some valid points made in the NDP thread.

Name one.

[uOttawaMan]

There were some valid points made in the NDP thread.

Name one.

Well apparently I'm an asshat for one, but I can deal with that.

And then, apparently now its a crime to disagree with tax cuts, when money could be spent elswhere.

Put those together and what do you get? An apparently valid reason to get rid of a non-violent political party.

GG logic.

[tml12]

There were some valid points made in the NDP thread.

Name one.

Well apparently I'm an asshat for one, but I can deal with that.

And then, apparently now its a crime to disagree with tax cuts, when money could be spent elswhere.

Put those together and what do you get? An apparently valid reason to get rid of a non-violent political party.

GG logic.

Well, uOttawaman, after you called me an asshat I figured right away it had to take one to know one...

I'm on vacation right now and am only commenting on selective posts but this one blew me away. At least the CPC is in power unlike the NDP.

That's all I'll say for now. That's just all I'll say for now...

[gerryhatrick]

And replace it with?

Intelligence?

[shoop]

Oh the ever-witty and intellectually superior left.

Do tell what constitutes *intelligence* in the world of gerryhatrick?

Intelligence?

[fixer1]

Liberal inteligence say you always poke your oppoent in the chest when making a point, but poking yourself in the eye hurts. NDP just pokes everyone in the eye and keeps taxing them for the privilage, and open eye clinics as a social program.

[uOttawaMan]

Liberal inteligence say you always poke your oppoent in the chest when making a point, but poking yourself in the eye hurts. NDP just pokes everyone in the eye and keeps taxing them for the privilage, and open eye clinics as a social program.

Nice metaphor.

[sideshow]

Oops, I thought this was about the Communist Party of Canada.

[cybercoma]

You people are blinded by Stephen Harper's "Stand up for Canada".

So let's get the CPC eliminated , because that superficial statement is all I need around here to make an arguement worthy.

Care to explain why you want to get rid of the CPC? Or is it just your preconceived ideas?

[Josh]

You people are blinded by Stephen Harper's "Stand up for Canada".

So let's get the CPC eliminated , because that superficial statement is all I need around here to make an arguement worthy.

You must have been blinded by Paul Martin's corruption and blatant disenfranchisement with the Canadian people.

[tml12]

And replace it with?

Intelligence?

That doesn't say a lot about where you'd end up gerry...

[lost&outofcontrol]

Care to explain why you want to get rid of the CPC? Or is it just your preconceived ideas?

Where were you in the NDP thread ?

uOttawaMan (I think) doesn't really want to get rid of the CPC, he just started this thread to show you and others that eliminating parties whether you agree or disagree with their policies, is just plain stupid. It's just a reverse of the NDP thread.

Look at the American system, the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that one has the power and the other one doesn't. We can't always have political parties trying to appeal to everyone. When that happens, they lose sight of the end goal which is to better our country and its citizens. We end up arguing over little things(watch CNN for 10mins to see what I mean) that have no effect on anyone's lives and the voice of a large portion of the population gets lost. We need to keep questioning our society's values and the "status quo"; how else will we evolve if we just accept what is given to us.

my two cents...

[uOttawaMan]

Care to explain why you want to get rid of the CPC? Or is it just your preconceived ideas?

Where were you in the NDP thread ?

uOttawaMan (I think) doesn't really want to get rid of the CPC, he just started this thread to show you and others that eliminating parties whether you agree or disagree with their policies, is just plain stupid. It's just a reverse of the NDP thread.

Look at the American system, the only difference between the the Democrats and Republicans is that one has the power and the other one doesn't. We can't always have political parties trying to appeal to everyone. When that happens, they lose sight of the end goal which is to better our country and it's citizens. We end up arguing over little things(watch CNN for 10mins to see what I mean) that have no effect on anyone's lives and the voice of a large portion of the population gets lost. We need to keep questioning our society's values and the "status quo"; how else will we evolve if we just accept what is given to us.

my two cents...

OMG DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

[shoop]

Most of us *got* what you were trying to do, but why?

It is painfully obvious that you agree with L&OCs position, regardless of how painfully misinformed it is.

Look at the 2004 Presidential election and you will see a lot bigger policy differences between the Democrats and the Republicans than anything that came up in this election.

With three national parties you end up with what happened here. The party in the middle grasping for votes from either side then governing from the right.

At least a two-party system offers a much clearer choice. What was it Paul Martin identified *54* priorities? Yet people held their nose and kept the Liberals in power for 12 1/2 years...

OMG DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

[uOttawaMan]

With two parties however, there is no real choice. Without question, I hold both left and right values. I value social programs like healthcare and social support, but I also believe in a strong military and an economy with little government interference.

The problem with two parties is, you like some but not all of the platform policies of your chosen party.

Yes yes, I realise this is present in our 4-5 party federal system, but there is no other option in the US. Either you vote Democrat or Republican, and you end up with the same policies, but with different twists, because both party's are governing to the massive scope of views under their base.

[shoop]

Only two of the current parties in Canada that have ever formed government.

Layton really didn't accomplishm much last parliament. Can't see him doing even this much in this parliament.

There are other options to vote for in the U.S., granted they are a little less likely to form government than the NDP are here. (Zero chance vs. when hell freezes over? )

Yes yes, I realise this is present in our 4-5 party federal system, but there is no other option in the US. Either you vote Democrat or Republican, and you end up with the same policies, but with different twists, because both party's are governing to the massive scope of views under their base.

[Hicksey]

And replace it with?

Oh nothing. Since people want to get rid of the NDP, figured another stance should be taken saying the same thing. Let's just get rid of random parties. Why not.

Think. We've already eliminated a right leaning party and assimilated it into the tories to make the CPC. I think the whole point of the original thread was (meant to be an affront and not too well articulated) basically that the NDP should be disbanded to become a part of the Liberals.

I think most people would support a 3 party system if it were Left, Right and Center. But we have Left, More Left and Right. Getting to the aforementioned end leaves the NDP the odd party out.

[Hollus]

And replace it with?

Oh nothing. Since people want to get rid of the NDP, figured another stance should be taken saying the same thing. Let's just get rid of random parties. Why not.

Think. We've already eliminated a right leaning party and assimilated it into the tories to make the CPC. I think the whole point of the original thread was (meant to be an affront and not too well articulated) basically that the NDP should be disbanded to become a part of the Liberals.

I think most people would support a 3 party system if it were Left, Right and Center. But we have Left, More Left and Right. Getting to the aforementioned end leaves the NDP the odd party out.

Liberals and NDP are completely different. If your going to propose such ridiculious propositions I think you need to provide better justification than balancing the spectrum of political ideology. Based on who's definition of what is Left, Center, Right. You see it as Left, more Left, Right; I see it as Left, Right, more Right.

The problem with our current system is not in the diversity of the parties, its the complacency of the voters. I'd say there is a whopping % of voters making decisions without any real idea of who and what their voting for. Simplifying the system by consolidating the choices on either side of an imaginary line is not the answer.