Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

The Canadian Election

Stacer
October 9th, 2008, 07:42 PM
I just realized we haven't had any discussions on here about the upcoming election.

Based on the chats we have in the regular forum it's hard to tell which way everyone leans and what their opinions are on various issues (aside from animal related issues, I think we all agree when it comes to animal rights etc...).

I heard about this website yesterday that helps you to strategically vote so that the Conservatives don't win, they use current opinion polls to determine who you should vote for to ensure the Conservative candidate in your riding doesn't win. The main premise behind the website is that since the Conservatives have such crap environmental policy, you should vote strategically to help a party who gives a damn about the environment a chance to implement a worthy environmental plan in Canada.

Anyhoo, it's www.voteforenviroment.com, you plug in your postal code and they tell you who has the best chance to defeat the Conservative candidate in your specific riding.

I guess you can tell I'm a lefty tree hugger:D

I think I'll include an anonymous poll in this thread

Frenchy
October 9th, 2008, 09:07 PM
This year , I really , really don't know for who to vote. I don't trust any of the "popular" parties. :shrug:

Stacer
October 9th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Frenchy, I think alot of people feel that way and they're not comfortable voting for the lesser evil, so they're just not voting at all.

I like Stephane Dion, despite his lack of fluency in english which seems to bother alot of people (bizarre reason not to vote for a man), I think he sounds like a very genuine, honest man. I think alot of anglo Canadians see him as a bit of a sissy/dork or something, but if they watched and could understand the french debate (I watched some but didn't understand alot), you can see his confidence speaking in his first language and I hope that changed alot of people's perspective of him.

I'm still not voting for him, but I like him and I would be OK if he wins.

aslan
October 9th, 2008, 09:51 PM
stacer doesn't the knew carbon tax he wants to introduce concern you.

TeriM
October 9th, 2008, 10:02 PM
I am voting Liberal mostly because the guy in our riding does a good job for us. Hubby actually used to work (indirectly) for the guy pre-politics and he was fairly well respected. I hate Harper, don't trust him a bit. Dion has definately grown on me a bit with this election but I still think they made a mistake with choosing him :shrug:. The french thing is a bigger deal in Western Cda where we already feel shunned by the "power center" :D.

I highly doubt the Liberals (if they win) will be bringing in any carbon tax stuff in the current economic environment. In fact I don't really think anyone is going to win ... we probably will end up with another minority government and that is fine with me :thumbs up.

Frenchy
October 9th, 2008, 10:06 PM
. we probably will end up with another minority government

yep , same here.

14+kitties
October 9th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I was told by a customer today that they weren't sure which one was any better than the other one. Which, unfortunately, I feel is about right. I am somewhat undecided.

I am just glad our political system isn't quite like the States as far as how long the candidates have before an election to win over the people. They start months before the actual election. Then it turns into more of a popularity vote than a party vote.
We aren't much better with all the back biting. Hate it! Run a clean election and tell us what YOU are going to do for us, NOT what the other party is doing wrong. We already know that!!

krdahmer
October 9th, 2008, 10:45 PM
I am voting Green again this year, not just because I don't like my choices this time though (last year hubby and I 'threw' our votes on the Green party), I watched the debate this time around and I really like her. It doesn't really matter who we have locally, they only cater to the tourist industry and casino, could care less about us regular folks. I think that all the popular parties need a wake up call, they've gotten too comfortable with their positions, and all of them have some good ideas and some bad ideas, and nothing ever gets accomplished. I think that Elizabeth May has some really solid ideas about the environment and health care, as well as I've heard is supportive of stronger animal rights laws. Plus I'm really tired of the other three just standing around at election time pointing their fingers at each other and running these smear type campaigns.... I really like what she's doing that way, commercials with her riding a train (:thumbs up showing environmental support) and just talking plainly and articulately about the issues and her stance on them. Layton at the debate was like a little kid tattling on everyone else... not really what I'm looking for in a leader. Plus it's high time a woman ran one of these countries! :)

Schwinn
October 9th, 2008, 11:49 PM
I saw a commercial that, quite frankly, scared the hell out of me if the Liberals get in. They said they were going to reverse the income trust promise that Harper broke. That was one of the few times a politician ever broke a promise I was okay with. In my limited understanding, a company could convert to an income trust, and profits were protected from being taxed. All was well and good, until Telus announced they were going to convert into an income trust. Then BCE announced they were going to convert Bell into one as well. Suddenly, there were other companies starting to look that way as well. This meant BILLIONS of dollars worth of taxes would disappear. Now, with the current economic outlook, what do you think this would do to the economy? Suddenly, the US will look like the richest family in the trailer park!

As for Jack Layton, he's either the king of pandering, a liar, or just not that well informed. I stopped liking him when he was on Toronto council. One quick story. They were looking at turning an old mine into a dump (Adams mine in Kirkland lake). I have a client who was some type of geo engineer explain to me that the bedrock in the bottom of the mine was inpenetrable, it is impossible for anything to leach out. When I asked about the water, he explained it was not leaching up, but rather rain water. "That's a lot of rain water!" "That's what happens when it can't leach out!!" Anyway, Layton paid for a bus from Kirkland lake to bring down the good citizen's who did not want a dump there, and every station showed "the man of the people" pounding the pulpit about how Kirkland Lake did NOT want a dump, "And look, there they are up there!!" and we got to see the screaming "masses". Interestingly enough, and coincidently, Mrs. Schwinn had recently moved from Kirkland Lake, and was incredulous. "You want to know how many people don't want a dump? They all fit on that bus!" I'm getting long-winded here, so the short version is that the dump was defeated, and Kirkland Lake continued to be a depressed town (I went through a "tour" on our way to Thunder Bay). The next municipal election, not one councillor who voted against the dump (and took Mr. Layton's bus ride) was re-elected. Turns out, the town did want it, and saw it as a saviour of the town.

Anyway, this brings me to present day (see? I have a point!) Now he's talking about protecting the people from the big bad banks. Last week, it was stopping the banks from failing the way they have in the states (absolutely, without a doubt, impossible. Can not happen) This week, it's about how the banks are gouging the people by not dropping the prime rate. Now, don't get me wrong, I'll call the banks when they do something wrong, and I really don't like banking. However, what he ISN'T telling everyone is the reason--the cost of borrowing has sky-rocketed for the banks (heard of the "credit crunch"? That's it) By NOT dropping the rate as much, there is hope that it will ease the credit restrictions, and allow the banks to lend. But, no, banks are greedy and THAT'S why they did it. Even though, according to Layton, last week they were in danger of failing like the US banks. So what is it? They're in danger of bankruptcy, or they're taking extra-profit where it isn't needed?? Well, there is no danger of failure, but I can also tell you that we had a meeting today, and the quote was "Don't spend your bonus before you get it...you might be disappointed" (which, by the way, I was hoping MIGHT be enough to pay for the snow tires for the car. Now, I'm not so sure).

Sorry, I went off on a tangent:o. What really irritates me is I don't think ANYONE is being truly honest, save for Gilles Duceppe when he said, "Let's face it, three of us here have no chance to be Prime Minister". Today, people are all about the sound bite, and politicians pander to that, truth be damned. "I'll say what will get me elected." For all the chances Jack Layton has, he might as well promise, "I'll put a giraffe in every backyard, and a clown at your door on your birthday!!". Actually, I'm surprised he hasn't. I'm not crazy about any of the choices, so I'll probably pick the scenario that scares me the least.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 01:04 AM
Great post Schwinn.

I so don't understand how people get caught up in the fear mongering many of the parties participate in. Seems many people vote not FOR someone but cast a vote AGAINST someone because a party claims xxx party will do "something baaaaaaaaaaaaad."

And how can someone vote for a party because of only ONE issue? There has to be a balance of what is best in ALL issues and not just a overfocus on one to win votes.

I watched the Leader's Debate on TV the other night. You've got people like Layton beating down the idea that Harper has given "big business" tax breaks. Then in the next sentence he complains about jobs being lost. Oh so, what...Layton gets in, taxes the hell out of big business and he thinks industry is gonna stay here????? I'm not saying large companies need to be handed everything by any means, but there has to be a balance. Something written in our paper put made it pretty clear to me:

Layton says Harper will give big corporations $50 billion in tax relief. If elected Layton says he will stop the giveaway to companies and concentrate on the real drivers of the economy, welfare.

Now, that was written with a sense of humor but given all of Layton's promises you can tell that is who is pandering to in an effort to win votes.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 09:16 AM
Oh, Schwinn, as I have said so many times about your posts - WELL SAID!!!!!

I can't afford the Liberal Carbon Tax, that will kill the farmers, those who live in rural areas who have to heat their homes by oil and don't have the luxury of public transportation to get around. Plus as anybody knows in a depressed economy YOU DON'T IMPLEMENT NEW TAXES!!!!

I hear Dion barking alot about our banks, but has he checked the financial position of our banks before he started his barking, nope. That is not who I want to lead our country. Plus, as seen in the US, gov't can't control the stock markets, what did Dion think Harper should do??? The best thing that could have been done is for investors to not panic. Oh yeah, that was what Harper was suggesting!

Plus the Liberals sent our wonderful miliatry over to Afghanistan SO POORLY TRAINED (BECAUSE OF THEIR HUGE MILITARY CUTBACKS OVER THE YEARS) and EQUIPED. They had NO consideration for their lives and until the conservatives got into power, they continued to be poorly trained and equipped. So anybody who votes Liberal, in my book does not support our troops and their mission. Thank goodness the Conservatives are spending those billions to keep our troups safe. Sorry, as for the ARTS, as long as we have other priorities, arts should be the bottom of the list. As Harper said, the average Canadian who is struggling to make ends meet, don't give :2cents: about the rich and their arts, let those who want it support it. (Think there are alot of rich actors out there)

As for Jack Layton, well I would consider voting for him because in 2016 I can stop working and won't BE LIVING IN POVERTY :D. Don't know who is going to pay for all wonderful living because we can all quit working????????????

The green party is for dreamers who don't realize the true impact on the economy if Koyoto was implemented (I believe 30% of our air pollution comes from heating homes/buildings in our cold winters, so Koyoto will be extremely tough on CDN businesses) . It is a nice dream, but would be devastating for the economy. Very easy decision for Conglomerate corps to make a decision: stay in Canada and implement all those costly pollution control devices or move to China? Hmmmmm, can you say HUGE recession.
Not that I don't believe in controlling it, but conservation starts at home, how about not going through the drive thrus and shutting off your car and going in.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 09:22 AM
Love your post too, Dracko, yup, those on welfare are such huge contributors to our economy :rolleyes:. Not saying there shouldn't be welfare, but hey it is well known there is abuses of it and it should be very temporary and should only be a supplement, not full support. I am not talking about those with disabilites, but those who are able bodied and want to sit on their asses. I say take the money for those able bodied people and give to those who have the disabilities, now that is one group of people who I would like to see not be poverty stricken. But remember in the year 2016 if Layton gets in we can all enjoy welfare and not have to work :laughing:.

bendyfoot
October 10th, 2008, 09:25 AM
I'm with Schwinn, Dracko and L4H. No point in reiterating what was already well said. Only one other thing: JACK WILL YOU PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF PETE GET OVER THE FREAKING SWEATER AND GET SOME NEW MATERIAL!!!!:yell: No, Harper is not a warm and fuzzy man, but he's a good, solid, steady man with what I beleive are the best intentions for the long-term good of the country. And I'm not a "big C Conservative", I've voted Green and NDP in the past. But I'm sticking with the way I voted in the last Federal election, because I think he's on the right track. And don't get me started about the Green Shift:frustrated:

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 09:33 AM
Wew, felt good to get it all out.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 09:34 AM
I'm with Schwinn, Dracko and L4H. No point in reiterating what was already well said. Only one other thing: JACK WILL YOU PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF PETE GET OVER THE FREAKING SWEATER AND GET SOME NEW MATERIAL!!!!:yell: No, Harper is not a warm and fuzzy man, but he's a good, solid, steady man with what I beleive are the best intentions for the long-term good of the country. And I'm not a "big C Conservative", I've voted Green and NDP in the past. But I'm sticking with the way I voted in the last Federal election, because I think he's on the right track. And don't get me started about the Green Shift:frustrated:

:thumbs up:2huggers:

Chris21711
October 10th, 2008, 09:36 AM
I will not be voting:

Stephen Harper - Too smug - I loathe smug people

Jack Layton - Was great for the City of Toronto along with his wife Olivia Chow - Should have stuck with the City

Stephane Dion - Unfortunately his command of the English language will probably be held against him. He is quite difficult to understand and I think that this matters.

It would not surprise me if the Conservatives obtain a slight majority, but I hope not. :2cents:

kanis
October 10th, 2008, 10:21 AM
Harper scares me.

kanis
October 10th, 2008, 10:23 AM
So anybody who votes Liberal, in my book does not support our troups and their mission.

I support Canadian troops 100%. As a historian and an educator, I completely understand why we have soldiers in Afghanistan. That is such an ignorant comment.

bendyfoot
October 10th, 2008, 10:24 AM
Although I understand that it's what gets thrown around by the media more than pretty much anything else and therefore is likely to affect people's decisions in any election, I would be very happy to see more people voting based on POLICIES and TRACK RECORD rather than PERSONALITIES. :2cents:

okaydunbye

bendyfoot
October 10th, 2008, 10:25 AM
Harper scares me.

Can I ask why? Seriously not trying to be confrontational, but I hear this ALL the time, especially from young women, but it's never explained to my satisfaction, I usually hear "his eyes are creepy" or "he's just scary". I'm genuinely curious why people think this.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 11:01 AM
I support Canadian troops 100%. As a historian and an educator, I completely understand why we have soldiers in Afghanistan. That is such an ignorant comment.

And what is your direct knowledge of the conditions that the troops were sent over with for you to make that comment about me?

Why we have troops over there has nothing to do with a gov't making a decision to send them into a war after years of them making military cutbacks. These are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, etc. whose lifes depend on up to date equipment and vigorous training. If gov't wants to make that decision, then ensure they have to tools to do it.

If you knew how they were sent over, you would not be saying that. It was Harper that spent the funds give the equipment that was needed. DH is in the military and has a fairly high position in the Army Training System, I know what I am talking about.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 11:03 AM
Can I ask why? Seriously not trying to be confrontational, but I hear this ALL the time, especially from young women, but it's never explained to my satisfaction, I usually hear "his eyes are creepy" or "he's just scary". I'm genuinely curious why people think this.

Because Dion says he "hides" things and is a "dictator", you know, unlike the Liberals that spilled and confessed everything they did? :rolleyes: Sorry couldn't resist :D

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 12:09 PM
Thank god the majority here seems to have a voice of reason! Loving your very well thought out comments.

And I so agree that Layton needs to get some new material. The "sweater" comment is so over.

I don't get the idea that Harper is "scary." When he talks he seems very in control and clear. Isn't that what you want in someone who is leading your country? Not saying you have to agree with all of his politics but to me if you feel that way you've been swayed by the fear mongering of other parties. Layton is saying we've lost so many jobs. Well the report even out today is backing what Harper is saying that job creation is UP. Layton says Harper has given $50 billion to big business and continually fails to mention the $150 billion to the regular tax payers. He did this over and over and over again in the last Leader's Debate on tv trying to make Harper look bad. That is one thing I appreciated about Dion in the debate. At least often he told us what his party plans to do and didn't just use the form to point the finger at what someone else is/isn't doing. Layton continually never answered the questions.

The other leaders over and over again tried to stir up fear about our economic crisis and Harper was criticized for not joining in the paranoia. While we might suffer some setbacks from what is happening in the US down the line, at present it appears much of what they were saying is just not true.

A report out yesterday rated Canada as the #1 world's soundest bank system.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4981X220081009?sp=true

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.

But Britain, which once ranked in the top five, has slipped to 44th place behind El Salvador and Peru, after a 50 billion pound ($86.5 billion) pledge this week by the government to bolster bank balance sheets.

The United States, where some of Wall Street's biggest financial names have collapsed in recent weeks, rated only 40, just behind Germany at 39, and smaller states such as Barbados, Estonia and even Namibia, in southern Africa.

The United States was on Thursday considering buying a slice of debt-laden banks to inject trust back into lending between financial institutions now too wary of one another to lend.

The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report based its findings on opinions of executives, and handed banks a score between 1.0 (insolvent and possibly requiring a government bailout) and 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets).

Canadian banks received 6.8, just ahead of Sweden (6.7), Luxembourg (6.7), Australia (6.7) and Denmark (6.7)........

RANKINGS

1. Canada

2. Sweden

3. Luxembourg

4. Australia

5. Denmark

6. Netherlands

7. Belgium

8. New Zealand

9. Ireland

10. Malta 11. Hong Kong

12. Finland

13. Singapore

14. Norway

15. South Africa

16. Switzerland

17. Namibia

18. Chile

19. France

20. Spain

bendyfoot
October 10th, 2008, 12:18 PM
IMO Harper is very introverted when not with a small group of familiar people...I'm just like this...and I can easily come across as very cold, aloof, or snobby...it's just because I'm a bit uncomfortable and I'm busy watching and trying to get a read on the people. It doesn't affect my ability to do good work, but it can definitely affect people's perceptions of me. Again, though, elections shouldn't be a personality/popularity contest...especially not with the global economy the way it is. And thanks for pointing out those stats Dracko, all the fear-mongering I've been hearing from the Libs, NDP and Green has been making my blood boil. NO, it's not an ideal situation, but we're far from heading into a depression despite what Layton has been trying to allude to this week:frustrated: Luckily we had a PM who has lead with a steady and conservative (small c) hand for the last term and not allowed us to get into a difficult or scary situation. Personally, the last thing I want to see right now is new nonsensical tax schemes and lots of spending.

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 12:22 PM
It is so easy to stand back and point fingers and criticize, I haven't heard what Dion would do to "save" the world markets except talk to economists? Maybe he can talk to Harper, he is one :laughing:. I still think Harper's advice to NOT panic is the best, it is the sell off of shares that cause the markets to crash.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 12:40 PM
IMO Harper is very introverted when not with a small group of familiar people...I'm just like this...and I can easily come across as very cold, aloof, or snobby...it's just because I'm a bit uncomfortable and I'm busy watching and trying to get a read on the people. It doesn't affect my ability to do good work, but it can definitely affect people's perceptions of me. Again, though, elections shouldn't be a personality/popularity contest...especially not with the global economy the way it is. And thanks for pointing out those stats Dracko, all the fear-mongering I've been hearing from the Libs, NDP and Green has been making my blood boil. NO, it's not an ideal situation, but we're far from heading into a depression despite what Layton has been trying to allude to this week:frustrated: Luckily we had a PM who has lead with a steady and conservative (small c) hand for the last term and not allowed us to get into a difficult or scary situation. Personally, the last thing I want to see right now is new nonsensical tax schemes and lots of spending.

I think I can be viewed the same way as well. Until I am fully integrated in something I can appear standoffish and aloof even though I am not. And I don't say this simply in defense of the Conservatives and Harper. If I felt they were not upholding the best interests of our country I would jump ship no problem. I am not a die hard, one-party person. How can people not see that our country is leaps and bounds ahead of ones like the US? The facts are all right there yet people get swayed by someone giving a speech so easily.

And amen on the "new nonsensical tax schemes and spending" ideas. How can that be good for us right now? Yeah, lets change what ain't broke. :headslap:

Love4himies
October 10th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Attached is a anticle explaining our mortgages:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wexplainer1006/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

Chris21711
October 10th, 2008, 01:43 PM
How can people not see that our country is leaps and bounds ahead of ones like the US?
:

Not wanting to be confrontational, but how is Canada "leaps and bounds ahead of the US"? The US is Canada's main trading partner by far, without them we would be up the creek.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 01:49 PM
My point being that we have measures set in place to protect us from what is happening in the US. Because CMHC, for instance, is the government and their lending practices aren't based solely on greed and making $ like the private mortgage lenders in the US we haven't set ourselves up to fail like they have. You can't just get a house here in Canada like in the US. There are much stricter measures for money to be lended to someone (i.e. actually proving you are able to).

I am not saying Canada won't be affected by the recession in the US but we are not nearly as vulnerable to a national recession as they are. What will ensure a crash? People buying in to the fear and reacting.

Chris21711
October 10th, 2008, 02:01 PM
A 40 year mortgage with 0 down payment is not that much better. This is not just a US problem, Banks and Investment companies worldwide bought into the subprime market, they considered it a viable band wagon to jump onto.

Two of our own banks CIBC and BMO were told back in January to shore up as they were in a pretty precarious position. The CIBC lost almost $8 billion dollars. As far as I know the TD was the only bank that did not enter this market, I read a while back that one of their spokespeople stated that "they didn't entertain this type of investment, because they did not fully comprehend it. Unfortunately I don't bank with the TD, too many years working for them, I guess.

krdahmer
October 10th, 2008, 02:15 PM
It's sad, but I also think that the upcoming US election is going to impact us more than our own election.

Also IMO it's naive to think that the current state of our environment and it's improvement can be left up to us as individuals. Some may do their part, but as a whole it doesn't have a large enough impact to make the difference that is needed now before it's too late. I mean how sad is it that they are having to consider fining people for not recycling because they are too lazy to seperate their garbage? I don't think any party has come up with a workable plan yet... but at least some are trying. Mass poluters need to pay, and green and environmental job markets need to grow to replace the industrial jobs that will inevitably be lost by taxing the greedy big poluters (heaven forbid the big-wigs there should lower their billion dollar salaries instead of firing and laying off already low paid workers). We should be building more wind turbines and solar power equipment, so that it can get to a point where more can afford to use it. I am a dreamer, indeed, because I really think this can all be accomplished some day, but not with the laissez faire attitude of today's leaders. The environment should be the key issue, because in the years to come, we may be left with no where to hide from nature's fury, and then who will care about any other issue?

pitgrrl
October 10th, 2008, 02:40 PM
Sorry, as for the ARTS, as long as we have other priorities, arts should be the bottom of the list. As Harper said, the average Canadian who is struggling to make ends meet, don't give :2cents: about the rich and their arts, let those who want it support it. (Think there are alot of rich actors out there)



It astounds me that the "arts" are seen as some sort of disposable luxury which in no way contribute to the cultural and economic vitality of a country. Equally perplexing to me is the idea that anyone involved in the arts, a side from perhaps a very few private collectors who typically are making their money in other industries, are even remotely rich.

Artists are regular people too (I actually can't believe I even had to write that lol). They worry about making ends meet, they work hard, they're trying to survive along with everyone else.

Art is vital to the cultural and economic vitality of a country, to see it as disposable is a mistake.

Chris21711
October 10th, 2008, 02:45 PM
It astounds me that the "arts" are seen as some sort of disposable luxury which in no way contribute to the cultural and economic vitality of a country. Equally perplexing to me is the idea that anyone involved in the arts, a side from perhaps a very few private collectors who typically are making their money in other industries, are even remotely rich.

Artists are regular people too (I actually can't believe I even had to write that lol). They worry about making ends meet, they work hard, they're trying to survive along with everyone else.

Art is vital to the cultural and economic vitality of a country, to see it as disposable is a mistake.

I agree with you entirely pitgrrl, most artists are p*ss poor, the ones that make money at it are very few and far between.

Art expands the mind, it is a shame that more people don't take an interest in it.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Chris21711 - It is my understanding that the banks aren't allowing 40 yr mortgages anymore and no 0 down. My financial advisor told me this anyway the other day. As well, how many banks were actually doing that? I know a friend of mine who went to BMO and Royal looking for it and they wouldn't allow it. Only Scotia Bank would. I'm not exactly an authority on the mortgage situation but I know of NO ONE who has a 40 year mortgage (not that they didn't try).

Love4himies - I couldn't agree more about the "arts." While there is value in them how can someone who thinks we are headed for an "economic crisis" believe money needs to be allocated for this??? Plus, are they going to be like the farmers in that if they can't make it work we bail them out? If you want to make a living in the arts, do so if you can afford to. If not, it's like any dream...you'll have to do something additional to support yourself. Heck I'd love to simply own an acreage that houses unwanted animals. But reality says I have to work to earn a living.

And for those talking about penalizing mass polluters you have to realize there is a balance that has to happen. I am in the natural health industry and make a living from it. The majority of what I eat is organic, I buy free range meats that are raised here in our province, do my part to recycle and see a huge value in it. But reality is that our economy depends on these "mass polluters." Layton's theory would be to slam the book at them and penalize/tax them to death. Well, know what would happen? They would all pack up and leave. There has to be a slow and steady approach to keeping them happy but not pushing them out of the country, imo.

And, I don't see ONE issue as the sole one in this election. It all adds up together. That is what I get from Harper. In the last national Leader's Debate on tv he kept saying that while the other leaders simply put all their eggs in one basket. They appeal to the emotional sensitivites of some people to win votes.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 03:33 PM
I agree with you entirely pitgrrl, most artists are p*ss poor, the ones that make money at it are very few and far between.

Art expands the mind, it is a shame that more people don't take an interest in it.

And that is the governments fault? I don't see it as that. If someone wants people to partake in what they are "selling" they need to drive the interest.

If someone opens a restaurant it is up to THEM to bring people in. Why is it any different with artists? Why should they be handed money?

Now if we are doing well economically as a country I can see allocating money to them, but seems to me most people who are on the side of "giving to the artists" are also the one thinking our economy is being flushed down the toilet by the current government.

You can't have it both ways.

Schwinn
October 10th, 2008, 03:39 PM
A 40 year mortgage with 0 down payment is not that much better. This is not just a US problem, Banks and Investment companies worldwide bought into the subprime market, they considered it a viable band wagon to jump onto.

Two of our own banks CIBC and BMO were told back in January to shore up as they were in a pretty precarious position. The CIBC lost almost $8 billion dollars. As far as I know the TD was the only bank that did not enter this market, I read a while back that one of their spokespeople stated that "they didn't entertain this type of investment, because they did not fully comprehend it. Unfortunately I don't bank with the TD, too many years working for them, I guess.

The mortgages that are available in Canada are quite a bit different than the sub-prime in the US. In Canada, you still need to qualify for a 40 year mortgage (which, as of Oct 15, is no longer available, and most institutions stopped back in July, same with 100% financing) with proven income and financials. Many of the subprime mortgages were giving with declarations of income, as in, "Sign here stating how much you make". And TD did actually suffer a slight loss, but not as big as the other guys (only CIBC was that high leveraged). Also, Canadian banks themselves can not get in the sub-prime market, which, again, is a lot more stable than the US was (again, due to qualifications for getting one). The other thing that caused these failures is the way they were set up. They have (had) a product where you pay interest only the first five years, then pay interest and principle. So, not only does your payment go up, but your amortization is now shorter. Mortgage payments went from $500/month to $1500/month (which is why there were suddenly so many defaults). Again, Canadian rules and regulations mean this CAN NOT happen here.

The other side of the coin is the investment firms and banks that invested in these products. Part of the problem is no one really had an understanding how they worked (I'm leaving out a good chunk of explanation for brevity, and because I don't fully understand), and they were being rated AA and AAA investments (high grade). Suddenly, they started going bad, and they went from high grade to junk overnight. At that point, investment firms and banks were required to increase thier capital to shore up thier paper losses. It became virtually impossible to do that quickly, and *poof* there goes Lehman Brothers. Then the whole house of cards follows...

So, yes, the banking system itself is vastly superior to the US, when it comes to stability and protection of the consumer. Canadian banks are no where near danger of failing. The government did just inject some major capitol to free up the "credit crunch", but that is a whole 'nother topic, and nothing to do with the solubility of an institution. (Essentially, because of markets, the costs of banks lending to each other went through the roof, and therefore costs of lending to consumers as well. It became less affordable, ergo, credit crunch. Way over simplifying it, but I'm short on time (procrastinating at work), and the longer explanation is really boring...)

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 03:43 PM
^^^^ Well said. Glad you could explain what I couldn't.

But you know what? Unfortunately facts and reasons will so often not outweigh the fear instilled in people. I'm not sure how people don't see the differences between the US and Canadian systems. Oh wait, yes I do...they listen to politicians who will do/say anything to get their vote.

bendyfoot
October 10th, 2008, 03:47 PM
And for those talking about penalizing mass polluters you have to realize there is a balance that has to happen. I am in the natural health industry and make a living from it. The majority of what I eat is organic, I buy free range meats that are raised here in our province, do my part to recycle and see a huge value in it. But reality is that our economy depends on these "mass polluters." Layton's theory would be to slam the book at them and penalize/tax them to death. Well, know what would happen? They would all pack up and leave. There has to be a slow and steady approach to keeping them happy but not pushing them out of the country, imo.

And what happens when they pack up and leave? The average folks who work for these companies lose their jobs. They end up on welfare, stop putting money back into the economy, and everyone suffers. I think this is something a lot of people forget. If we tax "BIG CORPORATIONS:evil:" or "BIG OIL":evil: to death or make it impossible for them to conduct business in Canada, it's not just the evil millionaire CEOs:evil: that will suffer, it's all the hard-working middle class folks who rely on employment with those companies to put food on the table.

And arts. Yeah, I love the arts and I think they should be supported...to a point. It's kinda like a situation here in Ottawa. Some members of the arts community have been pushing City Hall to invest a conciderable amount of money in a new Concert Hall. Now, this hall would pretty much be down the road from the National Arts Centre. So, City Hall asks the arts community to show their desire/committment to this venture by raising the rest of the funds...well, several years later, they STILL haven't been able to manage it, and they keep pushing the government for a greater and greater peice of the pie. My question is, if we need this concert hall so much and everyone will benefit from it and love it, then why are the beneficiaries so unwilling to invest in it?

Schwinn
October 10th, 2008, 03:49 PM
(Just breaking my answers into readable bits:D)

I didn't see it as a one issue election until the Liberals and NDP started talking about what they were going to do to fix the economy. Canada could very well avoid a recession, and definitely a serious one, if things are done right. But if what Dion is saying is what he'll actually do (reverse income trusts), that would be absolutely disasterous. And the carbon tax, I'm not sure it wouldn't affect gas. Would he not tax the oil companies and producers? So, no, he wouldn't add a carbon tax to gas, but don't you think the companies would pass it on? I would if I was a company. Maybe I don't understand it properly, but sitting on the precipace like we are, I'm not willing to take a chance, not when the consequences could be disasterous.

As for the arts, on the whole, I think they should be supported. However, I don't like to see my tax dollars going towards a painting with a big red stripe down it, or a movie called "Young People F******". To me, tax dollars should be going towards things the majority of the Canadian populace would support, not what the arts "crowd" (for lack of a better word) support. Again, though, I don't know all the ins and outs of this situation, just my take on the issue as a whole. The other parties have made the economy the sole issue, and, IMHO, if people take the time to understand what is happening, it will really come back and bite Layton and Dion in the bum.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 03:52 PM
And what happens when they pack up and leave? The average folks who work for these companies lose their jobs. They end up on welfare, stop putting money back into the economy, and everyone suffers. I think this is something a lot of people forget. If we tax "BIG CORPORATIONS" or "BIG OIL" to death or make it impossible for them to conduct business in Canada, it's not just the evil millionaire CEOs that will suffer, it's all the hard-working middle class folks who rely on employment with those companies to put food on the table.

EXACTLY!!!! And that brings to mind something in our paper the other day.

"Layton says Harper will give big corporations $50 billion in tax relief. If elected Layton says he will stop the giveaways to companies and concentrate on the real drivers of the economy, welfare."


Would voters gamble on an NDP government?
Updated Thu. Oct. 9 2008 8:06 AM ET

Rosemary Thompson, CTV News

Earlier this week he raised the spectre of the Great Depression, then on Wednesday the NDP Leader Jack Layton said Canadian banks are showing greed for not following the lead of the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates by 50 basis points.

Now Layton has a new theme song, "The Gambler," made famous by Kenny Rogers. In the final days of the campaign, Layton is gambling that voters may go to the NDP because they fear the economic fall-out from the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.

Layton is trying to capitalize on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's suggestion this week that voters go out and look for bargains on the stock market, " I think it was quite a shocking thing to see the prime minister say that people should go out and play the stock market. That kind of gambling isn't what we need in 24 Sussex."

But will voters gamble on an NDP government? Layton is promising the world to voters, childcare, homecare, pharmacare, more doctors and nurses, and a big increase in the child benefit from $100 a month to $400 a month per child. This is just a shortlist of spending programmes Layton is promising even though it's certain government's tax revenues will fall in the current economic context.

And how will he afford all of this? He's planning to axe a corporate tax cut promised by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals that would amount to $50 billion. Despite all of the economic turmoil affecting consumers and businesses alike, Layton doesn't see any need for tax relief for the corporate sector.

Conservatives and Liberals have called Layton's corporate tax plan a "job killer." :thumbs up

But he ignores the criticism because he says he's going to need the revenue to pay for a wide variety of social programmes, and targeted help for struggling sectors of the economy.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081008/election2008_blogthompson_081009/20081009?s_name=election2008&no_ads=

The NDP might have their heart in the right place on some issues but this is reality.

Schwinn
October 10th, 2008, 04:02 PM
But you know what? Unfortunately facts and reasons will so often not outweigh the fear instilled in people. I'm not sure how people don't see the differences between the US and Canadian systems. Oh wait, yes I do...they listen to politicians who will do/say anything to get their vote.

In all fairness, a lot of times, people just don't care enough or take the time to understand. And I say this as someone who doesn't fully understand the issue of the arts. We're all about the sound bite these days. I took a strip out of our local Conservative candidate on Kyoto the last election, and he explained to me thier position. Then, I went and actually studied the accord, and what it means, and how it works. Suddenly, I was against it.

It's the same with the pitbull issue. Is it because people are stupid, really do hate the dog, or don't take the time to learn (because most don't care that much, or have the time)? I'd say it's the last one...most people who aren't affected directly get thier information from the headlines, and the people they trust in the public eye (or, in the case of politicians, distrust the least;))

(now, I REALLY have to get back to work, this was supposed to be a two minute time out for me!)

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Just to add some levity here. CTV has a quiz up you can take to see which leader your views are most in common with.

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2008/quiz/game.html


Have to say I passed. :thumbs up

pitgrrl
October 10th, 2008, 05:05 PM
And that is the governments fault? I don't see it as that. If someone wants people to partake in what they are "selling" they need to drive the interest.

If someone opens a restaurant it is up to THEM to bring people in. Why is it any different with artists? Why should they be handed money?

Now if we are doing well economically as a country I can see allocating money to them, but seems to me most people who are on the side of "giving to the artists" are also the one thinking our economy is being flushed down the toilet by the current government.

You can't have it both ways.

The reason behind government art funding is, primarily, two fold.

Unlike a restaurant, or any other business, the commercial art market in Canada is almost non-existent. There are a handful of private collectors and corporate art collections, besides that it's people who may buy one or two pieces for their home or museums, archives and the like which are largely publicly funded. So, even if you cut off all federal and provincial granting programs which go directly to the individual artist, for there even to be a market, funds need to continue to be allocated to museums, artist run centers and the like.

Secondly, there are many who are of the opinion that the ability to produce art without having to produce for the market is a good thing. There is and has been so many important plays, films, paintings, sculptures etc. which have significantly contributed to not only Canadian culture, but to individuals, that would never have been created if there was not financial support which recognized a value outside of that which exists solely in economic terms.

I'd also like to point out that, in spite of getting grants, tax exemptions, and other forms of financial support, artist still have to try and sell work and often have other jobs. It is extremely rare for a Canadian artist, even well known artists, to be able to support themselves strictly by there art work, much less in any sort of luxury.

Here's a perfect little anecdote to illustrate what I'm trying to say here. I know a painter who's work has been exhibited not only in major Canadian museums and galleries, but across North America and Europe. He has a 35+ year long career but, in spite of receiving some of the largest grants available in this country, having his work included in many prestigious collections and living in a manner most university students would find meager, he still has to work various labor jobs to make ends meet.

So one evening he goes into a large law firm downtown which he's been hired to clean. He walks into one of the offices and what does he see? One of his paintings displayed prominently behind the desk which had been bought by the firm's art collection. That's being an artist in Canada, not galas and piles on money.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Good post and I do see your point. I guess it's just a matter of priorities for each one of us.

Here's a perfect little anecdote to illustrate what I'm trying to say here. I know a painter who's work has been exhibited not only in major Canadian museums and galleries, but across North America and Europe. He has a 35+ year long career but, in spite of receiving some of the largest grants available in this country, having his work included in many prestigious collections and living in a manner most university students would find meager, he still has to work various labor jobs to make ends meet.

Good for him. Pursuing his passion and doing what he has to in order to do so. To me it's absolutely no difference than anyone else who does whatever they have to.

I have a friend who has adopted 5 kids (and I'd like to point out not necessarily by choice. They adopted the first one and got a call a year or so later that the "mother" had another, did they want the child. Next year, ditto and so on.) They get no funding from the government what so ever. She works a full time job and after work cleans businesses (which she is fortunate to often be able to take her kids while she does it). Her husband is a mechanic and on top of this they are farmers so he has essentially a full time 2nd job (they have animals as well as farm grain). You never hear them complain but both work like dogs. To me what they have done for these kids (5 kids, same mother, 3 different fathers) is of no less value to our society than an artist and their work. I don't think we should have any more emphathy for a "starving artist" than we would for anyone trying to make ends meet.

chico2
October 10th, 2008, 05:22 PM
It will be a cold day in hell,before we would ever vote for Harper,him and his goons are no better than Harris the horrible:evil:who just about destroyed Ontario.
Voting Green,you might as well vote for Harper,Layton is a no- brainer,promising this and that,we would go bankrupt with him as a leader.
Yes,I wish Dion,could speak better English and be more assertive in his speaches and I worry about the carbon-tax,but he is clearly better than the Bush-loving,sweater-wearing,baby-kissing,ever smirking Harper:laughing:
He wasted time and money calling for an unlawful election,he will win,but hopefully only a minority-government again:fingerscr

pitgrrl
October 10th, 2008, 05:47 PM
To me what they have done for these kids (5 kids, same mother, 3 different fathers) is of no less value to our society than an artist and their work. I don't think we should have any more emphathy for a "starving artist" than we would for anyone trying to make ends meet.

I certainly don't think artists deserve anymore empathy than anyone else, nor do I think what they do is of any more value than a mechanic, or nurse, or teacher, or anything else. I just don't think what they do is any less
valuable and I resent the characterization of artist and art as being somehow distinct from "the people" or "the worker".

kanis
October 10th, 2008, 05:51 PM
Can I ask why? Seriously not trying to be confrontational, but I hear this ALL the time, especially from young women, but it's never explained to my satisfaction, I usually hear "his eyes are creepy" or "he's just scary". I'm genuinely curious why people think this.

The only other Canadian politican who has given me concern in the past was Stockwell Day. From the get-go I didn't trust him at all. Harper gives me the same feelings. True, in some ways it's just a gut reaction; however, there are a few things that have been thrown around in the past years (whether he's been PM or not) that have concerned me greatly.

1. Choice. The topic of women having control over their own reproduction.
2. Same sex marriages. There was discussion about bringing this back on the table.
3. The elimination of the national child care program.
4. Preventing his MPs from taking part in discussions with the media. Keeping certain members out press conferences.
5. Contingency fund spent.

The first three are what popped into my mind right away. I hope that answers your questions

kanis
October 10th, 2008, 06:19 PM
And what is your direct knowledge of the conditions that the troops were sent over with for you to make that comment about me?

Why we have troops over there has nothing to do with a gov't making a decision to send them into a war after years of them making military cutbacks. These are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, etc. whose lifes depend on up to date equipment and vigorous training. If gov't wants to make that decision, then ensure they have to tools to do it.

If you knew how they were sent over, you would not be saying that. It was Harper that spent the funds give the equipment that was needed. DH is in the military and has a fairly high position in the Army Training System, I know what I am talking about.


Of course spending has increased. True, when they were first in the country, Canadian soldiers weren't prepared for that mission. Since 2001, more money has been put into Afghanistan. It's logical to increase the funding as our responsibilities in Afghanistan shifted in 2006. Not only did Harper increase spending, as did the previous administration.

But to say voting for one party over the other means that one doesn't support the soldiers or the mission is presumptuous and foolish.

erykah1310
October 10th, 2008, 08:52 PM
I have nothing of any interest to add but I must say I love this thread!

I know who I am voting for, however I know they will not win ( and thats fine by me)

As for Harper being "scary"... I don't find he is ( to look at anyway) however to run our country I am TERRIFIED.
But I dont know why, take away the political aspect of him and everything we know about him... I find him sorta cute LOL

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 09:18 PM
I certainly don't think artists deserve anymore empathy than anyone else, nor do I think what they do is of any more value than a mechanic, or nurse, or teacher, or anything else. I just don't think what they do is any less
valuable and I resent the characterization of artist and art as being somehow distinct from "the people" or "the worker".

You missed my point entirely. My point was "artists" are not any more distinct and shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else struggling to make a living. They are equal to others who are trying to make a living and should, therefore, do whatever it is they have to in order to make a living for themselves. I applaud those who follow their dreams and stick to it even though it isn't an easy road. But I don't see why an exception should be made to make their path any easier than anyone else's. At least not at the expense of other things in this "so called" recession the NDP, Liberals and Green Party are saying we are headed in to.

I also didn't see Harper say there would be NO funding for the arts. I watched the debate and he did not say that. The issue was used as a pawn by Layton so he could jump in and be the hero once again promising to give money away to gain votes. Harper's message was "everything in proportion" and that is why Canada is not mirroring the catastrophic situation in the US.

I'd also like to add. For those of you who are so TERRIFIED of having Harper win, what exactly has he done since he's been in power that is so god awful. And, keep in mind just because something is taken away you have to balance that with what was given. Just like with a parent sometimes you have to do what is best for the person even if it doesn't feel good at the time. As Prime Minister he has to balance the needed of the entire country not just some specific demographic.

Dracko
October 10th, 2008, 09:23 PM
P.S. I find it interesting that we have so many people from Quebec on the board yet no one has voted for the Bloc in the poll.

Chaser
October 10th, 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm voting Green, for several reasons:

1) I'm very impressed with my local candidate, and he has engaged in a personal e-mail discussion with me regarding animal rights.

2) Elizabeth May is intelligent and articulate, and more than proven that she can play with the big boys. She may not have had the opportunaity to practice responsible fiscal management yet, but she's the first to admit she won't become PM so it's not like the Greens will be in a position to plunge Canada into financial ruin. I want to see her and her party get a shot at some experience and share their views with the country.

3) I think a lot of people would agree that essentially having had two political parties in Canada for it's entire history is not the most democratic or functional way to run things. I'm hoping for a stronger NDP and Green influence in the House this time around. Whether the Conservatives or the Liberals win, I think they need to have more critics to answer to. A little balance is never a bad thing. :2cents:

Chris21711
October 11th, 2008, 12:43 PM
Chris21711 - It is my understanding that the banks aren't allowing 40 yr mortgages anymore and no 0 down. My financial advisor told me this anyway the other day. As well, how many banks were actually doing that? I know a friend of mine who went to BMO and Royal looking for it and they wouldn't allow it. Only Scotia Bank would. I'm not exactly an authority on the mortgage situation but I know of NO ONE who has a 40 year mortgage (not that they didn't try).

They aren't allowing them anymore. A co-worker of my Hubby has a 40 year mortgage that he negotiated last March prior to the new guidelines coming into effect.

Schwinn - I understand sub-prime mortgages. I did say that 40 year mortgages are "not much better".

Love4himies - I couldn't agree more about the "arts." While there is value in them how can someone who thinks we are headed for an "economic crisis" believe money needs to be allocated for this??? Plus, are they going to be like the farmers in that if they can't make it work we bail them out? If you want to make a living in the arts, do so if you can afford to. If not, it's like any dream...you'll have to do something additional to support yourself. Heck I'd love to simply own an acreage that houses unwanted animals. But reality says I have to work to earn a living.

Artists do many things to support themselves L4H, like anyone else following a dream


And that is the governments fault? I don't see it as that. If someone wants people to partake in what they are "selling" they need to drive the interest.

If someone opens a restaurant it is up to THEM to bring people in. Why is it any different with artists? Why should they be handed money?

Now if we are doing well economically as a country I can see allocating money to them, but seems to me most people who are on the side of "giving to the artists" are also the one thinking our economy is being flushed down the toilet by the current government.
You can't have it both ways.

Governments give grants left, right and centre, so why not artists. It is an enrichment of the mind, expanding people from the little closets they live in.

What it all boils down to is different opinions and what values you have. :2cents:

badger
October 11th, 2008, 01:24 PM
I'm in Gilles Duceppe's riding so my vote won't count for much. I'm praying for another minority government (a few days ago, it looked like a Liberal minority might be a possibility but I think that's gone).

I think Harper is profoundly anti-democratic. I think his control issues and his hostility towards other points of view are entrenched. The Globe and Mail thinks he is maturing; no, he is a bully with a sloppy body and a brain that hasn't admitted a new idea since he headed up the Canadian Taxpayer's Association, another selfish, right-wing mob.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.weelection2008/BNStory/politics

Let him damn well work with the other parties and stop threatening to make everything a confidence vote unless he gets his way. I despise his constant politicking, the way he shuts up his ministers and treats journalists like the enemy.

Dion may not be perfect but he has a thousand times more integrity.

Love4himies
October 11th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Of course spending has increased. True, when they were first in the country, Canadian soldiers weren't prepared for that mission. Since 2001, more money has been put into Afghanistan. It's logical to increase the funding as our responsibilities in Afghanistan shifted in 2006. Not only did Harper increase spending, as did the previous administration.

But to say voting for one party over the other means that one doesn't support the soldiers or the mission is presumptuous and foolish.

In my books it does, supporting a party who doesn't support its military and sends it to war is shameful. Absolutely shameful. Convicts get more rights and care than our military.

I am talking about years of cutbacks prior to Afghanistan by the Liberal gov't which created a poorly trained and equipped army. It takes more than a month to train and equip thousands of soldiers, it takes years really.

During the Mulroney days, there used to be large national exercises annually, but because of budget cuts, they were suspended.

As for Dion, he is a bumbling fool (nothing to do with his English), who can't answer questions directly. Watched him with Peter Mansbridge this afternoon and I think Peter was very frustrated because he wouldn't (or couldn't) answer any questions directly. He had an interview, in NS yesterday I think, and was asked what he would do with the Canadian economy. After a couple of re-takes, his answer was to consult with economists and come up with a plan in 30 days. And he has the gall to point a finger at Harper?

What I don't understand is why people don't trust Harper???

Love4himies
October 11th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Arts should get no more funding than any other institution, trade or job, period. If there is not enough interest in it, then it goes bankrupt, that's what happens to our shelters. While we have starving people, crumbling infrastructure, inadequate health care then the arts and sports shouldn't be funded. There is not enough money to support everything. Arts don't contribute anything of necessity to our society, unlike teachers, doctors, nurses, police, engineers, or farmers, well you get my point. Artists are a "luxury".

As for national daycares, why should I support your kids???? They are the parents responsibility, not mine or the Gov'ts. Nobody helped me raise mine, had to give up many things to make ends meet, but that's life. If you can't afford them, then don't have any.

Dracko
October 11th, 2008, 08:23 PM
Arts should get no more funding than any other institution, trade or job, period. If there is not enough interest in it, then it goes bankrupt, that's what happens to our shelters. While we have starving people, crumbling infrastructure, inadequate health care then the arts and sports shouldn't be funded. There is not enough money to support everything. Arts don't contribute anything of necessity to our society, unlike teachers, doctors, nurses, police, engineers, or farmers, well you get my point. Artists are a "luxury".

As for national daycares, why should I support your kids???? They are the parents responsibility, not mine or the Gov'ts. Nobody helped me raise mine, had to give up many things to make ends meet, but that's life. If you can't afford them, then don't have any.

AMEN! :thumbs up

Frenchy
October 11th, 2008, 08:40 PM
P.S. I find it interesting that we have so many people from Quebec on the board yet no one has voted for the Bloc in the poll.

Do you know how much friction there is about this here in Quebec ? I for one , wouldn't drag this here , in an english forum ! Being french , I keep my opinions on this to myself.

Erykah , same here , I don't really like Harper but I think he's very cute :)

Dracko
October 11th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Do you know how much friction there is about this here in Quebec ? I for one , wouldn't drag this here , in an english forum ! Being french , I keep my opinions on this to myself.

Erykah , same here , I don't really like Harper but I think he's very cute :)

Actually no I don't but I suppose I can imagine. We have 4 reps in Quebec with the company I work for and I don't believe any of them vote for the Bloc either. I am just curious on how the party is viewed from people on the "inside."

TeriM
October 11th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Plus the Liberals sent our wonderful miliatry over to Afghanistan SO POORLY TRAINED (BECAUSE OF THEIR HUGE MILITARY CUTBACKS OVER THE YEARS) and EQUIPED. They had NO consideration for their lives and until the conservatives got into power, they continued to be poorly trained and equipped. So anybody who votes Liberal, in my book does not support our troops and their mission. Thank goodness the Conservatives are spending those billions to keep our troups safe.

And what is your direct knowledge of the conditions that the troops were sent over with for you to make that comment about me?

Why we have troops over there has nothing to do with a gov't making a decision to send them into a war after years of them making military cutbacks. These are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, etc. whose lifes depend on up to date equipment and vigorous training. If gov't wants to make that decision, then ensure they have to tools to do it.

If you knew how they were sent over, you would not be saying that. It was Harper that spent the funds give the equipment that was needed. DH is in the military and has a fairly high position in the Army Training System, I know what I am talking about.

In my books it does, supporting a party who doesn't support its military and sends it to war is shameful. Absolutely shameful. Convicts get more rights and care than our military.

What I don't understand is why people don't trust Harper???

L4H ... I am not easily offended but these statements really bother me. You are entitled to your opinion but please don't label anyone who disagrees as if we are a traitor to our military :frustrated:. I come from a family of military people. My brother served in Bosnia, another brother was a pilot with military, my SIL is still in military as reserve, my sis was a reservist and my BIL is still in and is scheduled to return to Afghanistan for the THIRD time in Sept next year. I fully believe in supporting our troops but I don't like Stephen Harper. I could list reasons like womens rights, same sex marriages, control issues etc but basically it comes down to my gut. My gut tells me not to trust him so I am gonna listen to it!

I also don't believe that the liberals are entirely to blame for the current situation of the military. To judge a decisions made pre-911 in a post-911 world is unfair. A lot of the current conditions are a result of DECADES of cutbacks through many different elected parties.

kanis
October 11th, 2008, 10:31 PM
During the Mulroney days, there used to be large national exercises annually, but because of budget cuts, they were suspended.


Of course there was more money put in to the military in the Mulroney era! It was the Cold War era for goodness sake! Nuclear bombs and the fear of Communism dictated military spending. Because of the overspending of the Progressive Conservative party, our national debt was over 600$ Billion. Our economic situation was horrible as a result. Every Ministry had spending cuts in the 90s because of the debt created by the Conservatives.
With Harper, we will go down that same road of overspending and debt.
The Conservatives inherited a 12$ Billion surplus and a 3$ Billion contingency plan. And yet, this year, we've dipped into a deficit even before this economic crisis. So for someone who apparently is an economist, he's not doing so well managing our economy.

Schwinn
October 11th, 2008, 10:45 PM
It will be a cold day in hell,before we would ever vote for Harper,him and his goons are no better than Harris the horrible:evil:who just about destroyed Ontario.
Voting Green,you might as well vote for Harper,Layton is a no- brainer,promising this and that,we would go bankrupt with him as a leader.
Yes,I wish Dion,could speak better English and be more assertive in his speaches and I worry about the carbon-tax,but he is clearly better than the Bush-loving,sweater-wearing,baby-kissing,ever smirking Harper:laughing:
He wasted time and money calling for an unlawful election,he will win,but hopefully only a minority-government again:fingerscr

Ahh, Chico...where would a Pets.ca political debate be without you decrying the evil Harrisites? You know I love you, but it's become laughable...I keep picturing you lying in bed, your bedsheets up to your eyes, looking like Timmy the Timbit, whispering loudly, "I think there's a Harrisite under the bed!!" But if by "just about destroyed Ontario" you mean pulled us out of the mess that Rae left behind, you're right. But I guess we are better off with an Ontario government with more broken promises than any other in history, and who will not hesitate to take my 7 yr old family member and have her put down because of a political move made to appease people who only like soundbites...you know, like the ones who blame the government for Walkerton, when it was a certain drunk and his brother who falsified the information for the water inspectors, and it would have happened under ANY government? But just remember it is the "evil" Conservatives who have brought us this far, and our economy is one of the more stable ones in the world, so while we will disagree on the political spectrum, I'm not sure how you can clearly say Dion is better, not if you're talking from an informed point of view, and not from under the bedsheets staring at your closet door. Oh, and trust me, if Dion reverses income trusts, clearly, we will be in serious trouble.

Schwinn - I understand sub-prime mortgages. I did say that 40 year mortgages are "not much better".

I guess my point is, 40 yr mortgages are completely different than sub-prime. I mean, one is given to a high-risk borrower, and the other is like any other mortgage, only stretched out over a longer period of time. The requirements are the same for a 25 yr, you still have to be able to pay. If anything, a 40 yr amort is going to make it easier to afford your mortgage, your payment is going to be cheaper. I guess I just don't understand the comparison to the US and people going into default.

I think Harper is profoundly anti-democratic. I think his control issues and his hostility towards other points of view are entrenched. The Globe and Mail thinks he is maturing; no, he is a bully with a sloppy body and a brain that hasn't admitted a new idea since he headed up the Canadian Taxpayer's Association, another selfish, right-wing mob.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/politics

Now we're deciding who to vote based on thier body??? Well, then, bring back Belinda Stronach! However, that DEFINITELY means Elizabeth May is out, though...anyone know how many sit-ups Jack Layton can do?

Let him damn well work with the other parties and stop threatening to make everything a confidence vote unless he gets his way. I despise his constant politicking, the way he shuts up his ministers and treats journalists like the enemy.

Dion may not be perfect but he has a thousand times more integrity.

2 points on the integrity thing...1)To the best of my knowledge, Harper only broke one promise and that was about income trusts, which every economist said had to be done, or Canada would be out billions, and in serious financial touble (of course, the Canadian Taxpayers Association was also on side, so maybe that was just the right-wing conspiracy talking) and 2)Dion refused to bring down the government, regardless of how much he disagreed. Why? Only one reason...polls show he wouldn't win an election. A thousand times more integrity? I'd like to see the math on that one. Seems to me, he's as much of a politician as any of the others.

1. Choice. The topic of women having control over their own reproduction.
2. Same sex marriages. There was discussion about bringing this back on the table.
3. The elimination of the national child care program.

These three points went around last election, too. Again, fear-mongering by the far left and the other leaders...
1. Harper stated he had no intention of bringing abortion into the legislature, which I actually don't understand why that would be a horrible idea, since most polls show Canadians are about evenly split on the issue, with both sides having valid points (take out emotion, and even the most rational person would have to agree that there is valid grounds for debate in the legislature). But I digress, the point is he stated it was not going to be brought up, and it wasn't.
2. He stated that he wanted it to be an open vote (as I think all votes should be) rather than a vote down party lines (ie. vote against the party, and you'll find yourself sitting as an independant). As a matter of fact, he did bring it up in legislature, by way of asking if it should be re-opened under an open vote. The answer was no, and the issue was dropped.
3. He didn't eliminate the program, he changed it, to what some people think was more fair. Now, everyone with children has the same benefit, whether it is day care or home care. Honestly, the national child care program would have been better for me personally, but if we're going to be fair, he didn't necessarily eliminate it.

Again, I find that a lot of times I hear this, it's due to the "sound bite" culture. Heck, last election, I even heard some stupid comments that Harper would probably eliminate the vote for women, too. Makes it tough for intelligent debate with that one, huh?

That being said, if I were to be completly honest, I have to say that I've been saying all along that if I didn't know about Harper before he was PM, I'd probably like him. I didn't like his grandstanding when we didn't go to the Iraq war, and I didn't like some of his policies while he was leading the Reform party. I truly believe that while, yes, I think has changed some since becoming PM, I also think it's probably more due to the influence of those from the old PC party that he's changed his tune. AND, I was willing to look at other parties before I heard all the rhetoric from the other parties about the economy. (My point is, I'm not the cheer leader for Harper that I'm coming off as. Also, last time there was some people getting down right nasty, so I hope that, for the most part, we keep the debate friendly)

I'd settle for a minority government, but we have to have the Conservatives with the balance of power, because if it comes down to either the Liberals or the NDP making the decisions about what to do with the economy, and Dion and Layton WEREN'T just postering and were sincere about what they'd do, we're in big trouble.

Schwinn
October 11th, 2008, 10:58 PM
With Harper, we will go down that same road of overspending and debt.
The Conservatives inherited a 12$ Billion surplus and a 3$ Billion contingency plan. And yet, this year, we've dipped into a deficit even before this economic crisis. So for someone who apparently is an economist, he's not doing so well managing our economy.

Got anything to support this? Because, so far, there has yet to be any evidence of deficit, and the budgets under him have all been balanced. Or are you repeating the rhetoric of the Liberals and NDP? Because he has yet to finish a year in deficit. I just went through everything I could find, and there is nothing to indicate that he has ever had a deficit. Now, could we be in deficit now? Maybe, but the economy is also in the middle of dry heaves (whereas in the US it has downright puked). In other words, the numbers would change due to unforseeable circumstances, and it'd be understandable to see a deficit. Just as the Ontario Liberals did, and I don't blame them for that (and anyone who has followed me in the BSL forum knows that I have bile in my mouth just writing that last sentence.)

And again, to say he isn't doing so well managing our economy is a little disengenous given that we are doing better than most of the other countries, and that we are more closely tied to the US than anyone else, AND given we have not yet had negative growth.

TeriM
October 11th, 2008, 11:06 PM
Got anything to support this? Because, so far, there has yet to be any evidence of deficit, and the budgets under him have all been balanced. Or are you repeating the rhetoric of the Liberals and NDP? Because he has yet to finish a year in deficit. I just went through everything I could find, and there is nothing to indicate that he has ever had a deficit. Now, could we be in deficit now? Maybe, but the economy is also in the middle of dry heaves (whereas in the US it has downright puked). In other words, the numbers would change due to unforseeable circumstances, and it'd be understandable to see a deficit. Just as the Ontario Liberals did, and I don't blame them for that (and anyone who has followed me in the BSL forum knows that I have bile in my mouth just writing that last sentence.)

And again, to say he isn't doing so well managing our economy is a little disengenous given that we are doing better than most of the other countries, and that we are more closely tied to the US than anyone else, AND given we have not yet had negative growth.

I am not a fan of the conservatives and believe that they have purposefully stuck to a non-controversial "order of business" due to the fact that they have a minority government. I actually believe that is probably the best position for our country right now and hope that is how things end out. I don't think you can judge the last few years performance as a true example of what they would do if they actually had a majority :shrug:.

Dracko
October 11th, 2008, 11:24 PM
Okay Schwinn are you a dude or dudette? If you're a dude, "Will you marry me?" If you're a dudette, "I'll change teams to marry you." :laughing:

Don't know how anyone can argue with the logic you write. It amazes me how easily people overlook the WHOLE story or picture and just grab on to the soundbites put forth from the parties desperate to win an election.

kanis
October 12th, 2008, 12:34 AM
Got anything to support this? Because, so far, there has yet to be any evidence of deficit, and the budgets under him have all been balanced.

July 25, 2008
Julian Beltrame
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA The federal government started off the new fiscal year in the hole, recording a rare $500 million deficit that showed the impact of a slowing economy and new tax cuts, the Finance Department said Friday.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/467383

I didn't like his grandstanding when we didn't go to the Iraq war, and I didn't like some of his policies while he was leading the Reform party.

And perhaps that's something I can't let go. His close association with the Reform party just sends chills up my spine. The Reform party was so right wing that it made the PCs look leftist.

Schwinn, while we don't agree, I want to thank you for keeping this truly a debate about politics and not making it personal. That's what debating is about.

kanis
October 12th, 2008, 12:48 AM
BTW: Even if you think that it's hopeless for your candidate, did you know that the party gets 1.95$ for each vote received? So no vote is truly wasted. It's kind of like a mini donation to your party.

Dracko
October 12th, 2008, 12:49 AM
July 25, 2008
Julian Beltrame
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – The federal government started off the new fiscal year in the hole, recording a rare $500 million deficit that showed the impact of a slowing economy and new tax cuts, the Finance Department said Friday.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/467383

.

From the article link above:

On a monthly basis, the government said it recorded a $900 million deficit in April, but a $300 million surplus in May.

In the February budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty all but declared the era of large surpluses over as a result of personal and corporate taxes. The minister projected a $2.3 billion surplus during this fiscal year and a slim $1.3 billion surplus on the 2009-2010 year.

The article as a whole literally says not to overemphasize looking at only a couple months of the year but rather to look as the year as a whole. :thumbs up

Dracko
October 12th, 2008, 12:51 AM
BTW: Even if you think that it's hopeless for your candidate, did you know that the party gets 1.95$ for each vote received? So no vote is truly wasted. It's kind of like a mini donation to your party.

VERY good point, kanis, especially for the parties like the Green Party that are smaller and probably have less donations. People need to keep this in mind when they contemplate "strategic voting."

Dracko
October 12th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Tory majority possible: poll

Julian Beltrame
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have survived the Conservative campaign's moment of crisis and is again knocking on the door to a majority government mere days from Tuesday's vote.

The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests the Conservatives stretched their lead over the Liberals to 10 points more than doubling the gap that separated the parties as recently as four days ago.

The poll had the Tories at 35 per cent, followed by the Liberals at 25 per cent, the NDP at 18 and the Green Party at 11.

In Quebec, the poll put the Bloc miles ahead with 41 per cent support, well clear of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

"The Conservatives enter the weekend with some clear momentum in Ontario, which has the potential to greatly affect the outcome," said Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson.

The survey results represents 1,273 interviews conducted Tuesday through Friday with a margin of error of 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Today, Harper took the fight to Dion after he warned economic uncertainty could force a Liberal government to delay some of its policies, but not the tax changes proposed in the party's Green Shift plan.

"Today Mr. Dion said he may not actually do anything he promised in his platform not health care, not child care, not anything else for years," an incredulous Harper told supporters in Guelph, Ont.

"But he is going to do the carbon tax now, no matter what."

The attack, if exaggerated, came after Dion told Global Television early today that some of his election promises could end up being pushed back to the second half of a four-year mandate.

The Green Shift would be implemented as promised, he said, because it was revenue-neutral and would stimulate growth through income and corporate tax cuts.

The Green Shift has been a millstone around Dion's neck for much of the campaign, partly because Harper has had success portraying it as a massive, "risky" tax grab.

The Liberal leader's shift in recent weeks away from the plan and toward the deepening world economic crisis and collapsing stock markets appeared to revive both his campaign and his poll numbers, taking the Liberals to within striking distance as recently as Thursday.

Today, however, Dion was back trumpeting the virtues of his carbon tax as he campaigned his way through the vote-laden suburbs of southwestern Ontario.

"Two hundred and thirty economists have told you it was good for the economy," he said.

"We know it's a good policy. We know that Stephen Harper is trying to win this election on a lie. He pretends we will raise taxes.

"Not at all, we'll cut your income taxes."

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

But time is running out for Dion as he tries to sell a complex policy requiring fundamental changes to the tax system at a time when millions of Canadians are watching their investment savings evaporate and fearing for their jobs.

After stumbling badly this week by appearing insensitive about the fears of voters, Harper took pains today to demonstrate he knows what it's like to be in their shoes.

"I know that many Canadians are concerned about the economy and what it means for their jobs and their savings," he said during a campaign speech in London, Ont.

"As a husband, as a father, as a son, I understand those concerns."

With only three days of campaigning left, Harper said the choice had come down to two men himself and Dion.

"I think there's every reason to believe the election is close," he said.

The latest Harris-Decima poll would suggest that's only true in Ontario, where the Tories were leading the Liberals by 35 per cent to 32 per cent.

It was no coincidence that both Harper and Dion found themselves today in the province that holds the key to a majority government.

In every other region of the country, one party holds massive two-digit leads over its nearest rivals.

The Liberals were well ahead in Atlantic Canada and the Bloc was stretching its lead in Quebec, while in British Columbia, the Tories were polling 19 per cent above the NDP and Greens, with the Liberals trailing badly.

The poll suggested opinions of the prime minister had improved somewhat from mid-week, when Harper reacted to the ongoing economic turmoil by suggesting it was a good time to go bargain-hunting on the stock market.

The Conservatives aren't in majority territory as yet, but momentum is on their side, Anderson said.

The Liberals are losing their advantage as the traditional second choice for most voters Conservative switchers are now as likely to go NDP as they are Liberal, he noted.

As well, events which were conspiring against the governing party a few days ago now appear to be more balanced.

The stock market continued to slide Friday, but Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian economy had created a record 107,000 new jobs in September.

While the number looked better than it was almost all the new jobs were part-time the fact it was on the positive side of the ledger suggested an economy that was inching forward despite recessionary fears.

Over the weekend, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Washington with other western finance ministers to deal with the financial crisis after announcing that the government would purchase $25 billion in bank-held mortgages to help unclench tight money markets.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/516122

badger
October 12th, 2008, 01:38 AM
So, he isn't taking any more questions from the press. What's that all about? Wake up Schwinn, we're not evaluating a manager here but a leader, that is a much taller order. Yes, I want some of those inspiring speeches (all those sappy photo-ops with children just don't do it for me), a sign that he understands the complexities of a country like Canada, and a willingness to compromise around those complexities. Instead, all we get is politics: manoeuvring, strategizing, demonizing. Have you noticed - Stephen always gets what he wants. What about what I want?
And the environment? He is oblivious.

Dracko
October 12th, 2008, 01:59 AM
Have you read their platform? http://www.nationalpost.com/documents/081007-platform.pdf

I don't know how you can say he isn't in touch with what people want? Heck in their platform they even address simple things like:

Restricting unfair text messaging charges

Protecting against internet spam

Ensuring truth in labelling for consumer goods

Increasing penalties for gas tampering laws

Helping first time home buyers with closing costs (up to $5000 tax credit)

Reducing the paper burden for small businesses

Reintroduce federal copyright legislation that strikes the appropriate balance among the rights of musicians,artists, programmers and other creators and brings Canada's intellectual propertyprotection in line with that of other industrialized countries, but also protects consumerswho want to access copyright works for their personal use.

Helping older workers

------------------------------------------

Of course the more important issues like crime, the environment, etc are addressed as well. I read over all the parties platforms and to me this the most comprehensive and extensive. (Anyone who can figure out all of Layton's spreadsheets let me know. It all became gobbly gook to me after a while.)

If you want to see the Conservative platform on the Environment start reading on page 33. Contrary to every party out there, the Conservatives are not looking to ignore the issue.

Some points on it:


Environmental enforcement


• Will increase penalties for the most serious environmental crimes: up to $6-million for corporations and $1-million for individuals.

• Will introduce minimum penalties and a penalty structure that differentiates between individuals and organizations.

• Will give the Environment Minister the authority to deny a licence, permit or other authorization to a company with poor compliance history.

• Will require corporations convicted of environmental crimes to notify their shareholders of their conviction and punishment.

• Will establish a searchable database that allows the public to learn of corporations' environmental convictions and punishments.

• Will ensure that all environmental laws contain the same strong powers to allow courts to compel offenders to remedy any harm to the environment.

Penalties collected will go into the dedicated Environmental Damages Fund.


• Will also provide $113-million over five years, and then an additional $25-million annually, for increased environmental enforcement:

-- Establish a team of specialized environmental prosecutors.

-- Provide for forensics and laboratory scientific support of enforcement officers.

-- Establish two major case investigation units dedicated to environmental and wildlife protection in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.



I am not trying to say everyone should agree with their solutions but to just ignore that they do have an interest in what is important to people is wrong.

kanis
October 12th, 2008, 02:54 AM
Tory majority possible: poll
The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests the Conservatives stretched their lead over the Liberals to 10 points more than doubling the gap that separated the parties as recently as four days ago.


What's interesting is that you look at a different poll and the results are much different. The Nanos Poll today stated that there is only 4 points between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC-Nanos-October-11-2008E.pdf

chico2
October 12th, 2008, 08:14 AM
Schwinn:laughing::laughing:
I am definitely not a political animal,but the likes of Mulroney,Harris and yes Harper makes my skin crawl.:evil:
It all depends what kind of country we want,if leaving the working poor,the homeless,the sick and seniors by the wayside is acceptable,ignore the Kyoto accord,lets go with a Harper majority
As for subsidized day-care,we never needed to use any day-care,but helping people get out in to the workforce,instead of living on welfare,is a good thing in my book.
Every civilized country offer affordable day-care and I believe here in Canada so does Quebec.
Schwinn,I respect your point and you are definitely more tuned in to politics than I am.
I guess I am a socialist at heart growing up on welfare,knowing what it's like being poor.
My husband and I were fortunate,never needing any help,but life throws people in to misery often to no fault of their own,if we leave them rotting on the streets,what kind of country are we??

My take on Afghanistan,I don't believe our soldiers,should be dying for a war that cannot be won,England and Russia tried in the past,but left in defeat,nothing will ever change in Afghanistan.
Also Canada is not the only country who has troupes there,soldiers from several other countries are dying every day,for what???

badger
October 12th, 2008, 10:46 AM
Dracko, unfortunately we have to elect the guy to find out if he'll follow through on any of those things (ditto the others). I guess what it comes down to is which person you're willing to take a chance on, which speaks to integrity (again), and for me it's not Harper.

He has no record on the environment except a negative one, so I'm not too hopeful. As we all know, you can pass the laws but unless you have robust enforcement, it ain't worth zip. But I can dream about seeing some of those oil men in handcuffs, can't I?

Chris21711
October 12th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Schwinn:laughing::laughing:

Obviously Schwinn, you are a Conservative and entitled to your opinions like anybody else.

I am definitely not a political animal,but the likes of Mulroney,Harris and yes Harper makes my skin crawl.:evil:

Mine too Chico.

It all depends what kind of country we want,if leaving the working poor,the homeless,the sick and seniors by the wayside is acceptable,ignore the Kyoto accord,lets go with a Harper majority

Kyoto Accord - IMO needs find tuning, everybody has to be on board.

My husband and I were fortunate,never needing any help,but life throws people in to misery often to no fault of their own,if we leave them rotting on the streets,what kind of country are we??

Unforseen circumstances happen that throw people for a loop, they just need some guidance to get back on track, enough of that is not in place IMO

My take on Afghanistan,I don't believe our soldiers,should be dying for a war that cannot be won,England and Russia tried in the past,but left in defeat,nothing will ever change in Afghanistan.

We are trying to fight and change a culture, it is not the same as fighting the enemy IMO

Also Canada is not the only country who has troupes there,soldiers from several other countries are dying every day,for what???

I do support our troops in Afghanistan, but I do not support the Conservative Government

rainbow
October 12th, 2008, 02:16 PM
I've been reading this thread but haven't said anything as political discussions always seem to get too heated but I do agree with Chris, Chico and Badger.

One thing that really irks me about Mr. Harper is the controversy over the Chuck Cadman tape. Mr. Harper offered Mr. Cadman a one million dollar insurance policy to vote against the Liberals in 2005 although he repeatedly denies this even though the court appointed expert has just said that the tape was not doctored.

What does this say about the integrity of Mr. Harper? It makes me ask "what else does this man lie about?"

Schwinn
October 12th, 2008, 11:12 PM
Wake up? I'm well aware of the policticking by all the leaders, by the BS and pandering by all the leaders...I'd suggest, respectfully, it isn't me that needs to wake up. I'm not the one who seems to think that Harper is the only one who's playing politics.

And no, I'm not "a Conservative". Nor am I "a Liberal", or "an NDP'er". I've voted for differet parties at different times. Didn't like Mulroney, hated Martin...no, I actually believe that people who follow any particular party, through thick or thin, are actually in danger of becoming less aware of actual issues, that instead of deciding for yourself, you're in danger of getting sucked into the hype of the party...Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Green. I believe that, while most get into politics to help others, most who come forward from the back benches are there to get, and keep power.

I also grew up financially struggling...while my family was never on welfare, a good number of my friends were. The friends I first had when I first moved to Chatham probably wound up in jail, dead, or strung out on drugs...as a matter of fact, my best friend whom I saw going through OD from coke when I was twelve, I did run into 7 years later...when his brain was so fried he didn't know who I was. So I'm not from a background of privelige, nor do I know what it's like to be lucky enough to have everything handed to me, right up to still paying off student loans. So my opinions are formed not from being one of the elite *******s, but rather of also struggling while growing up.

So yes, these are my opinions, and Kanis, your welcome and thank you for seeing this as a debate. I hold ill-will to few people, and I can respect anyone of a differing opinion (love my step-father, and don't discuss unions with him;))

I had an open mind going into the election, until Dion and Layton started promising things that would be disasterous to our economy. So again, I ask the question...are they pandering, or actually plan to implement thier plans. Either they lack integrity, or lack true understanding of the issues, which will sink our economy.

I keep hearing how Harper is evil and lack integrity, but I haven't heard why...which leads me to believe that people are believing the hype. And THAT scares me.

Yes, I believe that Harper runs a "my way or the highway"-type ship, and I find he is a little smug. I'd much rather someone else lead our country, to be truly honest. But to say he lacks integrity, I have yet to hear why. I believe he kept the majority of his promises, and the big one he broke, had to be done. I saw that before the promise was broken, and didn't forsee it when the promise was made. Doesn't talk to the press, personally, I find that refreshing. But then, having fought BSL, maybe I'm just tired of watching Bryant and McGuinty talk to the press every chance they got, and pander in a way that would make Jack Layton proud. He said he felt that every decision made was being crucified by the press, so screw them, he wasn't dealing with them. I actually, on one level, respect that.

The enviroment? I think he's done better than anyone else. I'm getting long-winded here, but Kyoto isn't an enviroment agreement, it's a wealth re-distribution policy. The short version? Major polluters in developed countries get to buy credits from undeveloped countries, which is cheaper than implementing policies which reduce pollution. Suddenly, nothing gets done to reduce pollution. To say Harper has done nothing for the enviroment, again, isn't right. He implemented hard targets. Maybe you disagree with the dates or the targets, but it's unfair to say he's done nothing. And ever since Kyoto, I've been saying we can't sacrifice the economy for the enviroment, and we can't sacrifice the enviroment for the economy. Since then, I've heard two politicians say the same thing...Stephen Harper, and ironically, Elizabeth May. Keep in mind, if the economy suffers, there won't be enough money to implement the changes and technology required to fix the enviroment.

So, in closing (:D) if I'm coming off a little crusty, I apologize. I'm tired of turning on the TV and hearing politicians, of all parties, say what they think people want to hear, instead of what is factual. And rheteric annoys me. Yes, it is my opinion, as is yours is yours. I'll respect anyone for explaining thier position, and I'd ask the same.

And, when it's all done, no matter who wins on Tuesday, we can all go for ice cream...

(oh, and Dracko, thank you for the compliment, but Mrs. Schwinn has a strict no-dating policy. She has her hang-ups, but I love her just the same:D)

Dracko
October 13th, 2008, 12:43 AM
And no, I'm not "a Conservative". Nor am I "a Liberal", or "an NDP'er". I've voted for differet parties at different times. Didn't like Mulroney, hated Martin...no, I actually believe that people who follow any particular party, through thick or thin, are actually in danger of becoming less aware of actual issues, that instead of deciding for yourself, you're in danger of getting sucked into the hype of the party...Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Green. I believe that, while most get into politics to help others, most who come forward from the back benches are there to get, and keep power.

Totally agree.


And, sorry to hear you are married. ;) If your wife ever decides she wants to share you, just let me know. Part time would be okay. :p

chico2
October 13th, 2008, 07:49 AM
Schwinn,who can beat you on reasoning,certainly not a Swedish old broad:laughing:not that I am even competing.
To be absolutely honest,McGuinty in Ontario has done nothing he can be proud of,probably his best action was moving Michael Bryant(:evil:)to Indian Affairs(hope I remember correctly):laughing:
Our rep in Ottawa,Liberal Bonnie Brown,is who we will vote for,no ifs or buts about it..

All I hope for,is a minority Harper,just so someone can reel him in,if he gets out of hand:fingerscr:ca:

badger
October 13th, 2008, 11:00 AM
I'll give Harper one thing: the apology to the natives in the House brought me to tears (and no, bringing me to tears is not one of the requirements for my ideal prime minister!)
But - as an elder I'm allowed to say this - politics used to be way more fun. There was just as much bull*****, but far more civility. I am well aware that Trudeau was flawed as a leader (another control freak but he believed in democracy), but he engaged with the country. That's what I want Harper to do, but his makers forgot to give him a personality :laughing:
Jack Layton was on Tout le monde en parle - a televised interview show/salon that draws a huge audience - and acquitted himself very well. He is a good man. Harper, of course, refused several invitations to appear, waaaaay too risky.

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Schwinn, you are so well spoken and such a realist. I would love to have a dinner conversation with you and my partents, it would be extremely rewarding. They are the extreme of political and economical fanatics and are so well informed and don't miss a beat, it is their retirement hobby :laughing:. Keeps their minds sharp.

It is my belief that Harper has been the one politician who has kept the majority of his promises, unlike the other parties.

We can't possibly support everything that everybody wants, who is going to pay the taxes for it? We would all love to live in a polution free society, no poverty but it is just not realistic. I like Schwinn grew up in a very poor family who struggled to make ends meet and my parents because of their frugal ways are very comfortable today. My parents instilled those ethics in me and I had to put myself through school while working full time and give up many years of vacations and other luxuries to have what I have today. I didn't say boohoo, poor me, taxpayers I can't support myself so you have to, no, I thought holy $hit, things are expensive, I best get an education if I want to live a good life.

Here is some good reading on Canada and the Kyoto Treaty:
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/kyotoprimer_en.pdf

The "my way or highway" is a norm in CDN politics, it is expected to members of parliment to support their leader or resign. Do you remember when Chretien fired Martin?

People on low income CAN currently get supplemented daycare by municipalities.

Watched Dion interview with Peter Mansbridge yesterday, he could not answer a question directly and all he could do is talk about his "green shift" plan. He didn't give any indication that he would be willing to change/defer or scrap the carbon tax, even if it meant a loss of jobs when he was asked.

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 11:50 AM
He is a good man. Harper, of course, refused several invitations to appear, waaaaay too risky.

What were his excuses for not being able to appear???? Could have been legitimate.

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Okay Schwinn are you a dude or dudette? If you're a dude, "Will you marry me?" If you're a dudette, "I'll change teams to marry you." :laughing:

Don't know how anyone can argue with the logic you write. It amazes me how easily people overlook the WHOLE story or picture and just grab on to the soundbites put forth from the parties desperate to win an election.

:laughing::laughing::laughing: Dracko you are priceless

Chris21711
October 13th, 2008, 11:57 AM
People on low income CAN currently get supplemented daycare by municipalities.


Only if there is available space. In some areas the waiting list is 2 years :eek:

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Of course there was more money put in to the military in the Mulroney era! It was the Cold War era for goodness sake! Nuclear bombs and the fear of Communism dictated military spending. Because of the overspending of the Progressive Conservative party, our national debt was over 600$ Billion. Our economic situation was horrible as a result. Every Ministry had spending cuts in the 90s because of the debt created by the Conservatives.
With Harper, we will go down that same road of overspending and debt.
The Conservatives inherited a 12$ Billion surplus and a 3$ Billion contingency plan. And yet, this year, we've dipped into a deficit even before this economic crisis. So for someone who apparently is an economist, he's not doing so well managing our economy.

:laughing::laughing: Doesn't matter if it was the Cold War era or not, their missions will almost always be without warning so they have to be ready at all times. That takes continuous funding.

Afghanistan and the purchasing of military equipment has taken a HUGE amounts of money, more that I think the conservatives thought. Dion would not commit to not cutting military spending if he got elected. Green party will cut funding, NDP will only "allow" peace keeping missions (gotta fullful our NATO commitments, Layton, be very difficult to keep this promise not knowing what is gonna happen in the world). Way I see it, the only gov't that is going to stand behind our troops is Harper.

kanis
October 13th, 2008, 02:12 PM
I'll give Harper one thing: the apology to the natives in the House brought me to tears (and no, bringing me to tears is not one of the requirements for my ideal prime minister!)


True. It was a shining moment. But remember, they voted down the Kelowna Accord.

kanis
October 13th, 2008, 02:23 PM
Doesn't matter if it was the Cold War era or not, their missions will almost always be without warning so they have to be ready at all times. That takes continuous funding.

You're the one who made the comparison to funding under the Mulroney era. Every "free" nation was pouring money into defense at that time. Post Cold War, the fear of Communism wasn't there and as a result of a MASSIVE debt left by the Conservative party, cuts were made across the board. I'm sure most people would rather have had the defense budget cut first before health, wouldn't you say?


Afghanistan and the purchasing of military equipment has taken a HUGE amounts of money, more that I think the conservatives thought. Dion would not commit to not cutting military spending if he got elected.

That's right. In the interview I watched with Peter Mansbridge, he stated that he would commit to making sure that Canadian soldiers had the best equipment needed. Did you miss that part?

badger
October 13th, 2008, 03:46 PM
But remember, they voted down the Kelowna Accord

I remembered that, but I wanted to retain the purity of the moment before the bigger truth came knocking lol.

Mind you, the natives haven't been lucky in their leaders either, more's the pity.

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 05:33 PM
That's right. In the interview I watched with Peter Mansbridge, he stated that he would commit to making sure that Canadian soldiers had the best equipment needed. Did you miss that part?

For the CDN military to get the best equipment they needed, then it would take massive INCREASES in the current military budget, much more than what Harper is currently spending. So to not commit to increases in the military budget, means that he will not insure they get the best equipment needed, so his answer was not logical.

Love4himies
October 13th, 2008, 05:37 PM
You're the one who made the comparison to funding under the Mulroney era. Every "free" nation was pouring money into defense at that time. Post Cold War, the fear of Communism wasn't there and as a result of a MASSIVE debt left by the Conservative party, cuts were made across the board. I'm sure most people would rather have had the defense budget cut first before health, wouldn't you say?


Health care is managed by the provincial gov't, military is managed by the federal.

Dracko
October 13th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Watched Dion interview with Peter Mansbridge yesterday, he could not answer a question directly and all he could do is talk about his "green shift" plan. He didn't give any indication that he would be willing to change/defer or scrap the carbon tax, even if it meant a loss of jobs when he was asked.

I seriously tried to watch it. Really I did. But his lack of actually answering a question just wore on me.

Frenchy
October 13th, 2008, 09:23 PM
I just want to say .... 2 people voted that they will not vote and that .... is extremely wrong to me. If you don't care or don't know who to vote for , at least go to cancel your vote !! Please !

kanis
October 14th, 2008, 12:25 AM
Health care is managed by the provincial gov't, military is managed by the federal.

True. Transfer payments to the provinces were cut. All spending was cut as a result of the massive 600$ Billion debt left by the Mulroney Conservatives. Are you saying that military spending should have been exempt?

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 06:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv-5biChVrA

Video of Dion who can't answer a simple question about the financial crisis.

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 06:55 AM
I seriously tried to watch it. Really I did. But his lack of actually answering a question just wore on me.

I thought Peter was going to smack him :laughing:

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 07:22 AM
True. Transfer payments to the provinces were cut. All spending was cut as a result of the massive 600$ Billion debt left by the Mulroney Conservatives. Are you saying that military spending should have been exempt?

Agree, but it was up to the provinces on how to manage those funds and set their priorities. No I am not saying military spending should be exempt, what I am saying is the military should be provided proper equipment and training. These are young men and women who have signed up to give up their lives for their country when duty calls, so the gov't should be responsible for ensuring they are doing what ever possible to lessen the death counts.


This is what I believe: Gov't should be spending on those services that are a necessity and when and if there is a surplus and no debt left to pay then to fund those luxuries such as arts, sports. When all the infrastructure is sound, hospitals and schools (no students should be taught in portables :frustrated:) are well equipped and staffed, our military is ready to go on a moment's notice, then you can fund the non necessities.

All able bodied men and women, yes even single moms, should be working to support themselves and their children and if you are low income then you should be supplemented with lower rent/daycare, reimbursement of tuition for high school/post secondary courses. Hard work never hurt anybody and if that means you have to work full time and go to school at night, well so be it, lots of us have done it and survived. If you don't want to work hard to get ahead, then the consequences is poverty. If you can't afford your kids, then don't have any. I would have loved to have a couple of children, but could not afford the daycare so I stopped at one. I felt I was responsible for the upbringing of my children, not the taxpayers.

Anywaaaaaays, TODAY IS ELECTION DAY, GET OUT AND VOTE!

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 07:26 AM
This is on PM Harper's GC website:

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=90

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 07:27 AM
Awwwww here is another one:

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=73

How can you say this is an evil guy????

chico2
October 14th, 2008, 08:38 AM
L4H,We came to Canada when Trudeau was PM,he did a lot of good,some bad,left Canada deep in debt.
He had charisma ,made the world aware,Canada was not part of the US,was not covered in ice:laughing:
What I see in Harper,might be unjust,but the proverbial smile on his face even if he is giving us bad news,shows arrogance and coldness.
Cozy sweaters did nothing to change that,it seems to be a PC-trait over the years.
I agree that Dion at this time is probably not the right leader for the Liberals,his English is just not good enough and Peter Mansbridge took full advantage of that fact.
In my experience over the years and I am sorry to say,French Canadians are not always looked upon favorably,by English speaking Canadians:frustrated:
Visiting Quebec several times,we could not disagree more,although having been warned about Fr-Canadians being unfriendly,we encountered nothing but friendly people.
Dion is an intelligent,well spoken man in French,but his insecurity with the English language makes him look like a mouse facing a big bull(Harper)and it is very unfortunate,but a fact.
All we can hope for is a minority gov,dog help us if Harper gets majority:yell:

clm
October 14th, 2008, 08:39 AM
Today is the day people. GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!!!

Now I can't wait to hear all the whining tomorrow from people who didn't know they need to bring 2 pieces of identification to prove their address and one with their picture on it. Drivers license plus a passport or a bill (like a hydro bill or credit card statement), addressed to you at your address. No excuses, take what you need and VOTE.

Cindy

chico2
October 14th, 2008, 08:45 AM
I agree,we'll be there at 9:30....VOTE!!

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 08:53 AM
[QUOTE=chico2;673975]What I see in Harper,might be unjust,but the proverbial smile on his face even if he is giving us bad news,shows arrogance and coldness.
Cozy sweaters did nothing to change that,it seems to be a PC-trait over the years.
QUOTE]

I see his smile as warm, not arrogance and his sweaters as his fashion statement. I think we need a Prime Minister that isn't for the rich and famous (as I thought Mulroney was :evil:), but for the middle income tax payer and I think that is what he is trying to portray.

Chetien did not have that great of English either, but he was still voted in, so I don't think that is an excuse for Dion not getting the votes. I personally don't find his English that bad, if only English people could speak French half as well as he spoke English, I think this would be a better country. The question was put forth quite simply, the problem was that he did not have an answer and kept fumbling. Even Peter Mansbridge couldn't get him to answer questions directly.

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 08:59 AM
Visiting Quebec several times,we could not disagree more,although having been warned about Fr-Canadians being unfriendly,we encountered nothing but friendly people.

dog help us if Harper gets majority:yell:

DH is French and we travel through Quebec all the time to get to NB and living in a tourist town (Kingston) he hears what French people are saying in French and not all are very kind to the English, infact some are down right rude to the point DH has to bite his tongue. :laughing:

I do agree that the hospitality in Quebec is second to none. :thumbs up

Do you think Canada is going to sink into the ocean if Harper gets elected into a majority gov't? I guess I just don't understand why people fear him like he is Hitler :confused:.

bendyfoot
October 14th, 2008, 09:43 AM
Wow, so much great stuff came out of this thread over the weekend, I'm sad I wasn't able to participate...just a few pre-voting comments...

The only other Canadian politican who has given me concern in the past was Stockwell Day. From the get-go I didn't trust him at all. Harper gives me the same feelings. True, in some ways it's just a gut reaction; however, there are a few things that have been thrown around in the past years (whether he's been PM or not) that have concerned me greatly.

1. Choice. The topic of women having control over their own reproduction.
2. Same sex marriages. There was discussion about bringing this back on the table.
3. The elimination of the national child care program.

The first three are what popped into my mind right away. I hope that answers your questions

1. He's NEVER said that the abortion debate would be brought back into the house. While I don't agree with his personal stance on the issue, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as long as things stay the way they are (which they will 'cause no politician with half a brain would touch this one with a ten-foot pole), then I'm happy.
2. As a person IN a same-sex marriage, I was actually really happy that this issue was brought back for a second FREE vote. The first one was a sham, and insulting. Now, the issue can be laid to rest, which it would not have been had Harper not reopened the issue.
3. I don't remember him ever saying he would eliminate national child care, only that he would ALSO support parents who wanted to keep their children at home with a parent or other chosen caregiver...how can that be bad?

But just remember it is the "evil" Conservatives who have brought us this far, and our economy is one of the more stable ones in the world, so while we will disagree on the political spectrum, I'm not sure how you can clearly say Dion is better, not if you're talking from an informed point of view, and not from under the bedsheets staring at your closet door. Oh, and trust me, if Dion reverses income trusts, clearly, we will be in serious trouble.

YEP.

Now we're deciding who to vote based on thier body??? Well, then, bring back Belinda Stronach! However, that DEFINITELY means Elizabeth May is out, though...anyone know how many sit-ups Jack Layton can do?

:laughing:

.



I keep hearing how Harper is evil and lack integrity, but I haven't heard why...which leads me to believe that people are believing the hype. And THAT scares me.

Yes, I believe that Harper runs a "my way or the highway"-type ship, and I find he is a little smug. I'd much rather someone else lead our country, to be truly honest. But to say he lacks integrity, I have yet to hear why. I believe he kept the majority of his promises, and the big one he broke, had to be done. I saw that before the promise was broken, and didn't forsee it when the promise was made. Doesn't talk to the press, personally, I find that refreshing. But then, having fought BSL, maybe I'm just tired of watching Bryant and McGuinty talk to the press every chance they got, and pander in a way that would make Jack Layton proud. He said he felt that every decision made was being crucified by the press, so screw them, he wasn't dealing with them. I actually, on one level, respect that.

The enviroment? I think he's done better than anyone else. I'm getting long-winded here, but Kyoto isn't an enviroment agreement, it's a wealth re-distribution policy. The short version? Major polluters in developed countries get to buy credits from undeveloped countries, which is cheaper than implementing policies which reduce pollution. Suddenly, nothing gets done to reduce pollution. To say Harper has done nothing for the enviroment, again, isn't right. He implemented hard targets. Maybe you disagree with the dates or the targets, but it's unfair to say he's done nothing. And ever since Kyoto, I've been saying we can't sacrifice the economy for the enviroment, and we can't sacrifice the enviroment for the economy. Since then, I've heard two politicians say the same thing...Stephen Harper, and ironically, Elizabeth May. Keep in mind, if the economy suffers, there won't be enough money to implement the changes and technology required to fix the enviroment.

D)

Yup to all that. Schwinn, you say it very well.

Dracko
October 14th, 2008, 12:02 PM
Today is the day people. GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!!!

Now I can't wait to hear all the whining tomorrow from people who didn't know they need to bring 2 pieces of identification to prove their address and one with their picture on it. Drivers license plus a passport or a bill (like a hydro bill or credit card statement), addressed to you at your address. No excuses, take what you need and VOTE.

Cindy

Exactly my thoughts! :loser:

Dracko
October 14th, 2008, 12:05 PM
Do you think Canada is going to sink into the ocean if Harper gets elected into a majority gov't? I guess I just don't understand why people fear him like he is Hitler :confused:.


Yeah, what I don't understand is Harper has been in power for 2 years and we've seen no destruction of our country. What, do people think he's waiting until his 2nd term to bring the country down????

krdahmer
October 14th, 2008, 01:00 PM
I voted last saturday! :D

Love4himies
October 14th, 2008, 01:08 PM
I am voting tonight, was going to vote at the advance poll, but just got too busy.

rainbow
October 14th, 2008, 01:09 PM
I voted last saturday! :D

Me too since hubby had to take Chase to Kelowna for his operation today. And I didn't vote for the conservatives either. :D

chico2
October 14th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Dracko,Harper has been a PM for 2yrs,but in a minority government,often his hands have been tied by the opposition.
We just went to vote and in Oakville there truly was only one choice,Bonnie Brown Liberal:thumbs up

Writing4Fun
October 15th, 2008, 08:03 AM
Yeah, what I don't understand is Harper has been in power for 2 years and we've seen no destruction of our country. What, do people think he's waiting until his 2nd term to bring the country down???? Really? From where I stand, Harper's first term was pretty disastrous. :mad:

chico2
October 15th, 2008, 08:18 AM
W4F,nice to"see" you again:thumbs up
Well,for the first time in ages our Bonnie lost to the PC's:sad:
This election was just a total waste of millions of $$$$$,thank's Mr Harper:evil:

Chris21711
October 15th, 2008, 09:36 AM
BIG FAT WASTE OF $$$$$$$:yell:

kanis
October 15th, 2008, 10:06 AM
I agree Chris. I think this was a waste of tax payers' money. We should have waited until the Conservative Mandate was over. We're "electioned" out. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but we have our municipal elections coming up next month. The lowest voter turnout EVER. Pretty sad. A lot of people just decided to stay home.

And of course, a lot of attention is on the US election in November. Now, THAT's an interesting election! Whether Democrat of Republican, it's going to be a historical win.

clm
October 15th, 2008, 10:13 AM
Lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Pretty sad IMO. Only 59% went out to cast a ballott. For shame.

Cindy

Love4himies
October 15th, 2008, 12:20 PM
Lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Pretty sad IMO. Only 59% went out to cast a ballott. For shame.

Cindy

Very sad and unless parties start being ethical and disclose platforms that are attainable should they be elected, then I think low voter turnout will be the norm. Voters have lost confidence in their politicians because they are not implementing what they promised.

Love4himies
October 15th, 2008, 12:52 PM
I do have to say that it is amazing that the Green Party got 7% of the popular vote and 0 seats, NDP got 18% of pop vote and only 37 seats and the Bloc got 10% of the pop vote and 50 seats :eek:.

Dracko
October 15th, 2008, 12:54 PM
I do have to say that it is amazing that the Green Party got 7% of the popular vote and 0 seats, NDP got 18% of pop vote and only 37 seats and the Bloc got 10% of the pop vote and 50 seats :eek:.

I agree. This is just WRONG.

BenMax
October 15th, 2008, 01:12 PM
I'm just plain ticked and have nothing to say! I think alot of people are disappointed. I am certainly not expecting any changes - life goes on and promises will be broken as usual....whatever......

happycats
October 15th, 2008, 01:17 PM
I do have to say that it is amazing that the Green Party got 7% of the popular vote and 0 seats, NDP got 18% of pop vote and only 37 seats and the Bloc got 10% of the pop vote and 50 seats :eek:.
:eek: can someone explain this one to me.

happycats
October 15th, 2008, 01:21 PM
I'm just plain ticked and have nothing to say! I think alot of people are disappointed. I am certainly not expecting any changes - life goes on and promises will be broken as usual....whatever......


LOL my DH didn't want to vote last night (I dragged him there) because he said he doesn't trust ANY of them, they all break their promises!

My son made it more interesting by saying out loud at the polling booth, "so what colour are we picking, I'd pick blue if I could vote, orange is just ugly" :D

Dracko
October 15th, 2008, 04:58 PM
My son made it more interesting by saying out loud at the polling booth, "so what colour are we picking, I'd pick blue if I could vote, orange is just ugly" :D


Your son has good taste. ;)

Frenchy
October 15th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Pretty sad IMO. Only 59% went out to cast a ballott. For shame.

Cindy

I heard that too. :frustrated:

Chris21711
October 18th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Watching the news last night, they said that this Election had cost the Canadian Taxpayer $290 million :cool:

Schwinn
October 18th, 2008, 04:01 PM
Really? From where I stand, Harper's first term was pretty disastrous. :mad:

How so? I ask in all seriousness, because I personally think it was neither disastrous, nor do I think it was overly spectacular.

:eek: can someone explain this one to me.

I can try, but if I have it wrong, or someone can explain it better, I hope they'll correct me.

I believe it has to do with the ridings. Let's suppose you have 3 ridings, one with 20 000 people, and two with 10 000 people. Now, just to make this simple, suppose there are only two parties to vote for. In riding one 15 000 vote for party A, and 5 000 for party B. Member for Party A wins.
In riding 2 and 3, lets suppose that 6 000 vote for party B in each and 4 000 for party A. Both riding, Party B wins. Now, 2 members for party B have one, and 1 member for party A. Party B has more members, so Party B wins the election. However, the overall population had 23 000 people vote for Party A, and 17 000 for Party B, meaning the popular vote was for Party A.

The only thing that bothers me about the outcome is, again, my belief that people didn't truly understand the issue of the economy. When the election first started, the Tories were headed for majority. Then, when things started going down, the polls were showing them slipping. Tuesday, when the market shot up, I said to Mrs. Schwinn, "I'll bet you more people vote for Harper again, because today the economy looks good." Sure enough, it looks like more people did vote for the Conservatives than the polls predicted, and THAT I find frightening.

As for the money spent...meh. It's not that the money doesn't bother me, it's the reason behind the vote. Harper said he met with the other party leaders, and they only they could come to was they were not going to come to any consensus, that the government was not going to work. Now, I do believe the timing was because he looked like he was headed for a majority, and wanted to try and get it done before the economy started to slide. But I also think that the opposition parties would have called him on it if his stated reason was bogus. That, and I don't think any of the other leaders were any better.

The voter turn out made me think that all parties should take note--it was at an all-time low because a lot of people didn't like any of their choices. I'd be interested to see how many people were planning to vote when the election first started.

Mrs. Schwinn and I were talking about voting. She's down right rabid about having to vote, and it's shameful if you don't. I suggested that some might not vote to protest their options, that not voting doesn't mean you don't have a say, but means you don't like your choice, that that's a statement in itself. She, like many, many others, insist that you have to vote, and if you want to protest, spoil your ballot. But, to me, is spoiling your ballot really protesting, really making a statement? I mean, no one knows how many ballots are spoiled. Other than the counters, I'm sure no one knows about the year I wrote, "No one. They're all asshats" on my ballot. But everyone knows the turn out, and if it's low, to me, that's a statement on those that are running. To me, spoiling your ballot is like hating Zehrs, and going to shop there, and stealing one grape each time you shop to make a statement. Nobody notices a grape, and you're still spending your money.

Dracko
October 18th, 2008, 05:34 PM
And for everyone who thinks Harper is an @ss for calling an election..

The longest minority government lasted 1329 days (3 years, 7 months, and 21 days). It occurred during the 14th Parliament: the writs were returned on January 15, 1922 and Parliament was dissolved September 5, 1925. However, due to coalition-building, by-elections and Members crossing the floor, the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King fluctuated between minority and majority status during the 14th Parliament. The longest uninterrupted minority government, in which the government maintained a minority throughout, lasted 937 days (2 years, 6 months, and 24 days). It occurred during the 39th Parliament: the writs were returned on February 13, 2006 and Parliament was dissolved on September 7, 2008.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/parliament/DurationMinorityGovernment.aspx

It also says the Average duration of minority government in Canada: 526 Days. Looks like Harper held out way past the average even.

When Paul Martin was minority leader he lasted only 498 days before we had to go to the polls again. There is nothing unique about calling an election when you are the minority gov't yet in the media it was like he was doing something unheard of.

happycats
October 18th, 2008, 07:48 PM
How so? I ask in all seriousness, because I personally think it was neither disastrous, nor do I think it was overly spectacular.



I can try, but if I have it wrong, or someone can explain it better, I hope they'll correct me.

I believe it has to do with the ridings. Let's suppose you have 3 ridings, one with 20 000 people, and two with 10 000 people. Now, just to make this simple, suppose there are only two parties to vote for. In riding one 15 000 vote for party A, and 5 000 for party B. Member for Party A wins.
In riding 2 and 3, lets suppose that 6 000 vote for party B in each and 4 000 for party A. Both riding, Party B wins. Now, 2 members for party B have one, and 1 member for party A. Party B has more members, so Party B wins the election. However, the overall population had 23 000 people vote for Party A, and 17 000 for Party B, meaning the popular vote was for Party A.

The only thing that bothers me about the outcome is, again, my belief that people didn't truly understand the issue of the economy. When the election first started, the Tories were headed for majority. Then, when things started going down, the polls were showing them slipping. Tuesday, when the market shot up, I said to Mrs. Schwinn, "I'll bet you more people vote for Harper again, because today the economy looks good." Sure enough, it looks like more people did vote for the Conservatives than the polls predicted, and THAT I find frightening.

As for the money spent...meh. It's not that the money doesn't bother me, it's the reason behind the vote. Harper said he met with the other party leaders, and they only they could come to was they were not going to come to any consensus, that the government was not going to work. Now, I do believe the timing was because he looked like he was headed for a majority, and wanted to try and get it done before the economy started to slide. But I also think that the opposition parties would have called him on it if his stated reason was bogus. That, and I don't think any of the other leaders were any better.

The voter turn out made me think that all parties should take note--it was at an all-time low because a lot of people didn't like any of their choices. I'd be interested to see how many people were planning to vote when the election first started.

Mrs. Schwinn and I were talking about voting. She's down right rabid about having to vote, and it's shameful if you don't. I suggested that some might not vote to protest their options, that not voting doesn't mean you don't have a say, but means you don't like your choice, that that's a statement in itself. She, like many, many others, insist that you have to vote, and if you want to protest, spoil your ballot. But, to me, is spoiling your ballot really protesting, really making a statement? I mean, no one knows how many ballots are spoiled. Other than the counters, I'm sure no one knows about the year I wrote, "No one. They're all asshats" on my ballot. But everyone knows the turn out, and if it's low, to me, that's a statement on those that are running. To me, spoiling your ballot is like hating Zehrs, and going to shop there, and stealing one grape each time you shop to make a statement. Nobody notices a grape, and you're still spending your money.


Thank you!!! :)

kanis
October 18th, 2008, 10:23 PM
There is nothing unique about calling an election when you are the minority gov't yet in the media it was like he was doing something unheard of.

On Nov 6, 2006, Bill C-16 was passed to create fixed election dates. The election was supposed to take place on Oct 19, 2009. But Harper decided since the government was "dysfunctional" that he would call an election.

Perhaps that's why people are annoyed. Why bother creating a law when you don't have to abide by it? What's the point? The only thing that this law did was create an end date. The existing gov't can't last longer than that 4 year mandate. The PM can dissolve parliament whenever he wants.