# What would Canada look like with a Harper majority?



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

As the polls are now favouring Harper and the Conservatives, my mind wanders to what Canada would look like after a four year term....

Here are a few to start us off:

Either the complete or near complete dismantling of the CBC. After all, it is a dissenting voice. It must go or at least be castrated.

Elimination of all grants and subsidies to the arts industries. This will result in job losses perhaps into the hundreds of thousands and the death of a billion dollar plus industry. How many dollars back does the Government receive from every dollar spent? Again, the arts? It's for snobs and elitists and dissenters. Suckle at the teat no longer. I believe with Harper and his merry men it's not about economics, it's personal.

Ramped up military across the board. We will be like the image of father and son on a hunting trip. Father (U.S.) with rifle poised at the ready. Son (Canada) with it's pop gun loaded ready to emulate Dad.

With this comes many more casualties. But of course you know, we are going to win this war in Afghanistan!

And this is only the beginning!

I call this a Harper majority for the simple reason that they are nothing more than reformers in blue ties.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Canada would be far richer with a Harper majority government. He would sell Newfoundland and Labrador, with all of our off-shore oil and clean water, to the US. We would then, here in NL, take on the status of Guam and the Virgin Islands, only colder. As one of the Americans who have been in NL the longest (31 years and counting), I would become Territorial Governor of NL.

Thus, Harper saves the $10 billion he promised to NL but never delivered, plus the nearly $1 trillion that the US would give to Canada for our resources/water/people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America and Canada, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world (i.e., George Bush) for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these countries, solemnly publish and declare, that this former province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is, and of Right ought to be part of the United States of America; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


----------



## makuribu (Oct 26, 2005)

And of course we would never have snap elections. Ever. 

Look what he said in 2006:

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

He must really really believe that.

Harper promises law to set election date every four years


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Makuribu, Harper would save us money by not having any more elections. Once he gets his majority government, and sells NL to the US, he will put an end to costly federal elections.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I just love fear-mongering. It's _so_ productive.
[/sarcasm]

Canada's economy under this Conservative minority government hasn't been doing so badly, has it?

I've _seen_ what four(+) years of Liberal majority governments have done. Sponsorship scandal anyone? Besides, the Liberals at this point couldn't find the Peace Tower with both eyes open and a guide dog, so I'm not too excited about the prospects of the country under their leadership right now. I wouldn't have minded seeing what four years of a NDP government under Ed Broadbent would have done a few decades ago, but Smilin' Jack has been flip-flopping around like a fish on the bottom of a boat, pandering to so many special interest groups he must be dizzy.

Green? Don't make me laugh. Talk about a one plank party platform.

Ya'll can doom and gloom and have conspiracy theories about the future all you want. I'm sure you'd blame the 9/11 bombings on Harper if you could.

I've seen the past. That scares me far more than anything you can conjure up.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Post-Harpo Canada*


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Respectfully mjimmy, Dr. G., rgray what a bunch of nonsense and extreme paranoia.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> As the polls are now favouring Harper and the Conservatives, my mind wanders to what Canada would look like after a four year term....
> 
> Here are a few to start us off:
> 
> Either the complete or near complete dismantling of the CBC. After all, it is a dissenting voice. It must go or at least be castrated.


Well, it was nice while it lasted!



mrjimmy said:


> Elimination of all grants and subsidies to the arts industries... How many dollars back does the Government receive from every dollar spent?


I'd estimate it at about 25 cents.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

:yawn: 

You really want to have nightmares, imagine this country after 4 years of Dion at the helm.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

MLeh said:


> I just love fear-mongering. It's _so_ productive.
> [/sarcasm]
> 
> Canada's economy under this Conservative minority government hasn't been doing so badly, has it?
> ...


I agree.....BTW is there any party out there that didn't drop the ball on election promises?? or are all you bleeding heart Liberals still in denial? Pick the best person for the job, and my vote goes with Harper. So cut the fear-mongering it just makes you look like whinners.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Respectfully mjimmy, Dr. G., rgray what a bunch of nonsense and extreme paranoia.


Indeed. This type of nonsense truly surprises me, considering who it is coming from.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's all about paranoia. Face it, no matter how you paint King Harpo, he is little more of the reheated, effete liberals that have spent the past century imposing their dictates on this nation by bribing the people with liberality.

People are alledging quite a number of preposterous things that simply will not happen. The CBC is a national broadcaster by mandate, and perhaps the only thing that will happen is that the liberals who suckle on the teets of the CBC, schmoozing and eating free lunches, will be replaced with some Harper appointed glad handlers.

"Fixed election dates" are another scam, since we have a Westminster form of Parliamentary Government. Any "laws" that are enacted are a farce, they are not binding because such fundamental changes require constitutional amendments, so seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population have to agree, and even then, it can be overridden, notwithstanding. It would be an odd situation if, say, Quebec "opted out", so the rest of the country would have a fixed election date while Quebec would have their own at some other time.

The Americans don't have a Trillion dollars to purchase Canada, and really, it's the same fear mongering that has been going on for a few hundred years. Face the facts, America can't even get control of Baltimore, Detroit, Watts, or Chicago - so what makes someone thinks they could handle Canada? As for resources, they can buy cheaper raw materials from us now, because of "Canada" became Corporate America, everythign would be sold for profit.

I would expect a number of things to continue during a Harper Ministry: extreme secrecy and deception, pandering to special interests, kowtowing to the big corporations when it comes to customer protection, being pathetically soft on crime, allowing for coontinued institutionalized racial discrimination and hatred and even an attempt to instill discrimination and hatred into the Constitution, government spending fraud, making sure Canada falls even further behind the rest of the world when it comes to technology, and a Cabinet filled with glad handling fools who are ejected at the whim of King Harpo. I also would not expect things like an elected Senate, or a constitutional guarantee that we would have ahead of state born of Canadian soil that is elected, or an increase in democratic rights and the devolution of the powers held by the PMO (which doesn't even exist under the Constitution).

A Harper Majority will be no different from all of the other glad handling regimes we have been stiffed with, just a Liberal that belongs to a different Politboro.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> It's all about paranoia. Face it, no matter how you paint King Harpo, he is little more of the reheated, effete liberals that have spent the past century imposing their dictates on this nation by bribing the people with liberality.
> 
> People are alledging quite a number of preposterous things that simply will not happen. The CBC is a national broadcaster by mandate, and perhaps the only thing that will happen is that the liberals who suckle on the teets of the CBC, schmoozing and eating free lunches, will be replaced with some Harper appointed glad handlers.
> 
> ...


your no different Evan, just the same fear-mongering Liberal as the rest


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Paranoia? Yes, I'm extremely paranoid. I just look to the US what 8 years of a Con government have done and yeah, I'm more than paranoid. 

My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

ehMax said:


> My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else.


HUH? I would rather you as a Canadian vote for the best person for the job.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else." Mr. Mayor, your views have been recorded. Merci, mon ami.

Maybe you can be the mayor of Re-education Camp #13? We shall see.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rhrechka said:


> HUH? I would rather you as a Canadian vote for the best person for the job.


The "job" is getting rid of Harpo!

If there were even the slightest spark of creativity in what is loosely referred to as the opposition, they could dump Harpo in a heartbeat - one word - *coalition*!


----------



## Radio Flyer (Feb 11, 2007)

I don't see much difference between one of the old line parties and the other. They both have scandals in the closet, after a year in office they both smell like old diapers. My biggest problem is voting for yet another PM that I (as an English speaking person) can't understand. I'd vote Green except the party pulled the plug on him citing he made anti-Semitic remarks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is cracking me up. Fear mongering over the likes of mild mannered Stephen Harper. The Great Dictator he ain't.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is cracking me up. Fear mongering over the likes of mild mannered Stephen Harper. The Great Dictator he ain't.


This cracks me up! Come drink the Kool-Aid...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Paranoia? Yes, I'm extremely paranoid. I just look to the US what 8 years of a Con government have done and yeah, I'm more than paranoid.
> 
> My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else.


Amen ehmax, amen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

rhrechka said:


> So cut the fear-mongering it just makes you look like whinners.


It will be interesting to see if the opposition will try to play the 'fear' card again. It had pretty much zero traction in the last election, but they still might try again.

Harper has more or less quietly gone about doing the business of the country and keep things more or less on course. I think this is what Canadian's wanted. I really don't see many on the left angry at Harper. That tells me it is very unlikely fear mongering will have any traction. In fact, I think most Canadian's will respond in the way you have.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Either the complete or near complete dismantling of the CBC. After all, it is a dissenting voice. It must go or at least be castrated.


The CBC is basically a mouthpiece for the federal Liberal party. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable. This relationship is no different than the one Fox News shares with Republicans. 

I was listening to CBC last week and they interviewed a Liberal MP. I couldn't believe the bull**** the host let him get away with. Simply outright lies. 

At least with Fox, the public isn't footing the bill.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Vandave said:


> The CBC is basically a mouthpiece for the federal Liberal party. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable. This relationship is no different than the one Fox News shares with Republicans.
> 
> I was listening to CBC last week and they interviewed a Liberal MP. I couldn't believe the bull**** the host let him get away with. Simply outright lies.
> 
> At least with Fox, the public isn't footing the bill.


Amen Vandave, Amen!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> The CBC is basically a mouthpiece for the federal Liberal party. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable. This relationship is no different than the one Fox News shares with Republicans.
> 
> I was listening to CBC last week and they interviewed a Liberal MP. I couldn't believe the bull**** the host let him get away with. Simply outright lies.
> 
> At least with Fox, the public isn't footing the bill.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Paranoia? Yes, I'm extremely paranoid. I just look to the US what 8 years of a Con government have done and yeah, I'm more than paranoid.
> 
> My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else.


Oh please. Even the most right-wing Canadian is left of the most left-wing American. Reality check time here. There's a reason our neighbours to the south of us call us Soviet Canuckistan.

Secondly - a vote 'against' something is not a vote 'for' anything.

If you're not part of the solution ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Secondly - a vote 'against' something is not a vote 'for' anything.

If you're not part of the solution ..."

Very, very true, MLeh. I was surprised at the number of votes in the polls for the "will not vote" category.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> "My vote next election will be more about keeping Harper out of a majority than trying to vote in anyone else." Mr. Mayor, your views have been recorded. Merci, mon ami.
> 
> Maybe you can be the mayor of Re-education Camp #13? We shall see.


He can't Dr.G....because then he would have to make a decision


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Oh please. Even the most right-wing Canadian is left of the most left-wing American. Reality check time here. There's a reason our neighbours to the south of us call us Soviet Canuckistan.


I agree MLeh. I posted a comparison of Harper's policies with that of Obama about a year ago. It was amazing how similar they were on all the big issues.

Yet, somehow Obama gets portrayed as a lefty while Harper a righty.

I find it weird.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I can easily stomach more minority government but I'd rather not see the Harperists get a majority. I hardly think they'll destroy the country - it's too resilient for that - but they have their own special, hand-tooled spanners they can't wait to throw into the works. There will be blood and broken bits of stuff all over the shop floor by the time that bunch is done.

Might have to revisit my strategy.... if the Harponicasts get in, it'll be because the leftoids will have split the vote among the Glibs, the Emtpypee and the Greeeeens. Might have to pinch my nostrils and vote for Dion - not because I think he's leadership material, but to hopefully thwart a Harponuclear Majority.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The CBC is basically a mouthpiece for the federal Liberal party. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable. This relationship is no different than the one Fox News shares with Republicans.
> 
> I was listening to CBC last week and they interviewed a Liberal MP. I couldn't believe the bull**** the host let him get away with. Simply outright lies.
> 
> At least with Fox, the public isn't footing the bill.


And I'm paranoid for suggesting this will happen?

Is that the best you've all got? To point the finger screaming paranoid?

Nicely done Vandave. Thanks for the reinforcement.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Max said:


> Might have to revisit my strategy.... if the Harponicasts get in, it'll be because the leftoids will have split the vote among the Glibs, the Emtpypee and the Greeeeens. Might have to pinch my nostrils and vote for Dion - not because I think he's leadership material, but to hopefully thwart a Harponuclear Majority.


It's thinking like this why we basically have a 2 party system. The others are window dressing.

What will you do if Dion were to win? Do you honestly believe he and the disenfranchised Liberal party will make for good government? Is Dion the right person to lead the country in troubled times ahead?

Vote for who you believe is best for the country, not against someone you dislike. With nonsense like this we might as well scrap our parliamentary system and go for a 2 party system like the US. Let's stop wasting money on so many political parties and let's not bother to have multi party debates. It's a waste of time.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> I can easily stomach more minority government but I'd rather not see the Harperists get a majority. I hardly think they'll destroy the country - it's too resilient for that - but they have their own special, hand-tooled spanners they can't wait to throw into the works. There will be blood and broken bits of stuff all over the shop floor by the time that bunch is done.
> 
> Might have to revisit my strategy.... if the Harponicasts get in, it'll be because the leftoids will have split the vote among the Glibs, the Emtpypee and the Greeeeens. Might have to pinch my nostrils and vote for Dion - not because I think he's leadership material, but to hopefully thwart a Harponuclear Majority.


This is my strategy also Max. I am certainly not enamoured with the current options to a Conservative majority (other than another minority which I'm fine with) but the idea of one to me is soooo repugnant.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> And I'm paranoid for suggesting this will happen?
> 
> Is that the best you've all got? To point the finger screaming paranoid?
> 
> Nicely done Vandave. Thanks for the reinforcement.


Am I missing something here? Did I call you paranoid? Did I point the finger at you? Uhhhhh no…… 

I haven’t heard the Conservatives say anything about changing the CBC. To be honest, it wouldn’t bother me if they did make some changes to make their programming more ‘fair and balanced’. The very fact that the left so wholeheartedly support the CBC, while the right oppose it, tells us the obvious, which is that the CBC does not provide unbiased coverage. Rather, they provide coverage that caters to the left. 

As long as taxpayers are footing the bill for this mouthpiece, it is simply wrong.

If I were PM, I would give the CBC two choices: 1. fund yourself; or, 2. fix your bias.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

adagio said:


> It's thinking like this why we basically have a 2 party system. The others are window dressing.
> 
> What will you do if Dion were to win? Do you honestly believe he and the disenfranchised Liberal party will make for good government? Is Dion the right person to lead the country in troubled times ahead?
> 
> Vote for who you believe is best for the country, not against someone you dislike. With nonsense like this we might as well scrap our parliamentary system and go for a 2 party system like the US. Let's stop wasting money on so many political parties and let's not bother to have multi party debates. It's a waste of time.


You Marg, _you_ vote that way. Please don't try to browbeat me - it's beneath you. As for what you find nonsense, let's just say that one woman's treasure can be another man's trash. OK?

You obviously believe otherwise but personally I find these either-or bi-polar party setups bizarre and surreal. I like a multipolar political universe, thanks very much.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

If the Con's have a Majority? We'll get more of less...

Federal film fund cuts spark anxiety | Straight.com

Quebec, Ontario culture ministers blast Tory arts cuts

globeandmail.com

Whitehorsestar.com - Yukoners condemn federal cuts to arts programs funding

Arts programs feel pain of federal cuts

Arts funding cuts no music to our ears: promoters

CIRPA: Federal Government Cuts

Cuts to the arts. Film, Music so far have been nailed. TIFF, Fringe, Just for Laughs, Jazz festivals, and Folk festivals may not get cut directly but all depend on local talent. You can't expect them to play with their hat on the ground one week of the year and still be able to survive. Not to mention the significant economic impact of Canadian arts and music festivals.

So no I'm not thrilled about the idea of a Con Majority. I'll vote the way I always do thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The very idea that the government needs to support the "Just for LAughs" festival is anathema to me. Let them succeed or fail as the business enterprises they are.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Same thing applies to most arts and festivals in my mind. If you enjoy that kind of thing, get out your wallet and pay for it. 

I applaud reducing funding to these pampered groups. 

I belong to a number of special interest groups including classic cars and RV associations. We pay our own way for our own enjoyment. It's high time the artsy fartsy crowd did the same.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

What would Canada look like with a Harper majority? The U.S.A. - and I'd emigrate to anywhere but here!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Jumping jackals! Artsy fartsies and jackboots, in the same blasted thread. Well, let's dump all of our nuanced clichés right here, shall we?

' tis a miracle we even consider ourselves a country.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What if the Governor General tells Harper that he cannot call an election on Sunday? What if she tells him he has to wait until Oct.2009???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Surprising comment Dr. G., coming from one who like me, thinks she should not even exist. She would not dare.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Max said:


> You obviously believe otherwise but personally I find these either-or bi-polar party setups bizarre and surreal. I like a multipolar political universe, thanks very much.


I'm voting Green and be damned with either Harper or Dion. I'm not holding my nose for either. I refuse to vote for something I don't believe in. If there's any hope of any other political party making a breakthrough then we'd better start following up on our convictions or things will always remain the same.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Am I missing something here? Did I call you paranoid? Did I point the finger at you? Uhhhhh no……
> 
> I haven’t heard the Conservatives say anything about changing the CBC. To be honest, it wouldn’t bother me if they did make some changes to make their programming more ‘fair and balanced’. The very fact that the left so wholeheartedly support the CBC, while the right oppose it, tells us the obvious, which is that the CBC does not provide unbiased coverage. Rather, they provide coverage that caters to the left.
> 
> ...


Vandave don't get your shirt in a knot...

I didn't say you were calling me paranoid, I was simply referring to the thread in general. I believe screature opined with:



> Respectfully mjimmy, Dr. G., rgray what a bunch of nonsense and extreme paranoia.


My initial points, what this thread was intended to be about, was _conjecture_ on what Canada would look like after 4 years of a Harper majority. In my few initial observations, I mentioned the CBC, subsequently called paranoid and then vindicated by your sentiments. Which I thanked you for.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good for you then. Nice sentiments but if the non-Harper vote gets hopelessly split then I'm all for backing the biggest wedge against Harper getting in with a majority. The greens have great ideas but they'd also be, well, green. If the polls are any indication, the Greens will be hard-pressed to make any significant inroads in Canada in any meaningful electoral sense. In certain respects, the Green's lack of governing experience might not be such a liability. But it's always easier to critique an existing government than it is to effectively replace it, let alone better it.

By all means, you back what you like; i'll try to back the lead horse for the other guys. Not that I think that Dion's liberals are any panacea, mind you - I just think it's headed toward a conservative majority and I'd really rather not see that happen.



adagio said:


> I'm voting Green and be damned with either Harper or Dion. I'm not holding my nose for either. I refuse to vote for something I don't believe in. If there's any hope of any other political party making a breakthrough then we'd better start following up on our convictions or things will always remain the same.


.[/quote]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Surprising comment Dr. G., coming from one who like me, thinks she should not even exist. She would not dare." Sinc, I agree. I would be very surprised if she says we cannot go to the polls. All the more reason to shed Canada of her royal robes and become a republic. Vive la Canada libre.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Surprising comment Dr. G., coming from one who like me, thinks she should not even exist. She would not dare." Sinc, I agree. I would be very surprised if she says we cannot go to the polls. All the more reason to shed Canada of her royal robes and become a republic. Vive la Canada libre.


Just in time to be swallowed up in a North American union. Give me GB any day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Just in time to be swallowed up in a North American union. Give me GB any day.


George Bush?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> What if the Governor General tells Harper that he cannot call an election on Sunday? What if she tells him he has to wait until Oct.2009???


I was wondering if she might tell him not that he cannot, _but that she cannot_, because she might be breaking the law that Harper put in place by signing off on his election request. But I can't really imagine the GG defying an election request unless there was an irrefutable legal basis for that denial.

It would be great though if someone who understands the intricacies of Harper's law could report on whether he is actually breaking it by calling an election.

Anyway, he's certainly unabashedly breaking another promise and I hope his opponents take full advantage of that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> George Bush?


* rimshot *


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Just in time to be swallowed up in a North American union. Give me GB any day." I have a US Passport, and as future Governor of the Newfoundland and Labrador Territory (when Harper sells us to the US for our water and oil), I am all set. Of course, then I would start to push for NL to become a state, although with such a small population, we might have to get behind Puerto Rico on the waitlist. We shall see.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

WOW... *ouch**...  
Such venom and vitriol spitting!

No, the last couple of years haven't been too rough, however they have been mitigated by the fact that the government is a minority. 

NDP... I'm game! Give them a try, yes even with Jack Layton... they ARE an option if the Liberals are so unpalatable. 

Your avatar... you really don't play well with others... do you? ...    
Calm down... 




MLeh said:


> I just love fear-mongering. It's _so_ productive.
> [/sarcasm]
> 
> Canada's economy under this Conservative minority government hasn't been doing so badly, has it?
> ...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> WOW... *ouch**...
> Such venom and vitriol spitting!
> Your avatar... you really don't play well with others... do you? ...
> Calm down...


Venom and vitriol? Hardly. Just my opinion. I figured the balance needed to be readjusted in the topic. I'm actually quite pragmatic when it comes down to it.

My avatar came from my daughter. It amuses me.

I'm quite calm, thank you.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*lol** 

Mleh... just checking with you, in other words... teasing...  

Truth be told I would prefer to have only minority gov. or perhaps a coalition gov. now and then period. They have to be more accountable like it or not. 

It's always been a bone of contention with me provincially, the lack of an opposition.

I never knew where your avatar came from, but I like it. Always have.

Unfortunately I can't say I'm a great pragmatist, although I have worked hard on toning down my temper and emotionalism...


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

NDP? Holy hell, remember the NDP provincial government? If you could call it that. Utter incompetence. NDP serves a useful function in opposition. Let's keep it that way.

As for Harper, well give me a reasonable alternative and I'll vote for it. Dion and the Liberals? Come on. Remember the Chretien years with the corruption and cronyism? It will take me 20 years to forget that.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

ME??? Remember an NDP government? In Alberta? *LOL** You're kidding, right?  

To be truly honest what I'd like to see this election is a coalition gov. between the Liberals and the NDP... but what I want and what I get is two different things?

Also, I'm listening to/watching the CTV news daily and what I'm hearing and seeing is that the people in the current governments themselves don't like Harper... I just heard Danny Williams of NF doesn't like Harper and says he wishes he'd (Harper) lose all his seats provincially, his (Harper's) MP's are quitting including the one from the Medicine Hat AB riding, others are speaking their minds... (not good). Proof? What do I need? It's on the news I watch on my tube... I don't think they can broadcast it if ain't so.



hhk said:


> NDP? Holy hell, remember the NDP provincial government? If you could call it that. Utter incompetence. NDP serves a useful function in opposition. Let's keep it that way.
> 
> As for Harper, well give me a reasonable alternative and I'll vote for it. Dion and the Liberals? Come on. Remember the Chretien years with the corruption and cronyism? It will take me 20 years to forget that.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Sigh, if only we had the small 'c' Red Tories of bygone days.

If Meech Lake succeeded and the Mulroney* environmental policies were followed then we'd be in a better place.

*David Suzuki praised the Mulroney government for recognizing global warming as a high government priority. (Joe Clark's minority government was toppled when a 18 cent per gallon carbon tax was in his first tabled budget.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Sigh, if only we had the small 'c' Red Tories of bygone days.


Yep :clap:

We do at the provincial level have decent centrist parties. I'm flat out disgusted with them ALL in Ottawa.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

gmark2000 said:


> Sigh, if only we had the small 'c' Red Tories of bygone days.
> 
> If Meech Lake succeeded and the Mulroney* environmental policies were followed then we'd be in a better place.
> 
> *David Suzuki praised the Mulroney government for recognizing global warming as a high government priority. (Joe Clark's minority government was toppled when a 18 cent per gallon carbon tax was in his first tabled budget.)


Also remember that Mulroney reacted immediately to the famine in Ethiopia and opened Canada's doors to the Vietnamese boat people. He continues to be vilified by the Liberal media but his record as PM was one of the most "liberal" in history. Too bad Flora McDonald did not succeed him instead of Kim Campbell. The Red Tory legacy might have lived on.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It would be great though if someone who understands the intricacies of Harper's law could report on whether he is actually breaking it by calling an election.


IANAL, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fixed election date law only applied to *majority* governments, as a minority can pretty much be brought down any time on a confidence motion, and so fixed election dates don't apply.

So I don't think Harper is breaking any law with this snap election call, but he certainly appears to be going against the spirit of the law.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> IANAL, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fixed election date law only applied to *majority* governments, as a minority can pretty much be brought down any time on a confidence motion, and so fixed election dates don't apply.
> 
> So I don't think Harper is breaking any law with this snap election call, but he certainly appears to be going against the spirit of the law.


Going against the spirit certainly, since there's no confidence motion in this case and Harper is doing _exactly_ what he said his legislation was designed to prevent, allow the governing party to call an election at their own political convenience for their own benefit. There are direct quotes from the man decrying exactly what he is going to be doing when he requests an election from the GG.

I think his law applies to all governments, not just a majority, but whether what he is doing is illegal might require some careful study, which I imagine a few Opposition lawyers are doing as we discuss this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

oops double post


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I know there are those here who will label this issue as paranoid "fear-mongering", but it looks like we've already seen some of what Harper's Mike Harris-style majority would look like. Like the weakening of safeguards that led to Walkerton's poisoned water, Harper's deregulation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and bringing in a system of industry self-regulation could well have had more than a bit to do with the recent listeria outbreak at Maple Leaf Foods.

Food safety compromised by self-management



> In April, the federal government introduced an SMS-style [Self Management Systems] food inspection system that puts the main onus for inspection on companies, who are required to file a food safety plan and submit reports on their own compliance. Public inspectors now spend most of their time reviewing company reports and very little time in the plants where food is actually processed.
> 
> Companies like Maple Leaf pushed hard for the new system, says [food inspector Bob] Kingston, because it saves them money they would have paid for inspectors, along with "the cost factor when inspectors close down production because they don't like what they see. Now, instead of closing a line, they'll get get 'corrective action support.'





> Kingston is concerned with the length of time it took Maple Leaf to notify authorities of problems detected in its plant. "Every time a reporter asked Maple Leaf Foods' president Michael McCain if they informed an inspector when they had positive lab findings, the only reply was that the info 'was available.' There are two questions I'd ask: was there a requirement to notify an inspector, and did you? And if it wasn't why not? The manual of procedures says very clearly if you get a positive result, you'll notify an inspector, and you'll have a plan in place, within 10 days.





> In July, a CFIA scientist publicly leaked a cabinet document that outlined a plan to downsize the federal role in food safety. The document, which CFIA employee Luc Pomerleau leaked to the media, called for a shift from a "full-time presence" of veterinarians and inspectors at abattoirs in Canada to an "oversight role" that would allow the meat industry "to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks." Pomerleau was later fired for leaking it to his union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC).


Pomerleau was fired by Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, when another unnamed CFIA employee informed on him to the Minister. The Opposition is demanding that Pomerleau be re-instated and that Ritz should be fired.

Harper has recently announced a public enquiry into the listeria outbreak that he is hoping will keep the issue and his government's food inspection record out the public eye throughout the coming election. 

Several of Harper's Ministers were around the Harris cabinet table during Walkerton. They should know the drill by now.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The very idea that the government needs to support the "Just for LAughs" festival is anathema to me. Let them succeed or fail as the business enterprises they are.


That's ridiculous. In 1995 the federal government put $200,000 into the hat for what is conceivably the largest tourism boom in Quebec.



> In 1995, economic spillover from Montreal's major festivals totalled more than $215 million, with the Just for Laughs Festival alone generating some $30 million.


The Government of Canada Contributes to Just for Laughs Festival | News Release | 1997-07-15 // Canadian Heritage

All of those tourists paying the GST and PST, and all of those business paying taxes. I would think they'd want the festival to not only succeed but to keep growing.

My opinion is that it's short sighted to cut so deeply into so many programs that are actually closely tied to revenue generation from tourism.

SINC: The fact that you are comparing RV shows to art festivals though is just silly. Showing off hundred thousand dollar RVs to people who are interested in buying hundred thousand RVs is nothing like our Canadian art festivals that get international acclaim. Besides, an RV show attracts sponsors. If an artist creates a work that points out a perceived injustice done from a multinational corporation on small town Canada, the artist putting on their show won't be attracting too many international corporate sponsors.

Something I've found inspiring from the recent appeal to the Canadian government from filmmakers.



> When people around the world look at our culture, what they look at is our arts and judge us by them," said Fichman. "The less cultural presence we have on the international stage, the less presence and relevance we have as a nation and people."
> 
> Gross concurred, saying, "I don't think Stephen Harper hates the arts, I just don't think he's interested in them. But he needs to get interested in them because that's where the Canadian identity comes from."


Passchendaele creators discuss arts funding


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GA, government regulation isn't the solution to everything. How well did the government do in averting Air India?

This whole listeria thing is way overblown. People are poisoned by food every day in this country. 

I don't see why this is a regulation / deregulation issue. Risks exist regardless of what approach is used and low frequency events always have the potential of occurring. Do you have any studies to prove that government management is more effective in regulating and reducing risk?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

As an engineer, I think the government should give me funding to design stuff people don't need. I would like to post my designs in an exhibit for the world to see so that we can showcase Canadian talent. It's the only way that our country can show it's culture and obtain an international identity. 

It would be grossly unfair for me to have to make designs for corporations. They might use such designs to inflict injustice upon those Canadians who do not have a voice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> That's ridiculous. In 1995 the federal government put $200,000 into the hat for what is conceivably the largest tourism boom in Quebec.


They were such bad businesspeople that they couldn't raise a paltry $200,000? Shall I tot up some of the cases where the government seed money went straight down the toilet? 

I agree with VanDave, except I want to see government grants for mimes, skatebooarders, restaurants, tent makers, sports teams and dog shows, because only through these outlets can we show the world what we have to offer.

Interesting that you mention Paeschandale which made up a considerable portion of its budget through private corporate donations.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Vandave said:


> As an engineer, I think the government should give me funding to design stuff people don't need.


Okay, now you are just missing the point. People don't need anything more than food, clothing and shelter, water, and the means to get from point A to B.

So where does an iPhone fall into that list? People don't need it, they want it. It's conspicuous consumerism. So is most of the consumption and appreciation of art, design, and buildings.

Art often falls into that category only instead of buying it from a website people pay money to visit a gallery, museum, or festival. You seem to think that people would go to something like this and pay their fair share based on what they think they are going to see. Therefore it functions as a business. But if someone holds a conceptual design show and it's free or cheap, people go. In droves. People love free. It's the cities that profit from drawing people in because of surrounding business and restaurants and the like. When business make money, they pay taxes. When Toronto holds a film festival that showcases Canadian artists, people show up in the hundreds of thousands. If the funding for those films didn't exist at the beginning of production many of the most interesting films (to tourists and critics) wouldn't have been made.



> Interesting that you mention Paeschandale which made up a considerable portion of its budget through private corporate donations.


So are all of the events that I mentioned. That's how the arts work. The majority of the funding for artistic projects comes from private donors and, where appropriate, corporate sponsorship.

Look, my concern is with how these cuts are affecting even the most accomplished filmmakers and musicians in Canada. I can understand where most people's frustrations about money to the arts come from in this country after there have been cases of allegedly misspent funds or poor decision purchases. The rhetoric your repeating about pampered artists is pretty shallow these days.



> I agree with VanDave, except I want to see government grants for mimes, skatebooarders, restaurants, tent makers, sports teams and dog shows, because only through these outlets can we show the world what we have to offer.


Sarcastic wish granted. It's called Klondike days. Considering it generates over $50 million in tourist revenue every year in Edmonton I'd say the government maintains an interest in keeping it running even if it's only by offering incentives to the city to hire the best sideshows. 

Since you don't want to see funding go to all of that, why don't you suggest cutting all government support of heritage days, and the Ex, and kick those freeloading home show, dog show, and RV people out of the Agricom too (or what ever the heck it's called these days, because they all get government funding too). 

As for showing the world what we have to offer, if you want to imply that the funding of artists in Canada is tantamount to giving money to dog shows and carnivals go ahead. I disagree and will continue to support those who make it a personal mission to demonstrate otherwise. I will also continue to recommend that others do the same with a small percentage of their tax dollars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If all of these events, festivals, shows and honky tonk days provide so much obvious economic revenue, let the businesses band together to provide the funding themselves--through some sort of business coalition. If the benefits are as obvious as you say, a great case could be made to them for this. 

If even the most accomplished Canadian filmmakers can't get enough money together to make a film, then they aren't really players. Let them talk to Roger Corman or one of the can-do types who made their own successful films for advice. 

I certainly haven't suggested that the artist are pampered--many of them are just hanging on like fleas on a dog--but I see no reason to help support their illusions with tax money. 



> Since you don't want to see funding go to all of that, why don't you suggest cutting all government support of heritage days, and the Ex, and kick those freeloading home show, dog show, and RV people out of the Agricom too (or what ever the heck it's called these days, because they all get government funding too).


That's exactly what I suggest.



> As for showing the world what we have to offer, if you want to imply that the funding of artists in Canada is tantamount to giving money to dog shows and carnivals go ahead. I disagree and will continue to support those who make it a personal mission to demonstrate otherwise. I will also continue to recommend that others do the same with a small percentage of their tax dollars.


I tend to support the arts by buying art or attending events I find worthwhile.

I will also admit that corporate welfare is a far worse use of money and I would like to see that stopped BEFORE arts funding, which is not number one on my hit list.


----------



## Macinguelph (Oct 27, 2007)

As a liberal at heart, my preferred outcome of this election would be another Conservative minority government with the Liberal party losing a few seats to the NDP. Why you ask? The Liberals need a new leader, they did the moment Stephane Dion became the party leader. The moment they come out with a charismatic, confident leader, Stephen Harper et al will be trounced by the voting public. We need to send a message this election, and the message should be that we require someone in office worthy of voting PM.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> GA, government regulation isn't the solution to everything. How well did the government do in averting Air India?


Criminals aren't generally willing to submit to regulatory oversight.


Vandave said:


> This whole listeria thing is way overblown. People are poisoned by food every day in this country.


You're serious? 13 deaths is the current total I believe. Maybe the families of one of the victims would quibble about it being "overblown", or have an opinion on whether Maple Leaf should be allowed to self-regulate and self-report.


Vandave said:


> I don't see why this is a regulation / deregulation issue. Risks exist regardless of what approach is used and low frequency events always have the potential of occurring. Do you have any studies to prove that government management is more effective in regulating and reducing risk?


Walkerton.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Criminals aren't generally willing to submit to regulatory oversight.


And criminals will break the rules regardless of who is in charge of enforcing the rules. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're serious? 13 deaths is the current total I believe. Maybe the families of one of the victims would quibble about it being "overblown", or have an opinion on whether Maple Leaf should be allowed to self-regulate and self-report.


Yes I am very serious. The media blows this type of thing way out of proportion. I remember a few years ago that CNN did a report on Shark attacks. Then new attacks kept happening and it became a big discussion point. Well by the end of year, the attack numbers were lower than average. 

The same thing started to happen in the media this summer in BC with respect to drownings. I am sure you read and heard about it. It started to gain it's own momentum, but once again, the numbers will probably fall in line with past years. 

There are probably a 1000 things that kill more people than listeria every year in this country.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Walkerton.


That's not a 'study'. It's an anecdote. While worthwhile to study, it doesn't prove the larger question either way.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

> I will also admit that corporate welfare is a far worse use of money and I would like to see that stopped BEFORE arts funding


Well, _there's_ something we can agree on.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're serious? 13 deaths is the current total I believe. Maybe the families of one of the victims would quibble about it being "overblown", or have an opinion on whether Maple Leaf should be allowed to self-regulate and self-report.
> 
> Walkerton.


It seems that people are all freaked out about Listeria because it killed 13 - but they don't seem to care about all of the people who have suffered rather horrible deaths caused by C. Diff in the hospitals, like the 100 murdered at Joe Brant because they don't clean any of the equipment. At least Maple Leaf has done something - cleaning the plant like crazy (and it is thought that this is a mutant strain of Lysteria that is immune to many disinfectants); while Joe Brant continues to have feces spread all over their equipment, because as we all know, it is more important for the big executives and directors to have their free luncheons than to actually have janitors.

Walkerton had nothing to do with regulation - and everything to do with the fact that a local politician decided to hire his uneducated and unqualified brother, and together they looted the place. Money that was to be spent on the equipment ended up, guess what, being spent on some steak dinners for all of their glad handling buddies. These retards got away with murder, and still people blame Mike Harris - as if he was supposed to personally drop in and repair the machines that had been broken for years.

And no one has been discussing the fact that we have, in this city, a very real problem of Legionare's Dissease in municipal buildings for the past few years, and though it has been "studied" (code word for steak dinners and payola to political cronies), nothing has been done, and way more people have died by doing things like paying a parking ticket, paying taxes, or picking up brochures.

So don't blame federal regulations for Maple Leaf because no regulation will stop bacteria from mutating. As for all of the places that people have turned to, on average, "organic" meats have seven times the level of bacteria, and more if the place is particularly shady; and this is worse if a place is covered under the much more lax provincially inspected regulations.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Agreed... this would be yet another acceptable option as far as I'm concerned. I certainly am not intransigent, except where it concerns a Harper majority government, although maybe that's what is needed for Canadians to get him and his gang out of their systems. I'm not sure how much of the damage done will be reparable... for instance if the CBC is truly dismantled I would consider that a real and significant loss. Loss of funding for the arts is also not acceptable to me... it speaks to a loss of Canadian culture and identity. 

As to the need for government inspection to keep certain industries safe... read for yourself:
CTV Toronto- 'Likely' source of Listeriosis outbreak found - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television



Macinguelph said:


> As a liberal at heart, my preferred outcome of this election would be another Conservative minority government with the Liberal party losing a few seats to the NDP. Why you ask? The Liberals need a new leader, they did the moment Stephane Dion became the party leader. The moment they come out with a charismatic, confident leader, Stephen Harper et al will be trounced by the voting public. We need to send a message this election, and the message should be that we require someone in office worthy of voting PM.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh... BTW, when I say "government inspection" I DO mean all of those concerned who don't seem to be able to "police" themselves in any way... hospitals, airlines, food processing yada, etc. and on...

There was an issue in rural Alberta with a small town hospital as well who couldn't seem to figure out how to properly clean and sterilize surgical equipment on their own.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

The differences any leader can bring will be limited by our ties to the global economy and foreign powers that have a vested interest in how our country is run.

Even the big guns like the US, China, and Russia can only do so much without being kept in check by each other to a degree.

What really matters is the economy. Like in Alberta, anyone could have been in power when the economic boom hit and looked like a genius (at least to those who aren't paying attention). Russia strikes it rich with oil and Putin suddenly is given all kinds of accolades. Did he put the oil there? Maybe I missed that. 

So either you got it (geographical wealth) or you don't. The rest is window dressing and has an ebb and flow that no leader is really in control of IMO. Would Harper have won if the Liberals hadn't been exposed for the typical politicians they are? Seems voters vote for change with the same depth of reason that some folk change paint colour on their walls - tired of the same old, let's try something different 

In 20 some years of actually paying attention to the political scene I haven't noticed much significant change between one parties' reign from the other that can be attributed directly to that party without taking into consideration changes that have happened on a global scale first. 

Maybe the universal health care system that was implemented years ago was truly the last significant change a leader of this country has made?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

This election is payback. 

While in power, Chretien and Martin used every scare tactic they could to keep the Conservatives out of office. The Conservative government has hardly been inspiring but they're not the quintessence of evil we were warned about. Therefore the polls suggest that the current Liberal scare tactics (of which this thread has plenty) will fall on deaf ears. The sad irony is that Dion is the only leader right now who has any kind of a vision... and yet the public complain he has no charisma and there are plenty in his own party ready to knife him. If he achieves anything less than a minority he won't survive and the Conservatives will enjoy an ineffective opposition for another year or so.

I don't think we'll see any major change then if the Conservatives do get a majority. I would hope they might actually articulate some sort of vision but I'm not counting on it. The only major difference I see from their predecessors is that they cut taxes faster and they adopted a more forceful foreign policy. Not much else has changed... and I don't think it will in the future. Although I'd like to be surprised.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

I'll tell you what Canada would look like under a Harper majority:

The Nice: The GDP per capita will be about $3000-$5000 higher by the time he leaves office. We will be more industrious. We will have more solid transportation infrastructure- an expanded C-Train in Calgary, more streetcar lines in Toronto, and a network of multi-lane autoroutes to connect our major cities. The Canadian dollar will remain high, our economy competitive. We will prevent NAFTA from being violated and cancelled by the U.S., and in the event that they do we fine the **** out of them. There will be no carbon tax (Banzai!), and immigration will be restricted to those who have developed trades and skills. Money will be taken away from the unions and special interest groups and put back into the public- given back to the citizens of Canada. The government will become leaner, more efficient. Civil servant jokes will be obsolete. The CBC will be re-organized into a more impartial organization- one with a (hopefully) balanced view of things, instead of a Liberal propaganda machine. Perhaps privatization? Maybe. But make sure it's Canadian so it doesn't turn into a McCain/Obama propaganda machine.

Now the not-so-nice: Yes, art funding will be cut. But funding art is like funding Bombardier: it's a *subsidy* and should be avoided. If there is a demand for art, in other words if people are willing to buy art and pay for it, they will do so; and the industry will flourish. If there is no demand, production of art will be scaled back and resources will be re-allocated to other industries. It's basic economics. 

Now, there is Afghanistan. I don't agree with it- It's a waste of money. Our soldiers should be patroling the North to make sure the Russians, Americans and the Danes don't get their filthy hands on OUR land. Seriously; get the Afghans trained so they can kill the Taliban bastards themselves.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

OK Fink-Nottle... I guess you need to have lived in Alberta for the last 30 years maybe, under oppressive majority Conservative governments provincially and been at the ground level where Harper's party and his favourite bunch of boys started and watched it grow to where it is now to appreciate why it frightens some people.

No paranoia or scare "tactics"... I fear this man and his party... and no one will tell me not to. I feel I have every good-headed reason to.

End of rant.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> It seems that people are all freaked out about Listeria because it killed 13 - but they don't seem to care about all of the people who have suffered rather horrible deaths caused by C. Diff in the hospitals, like the 100 murdered at Joe Brant because they don't clean any of the equipment. At least Maple Leaf has done something - cleaning the plant like crazy (and it is thought that this is a mutant strain of Lysteria that is immune to many disinfectants); while Joe Brant continues to have feces spread all over their equipment, because as we all know, it is more important for the big executives and directors to have their free luncheons than to actually have janitors.


I was going to hit on this but you beat me to it. Gov't regulation at it's best, where the torches and pitch forks for McGuilty? I guess Listeria is the flavour of the week and the Provincial gov't have muzzled hospitals on their c.diff outbreaks. 

Anyone think another company would risk something like this if they switch to self regulation? If they would, then they would risk it either way, so it's just a mater of time before their caught.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Fink-Nottle said:


> This election is payback.
> 
> While in power, Chretien and Martin used every scare tactic they could to keep the Conservatives out of office. The Conservative government has hardly been inspiring but they're not the quintessence of evil we were warned about. Therefore the polls suggest that the current Liberal scare tactics (of which this thread has plenty) will fall on deaf ears. The sad irony is that Dion is the only leader right now who has any kind of a vision... and yet the public complain he has no charisma and there are plenty in his own party ready to knife him. If he achieves anything less than a minority he won't survive and the Conservatives will enjoy an ineffective opposition for another year or so.
> 
> I don't think we'll see any major change then if the Conservatives do get a majority. I would hope they might actually articulate some sort of vision but I'm not counting on it. The only major difference I see from their predecessors is that they cut taxes faster and they adopted a more forceful foreign policy. Not much else has changed... and I don't think it will in the future. Although I'd like to be surprised.


There won't be an election, not now at least. It would break the law the PC's themselves created governing the timing of elections. The reply from the GG tomorrow may well be "non."


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> I was going to hit on this but you beat me to it. Gov't regulation at it's best, where the torches and pitch forks for McGuilty? I guess Listeria is the flavour of the week and the Provincial gov't have muzzled hospitals on their c.diff outbreaks.
> 
> Anyone think another company would risk something like this if they switch to self regulation? If they would, then they would risk it either way, so it's just a mater of time before their caught.


I would like to see McGuinty with a pitchfork rammed up his rear. And a torch in his nostril. He is a liar and a hypocrite.

With self-regulation, you also have accountability. Nobody would want to have bad conditions for their food products if they knew that any sick customers would sue their pants off. But there should still be a government agency that inspects just to be sure.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

I'm not gonna vote. I don't see the point. Whether I waste my time in the ballot box or not, nothing that happens in Ottawa will change life in my blocks. Young ones are still gonna get blasted into body bags, and economic conditions will continue to push jobs...and hope...out of reach. 

Harper is well set living the life of Riley in 24 Sussex. Fancy house, security, lavish meals, transportation, haute couture, priority medical care...all footed by taxpayers. We give it to him but receive the finger in return. 

What is the job of an MP anyways? Isn't it to just show up at the House whenever they feel like it and shout out "Hear, hear!" whenever the point or argument is hot? These people don't actually do anything, do they? I had an MP come to my home. I guess he was on his usual "meet the constituents" tour. He gave me his pitch, all bright-eyed and shiny...then I asked him exactly what I'm saying here. He had nothing to say to me, in fact, I think I took the wind out of his sails. He just got in his car and left without visiting the other houses. I wasn't angry or physical with him. I just calmly told him the truth. I guess some people just can't handle the truth.

I really enjoy how you all get into the political debates, your passion for it. I've been reading this thread carefully and I see a lot of "Hear, hear" ing and "Amen" ing. But what stuns me is the fact that neither you nor me can do anything about it seems to escape us. I guess political threads like this exist has a chance for people to play out visions of grandeur or political fantasies. It's okay. We all of dreams of grandeur sometimes. I had one just before I started writing this.

All politics is is a game. It's a game people play. People with money, power, influence. It's the favorite game of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. How can we get the people to vote us back into power? What sweet nothings can we whisper in their ear to get 'em to see things our way? The exertion of power and influence over others is the greatest of all games and perhaps provides the greatest of all satisfaction. Who cares if Harper or Dion get into power? Getting Layton in there won't help either They're all devils I'm sure. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They may say different things, make different promises but in the end all they want is the power. They want to be the master of the Great House. While we, the little minions, scurry about our way forever laboring in the service of their Right Honourables until we depart the field.

I remember watching a movie called "Lean on Me" with Morgan Freeman playing the role of "Crazy Joe" Clark. Crazy Joe walked around with a bat and took on the dope dealers, the hoods, and the school board and in the end cleaned up the mess that was once Eastside High School. I suppose if a candidate came on the scene like him, someone who would be willing to turn the establishment upside down and wouldn't be afraid to kick some ass, I would send my vote his way. A person, woman or man, who has that very same absolute power that should corrupt them absolutely but because of the content of their character, it does not. Instead, they would rise up and focus on securing the rights of all the people of Canada and see that opportunity is available to all.

Don't get it twisted here. The reason government exists is not so that we can have rousing political debates on or offline. Government does not exist so that we can share the latest buzz or what's new on the grapevine. I believe in the importance of a free press for keeping government in check but unfortunately that very same free press has glamourized the political process and, in a small way, has contributed to the corruption of our political system today. Harper, Dion, Layton...makes no difference. None of you have enough data to say if Harper has done a good job or a bad job. You just don't have all the facts. If you really want that information, you had better get ready to camp out at Stats Can for some intensive data gathering. And polls are never accurate. Samples taken in financial districts or downtown areas never reflect the opinions of those who live in the suburbs or rural areas, and vice versa.

I see some people taking some real hard shots at each other in this thread. Please don't crucify each other...really...it's not worth it. Debating the lies politicians speak is pointless, it's like waiting for baited breath for 50% of nothing. 50% of nothing is 0.

We in North America seem to forget why government exists. Perhaps we have lived with the current political system too long. Maybe it's time for a shake up. I said it earlier...government is not for the purpose of determining what dress Juile Couilliard will be wearing at the next Rideau Hall Gala or any other soap operatic purposes. 

Government exists to secure the rights of and provide opportunity for its people. 

WE are endowed with certain unalienable rights such as the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness; and it is to SECURE THESE RIGHTS that governments are instituted among men. This is an off the top of my head paraphrase of an excerpt of Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

I apologize for the length of my statement but I just need to share my feelings on this issue.

To answer the question, what will Canada look like under a Harper majority...
IT WILL LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. Nothing will change. Four years after this election, we will hear the same promises and same deceptions. It never changes. 
It will be just like a broken record.

One of my professors said something in a lecture I have never forgotten. He said that the "issues" are what politicians bring up when they are seeking election or re-election. They talk about the "issues" at press conferences. They bring up the "issues" in television, radio and print ads. The debate the "issues" with their opponents on television. The "issues" are just the same old script that Canadian political parties have rehashed over and over, again and again since Confederation. Canada doesn't have "issues", it has problems...real problems; and until we see a party or politician willing to discuss and take on the "problems", we shall not see change in the country.


Liar #1, #2 or #3. Who knows? Who cares? You decide, I won't.

My last little venture into debate...

Broken_G3, what does a lean, efficient government look like? Military dictatorships are lean and efficient. Democratic, sorry, "democratic" governments can not be lean and efficient. Politicians consider getting voted in the green light to engage in spending binges. They can then use the excuse of having been voted in in the first place as a defense. 

There are government departments that people don't even know exist. Like the cellphone ombudsman. Yes, it was discussed here on ehMac, I can't remember the exact thread...but there is a government department you can go to if you wish to file a complaint about your mobile phone service provider. I don't know if they will actually do anything, but nonetheless, the department is there and exists. How many other clandestine departments like this exist? 

Lean, efficient and democratic, sorry again, "democratic" are three words that cannot be used together.

Oh good, the clouds are clearing, I'm taking my nephews to Wonderland.

Peace.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Everyone should get out an vote. Defeatists attitudes simply show the politicians that they can get away with anything. If you do not like your incumbent, vote Green and make your voice heard." EvanPitts wrote this in another thread, and I am in total agreement with his idea.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The Shadow said:


> I remember watching a movie called "Lean on Me" with Morgan Freeman playing the role of "Crazy Joe" Clark. Crazy Joe walked around with a bat and took on the dope dealers, the hoods, and the school board and in the end cleaned up the mess that was once Eastside High School. I suppose if a candidate came on the scene like him, someone who would be willing to turn the establishment upside down and wouldn't be afraid to kick some ass, I would send my vote his way.


Just wanted to address this one point. I, too, would like to see someone like this in politics. Unfortunately, it'll never happen. As illustrated on your magazine cover, the bleeding hearts would be on he/she/it in a New York minute. As much as many people say they want change, whole-hearted revolution scares the hell out of most of them. They much prefer the comfort of status quo. 

As has been oft repeated in these political threads, people prefer the devil they do know as opposed to the one they don't.

Too bad.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

I'd vote for Obama as the Prime Minister if I could. Harper is going to call the election because of the change that is going in in the US. I wish we had better leaders here.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

A wonderful speach, The Shadow. Since you don't care either way, why not just vote for the ruling party so the CBC doesn't bitch and complain about how Canadians are not using their right to vote?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I'd vote for Obama as the Prime Minister if I could." Zlinger, I am able to vote for Obama in the State of Georgia. Not sure who I am voting for in Canada.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Yes I am very serious. The media blows this type of thing way out of proportion. I remember a few years ago that CNN did a report on Shark attacks. Then new attacks kept happening and it became a big discussion point. Well by the end of year, the attack numbers were lower than average.
> 
> The same thing started to happen in the media this summer in BC with respect to drownings. I am sure you read and heard about it. It started to gain it's own momentum, but once again, the numbers will probably fall in line with past years.


Dave, you're equating a naturally and randomly occurring cause of death, animal attacks, with a preventable cause of death, slack practices at a food plant resulting in a deadly bacterial outbreak. You're comparing apples and oranges.

While having a government inspector appearing in person in a food plant doesn't guarantee everything will be caught, it puts the business in a situation where their practices can be checked at any time and they can be shut down if they are not in compliance with the regulations. Cutting corners on regulations is a far riskier proposition under that situation. When you leave inspection and reporting up to the businesses, it's only stands to reason that corners will be cut if time is short and deadlines have to be met. A company isn't going to shut themselves down when they discover a problem in their own testing, if they even do their own testing with no one checking to see that it is done. The better businesses, run by folks with functioning consciences may take care of things fine without an inspector breathing down their neck, others will get away with whatever is necessary to not lose money. A system of self-inspection essentially relies on the goodwill of businesses owners and managers. When you stroll down the supermarket aisle you won't know which company cares and which doesn't.

All for the sake of Harper making a budget cut to the CFIA so he can dole out some more pre-election goodies.

From the article I linked to above:


> In April, the federal government introduced an SMS-style food inspection system that puts the main onus for inspection on companies, who are required to file a food safety plan and submit reports on their own compliance. Public inspectors now spend most of their time reviewing company reports and very little time in the plants where food is actually processed.
> 
> Companies like Maple Leaf pushed hard for the new system, says Kingston, because it saves them money they would have paid for inspectors, along with "the cost factor when inspectors close down production because they don't like what they see. Now, instead of closing a line, they'll get get 'corrective action support.'"
> 
> The government was also eager to adopt the new system to save money, he says. "It sure keeps the inspectors out of the plant and prevents inspectors from having as much dialogue wth employees. Employees like to talk. They will tell them things you'll never hear any other way.





> Kingston is concerned with the length of time it took Maple Leaf to notify authorities of problems detected in its plant. "Every time a reporter asked Maple Leaf Foods' president Michael McCain if they informed an inspector when they had positive lab findings, the only reply was that the info 'was available.' There are two questions I'd ask: was there a requirement to notify an inspector, and did you? And if it wasn't why not? The manual of procedures says very clearly if you get a positive result, you'll notify an inspector, and you'll have a plan in place, within 10 days.


I don't think you're going to find many people who think it's a peachy idea to play Russian roulette with the country's food supply for the sake of some relatively minor budget cuts, well ... other than Harper and his cabinet of Mike Harris re-treads.

As the righties like to say "Let the Market decide." Well it will certainly decide in the case of Maple Leaf Foods, who probably will go out of business. Unfortunately, 13 people had to die so that we now know not to choose their products. How many other Maple Leafs are out there cutting corners right now and shipping their food to your local store under Harper's new system?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Lovely speech, The Shadow. But what does it mean? Words, without action, are just words. It's easy to diatribe against something. Far more difficult to build.

Government exists because without government there would be anarchy. If government didn't exist it would have to be invented. Don't start spouting 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', because that is a very contemporary, very American perspective of the rights of individuals as it pertains to government, and is a 20th Century fallacy. Get over yourself. People need to get over themselves. Government historically is nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with society working together for the betterment of ALL.

What does government do? It takes the collective efforts of many and provides services to many. Do you like having water come out your taps? Do you like having roads to drive on, your garbage collected, maybe a hospital to go to in the middle of the night? Do you think prisoners should be locked up or rehabilitated? Would you like to carry your liquid waste to the river in a bucket or store it in a cesspool? Government is everyone working together to provide these basic needs to everyone. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You may feel that this has become something different - where the needs of the few have circumvented the needs of the many. But not voting isn't going to change anything.

Feel free not to vote. That's your right. But don't ever think that not participating makes for a solution to the problem.

You state "But what stuns me is the fact that neither you nor me can do anything about it seems to escape us." 

I disagree.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Shadow said:


> I'm not gonna vote. I don't see the point. Whether I waste my time in the ballot box or not, nothing that happens in Ottawa will change life in my blocks. Young ones are still gonna get blasted into body bags, and economic conditions will continue to push jobs...and hope...out of reach.
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> Peace.


Nice essay Shadow. I agreed with a lot of the points you made. A lot of good insights there.

But I disagree about the not voting thing.

Sure a lot of people and a lot of us who contribute to ehMac's Everything Else, get overly excited about things we have no hope of affecting. Some of us debate because we get caught up in the horse race, need to feed our egos or are simply engaging in distraction and procrastination. I personally think it's not necessary to bash each other to do so, but it's easy to get carried away.

You seem to think that the system is broken and that it's useless to think that it could be better. I think that the system is only broken because the vast majority of people won't get engaged with it. It could be better. If I really thought it couldn't I probably wouldn't bother to vote or take on any other kind of political involvement. 

Of course getting engaged with a political system means making compromises and living with not getting what you want. But when the average person abdicates their responsibility to be involved, those who have the greatest amount to gain by pushing the politicians to do their bidding, the wealthy and powerful, will be the ones whose agenda becomes the rule. Just look at the success they've had south of the border, if you want to see what happens when most people don't vote or get involved in the least way.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Dave, you're equating a naturally and randomly occurring cause of death, animal attacks, with a preventable cause of death, slack practices at a food plant resulting in a deadly bacterial outbreak. You're comparing apples and oranges.


Not at all. I was only referring to the media, not making a case for or against government versus self regulation. 

Again, I ask you for a study that supports your case. Anecdotes don't count.

I think BC has been successful by allowing more self regulation. The forest industry is an example in which the Liberals reduced enforcement, but increased fines. For the most part, it seems to me that logging practices have been maintained at a reasonable level. And yes, I do get out to see different parts of our forest.

I am not stuck on ideology here. I think each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merit. As a general rule, I don't think regulation by reaction is a good thing to do. We see it all the time in our society. For example, they are now talking about banning bags on public buses due to the incident on the Prairies. But really, that's just stupid. One incident in the history of our country and somehow that means we need more rules.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Don't start spouting 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', because that is a very contemporary, very American perspective of the rights of individuals as it pertains to government, and is a 20th Century fallacy. Get over yourself. People need to get over themselves. Government historically is nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with society working together for the betterment of ALL.


Government, historically, has everything to do with kicking the asses of its citizens, robbing them blind and making them fight in wars of their choosing. The idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has changed that equation, at least for now. Get over the idea of benevolent government, because it's just a big fat corporation that wants to prolong its own power. If you don't value your individual rights and freedoms, that's fine--hand them over to someone who you think can do a better job of running your life. Enough of us won't.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Not at all. I was only referring to the media, not making a case for or against government versus self regulation.
> 
> Again, I ask you for a study that supports your case. Anecdotes don't count.
> 
> ...


I don't see any point in me googling up some study that would support my point. I'm sure you can find one that supports yours. We can have an ehMac battle of links all day long.

I'm arguing that when the management of a food plant is told that they have to produce products cost-effectively while watching the bottom line in a competitive market, yet make sure they follow food safety regulations to the letter and report to the government when they don't, they are in a conflict of interest. If their competition fudges those regulations just slightly, which they can do if inspections are non-existent or reduced, they can cut their costs and out-compete with the first plant. So, what is the manager of that first plant to do?

They may stick by their guns, follow regulations to the letter and try to find some other way to compete. Or they can also fudge food safety standards and cave in to the short term interests of their company. Unfortunately companies are often terrible at looking out for their own long term interests, because of the short term focus of business cycles and demands of fluid capital, Maple Leaf being the latest example.

Fudging of safety standards goes on all the time in all industries. But in the critical areas where a mistake or corner cut can become a life or death issue I'm arguing that you need someone on the job who doesn't have a conflict of interest. The inspectors job is to shut down the operation if it is dangerous, no matter what the cost to the company, because their primary responsibility is to protect the health of the public. 

In the real world inspectors work with the industries and have a degree of flexibility and many tools to enforce the standards. But it stands to reason that a conflicted food plant employee is not who we want watching out for the public good, because the public good may not be their first priority.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't know what a mutant strain of a bacteria at a major producer has to do with the election. It isn't like Maple Leaf was participating in anything illegal. It wasn't like Michael McCain called the plant and said "because I hate the government and want to embarrass them, I order you to dump all of the Listeria onto the line immediately".

Considering that the plant had already been cleaned with five different disinfectants, and that it had passed every imaginable regulation possible - I can't see how having even more regulations would help.

So there are people who keep putting down "the government" when in reality, Maple Leaf had not actually done anything malicious or outside of the regulations; while the same people seem to shrug off the carnage going on in the hospitals, where some fat cat CEOs contunue to rake in their filthy lucre while not getting their janitors to actually clean the feces encrusted equipment. Nor does anyone seem to blame the Government, who sits back and allows executives to loot the health care system while ignoring the very basics of health and cleanliness.

It sounds like the same old deal, where Mike Harris was blamed for Walkerton, when the reality of the situation was that the whole disaster was caused by a murderous fool who was scoring a great deal of cash doing a job that he was unqualified for (nor did he even take any steps towards educating himself, like reading a book or going to school), a job he scored because of nepotism.

As for the "dangers", people are in a panic about Maple Leaf, while they continue to eat tainted Quebec cheese; and really, this is nothing when compared to the major outbreaks in the US, where hundreds of people end up dying because some Corporate will not recall anything because of legal liability.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Considering that the plant had already been cleaned with five different disinfectants, and that it had passed every imaginable regulation possible - I can't see how having even more regulations would help.
> 
> So there are people who keep putting down "the government" when in reality, Maple Leaf had not actually done anything malicious or outside of the regulations; while the same people seem to shrug off the carnage going on in the hospitals, where some fat cat CEOs contunue to rake in their filthy lucre while not getting their janitors to actually clean the feces encrusted equipment. Nor does anyone seem to blame the Government, who sits back and allows executives to loot the health care system while ignoring the very basics of health and cleanliness.
> 
> It sounds like the same old deal, where Mike Harris was blamed for Walkerton, when the reality of the situation was that the whole disaster was caused by a murderous fool who was scoring a great deal of cash doing a job that he was unqualified for (nor did he even take any steps towards educating himself, like reading a book or going to school), a job he scored because of nepotism.


I completely agree with you. I really hate the people who think that the government is always right, and who embrace the "nanny state" mentality. The problem with government is, not only are they corrupt, there is no liability unlike private corporations. Maple Leaf is gonna get their pants sued off; even though they may have done the best they could, they are facing consequences for something that went wrong with their product. Their reputation, once rock-solid, will also suffer. Meanwhile, as you said, government hospitals are far worse than a private meat-packing plant. How easy is it to make the government pay for their poor management, not only in terms of money but in terms of reputation? They are invincible. And it's all thanks to you government-worshipping left-wingers. Hope you're listening, CBC.

The government is only too human. They are exactly like any other institution (only with a lot more power), but they've been blown up into something godly.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

To broke G3 and Evan: I guess we should just dispense with all the food safety regulations, eh? Rely on the goodwill of companies to do the right thing at all times.

Then afterwards, when you order a pizza, you can simply Google the company first to see if they've killed anyone in the last few weeks. Caveat emptor, no more "nanny state". Let the Market decide. Yay.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> when you order a pizza, you can simply Google the company first to see if they've killed anyone in the last few weeks. Caveat emptor, no more "nanny state". Let the Market decide. Yay.


Of course, you'll need to pay some organization to investigate and keep records of food poisoning cases, and you'll need to pay some other organization to make sure that the company keeping the food poisoning records isn't taking kick-backs from companies selling tainted food, etc.

By far the majority of our economic activity can be allowed to ebb and flow in an unregulated market. But a significant portion needs government oversight and regulation. And a small fraction simply can't be served by profit-motivated groups.

Figuring out which cases fall where on that spectrum is an unending task, because these things are always changing.

Cheers


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Look at all the Yellow smilies, hiding their ********...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jamesB said:


> Look at all the Yellow smilies, hiding their ********...


Better than not having the cojones to express an opinion, instead of going sniping with a smart a$$ comment.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> To broke G3 and Evan: I guess we should just dispense with all the food safety regulations, eh? Rely on the goodwill of companies to do the right thing at all times.
> 
> Then afterwards, when you order a pizza, you can simply Google the company first to see if they've killed anyone in the last few weeks. Caveat emptor, no more "nanny state". Let the Market decide. Yay.


I'm not against food safety regulation; I'm against idiots who trust the state for everything. My point is the government, the state, is as corrupt and irresponsible as any private entity. 

jamesB: I'm not a *******. As a matter of fact, I find that association to be very insulting. What if I called all left-wingers "stoned hippies"? Or "communists"?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

broken_g3 said:


> I'm not against food safety regulation; I'm against idiots who trust the state for everything. My point is the government, the state, is as corrupt and irresponsible as any private entity.
> 
> jamesB: I'm not a *******. As a matter of fact, I find that association to be very insulting. What if I called all left-wingers "stoned hippies"? Or "communists"?


Yes, I'm against idiots too G3. (Of course I know you weren't directing any insulting associations my way, right?) 

In the case we're discussing a government food inspector doesn't have the conflict of interest that a food plant manager who is responsible for self-regulation and self-reporting does. Someone who isn't an idiot would look at who has the conflict of interest and recognize that, it's got nothing to do with implicitly trusting anyone.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All politics aside, the Canadian government inspectors do a reasonable job of ensuring that food is inspected--but the country, including industry, does a lousy job of supply chain management and tracking, which needs major improvement. 

I believe the idea behind making industry more self-regulating makes sense with government inspectors perfroming more rigorous spot checks instead of cursory inspections that are pre-announced.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Better than not having the cajones to express an opinion, instead of going sniping with a smart a$$ comment.


Hey jamesB,

SINC puts the smiley addendum at the end to cover himself. It means, in a confrontation, that he doesn't really mean it or it was a joke. Instead of being the mean spirited sneering thing it appears to be.

FYI.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

It will look something like this...


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Better than not having the *cajones* to express an opinion, instead of going sniping with a smart a$$ comment.


I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was a typo, and you really meant to say *cojones*

jb


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Hey jamesB,
> 
> SINC puts the smiley addendum at the end to cover himself. It means, in a confrontation, that he doesn't really mean it or it was a joke. Instead of being the mean spirited sneering thing it appears to be.
> 
> FYI.


Hey mrjimmy,

You mean to tell me THIS with NO smiley wasn't "the mean spirited sneering thing it appears to be?" Tit for tat and all.



jamesB said:


> Look at all the Yellow smilies, hiding their ********...


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

What would Canada look like with a Harper majority? ... like all the intelligent people departed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Mississauga said:


> What would Canada look like with a Harper majority? ... like all the intelligent people departed.


Zing!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> To broke G3 and Evan: I guess we should just dispense with all the food safety regulations, eh? Rely on the goodwill of companies to do the right thing at all times.


I have never said that there should be no food regulations, nor do I think that businesses are responsible enough to conduct their business without oversight.

My point is that people are in a big panic over Maple Leaf, and I mean they are really kind of freaking out about it - while at the same time, they do not seem to care that Hospitals have turned into death factories.

It comes down to the course of action. Maple Leaf found a problem and recalled not only the affected products, but all products. They are putting a huge effort into cleaning what is already the cleanest packing plant in the country, they have been entirely transparent in their actions. And it comes down to the fact that everything they were doing was entirely within the government regulations.

Now, I do have to question the fact that the initial recalled products were already expired, in some cases by a number of months, but the hospitals were still doling out what were expired products. Is Maple Leaf (or even the Government) actually responsible to send people into the Hospitals to inspect each label to see if it is expired or not?

In the case of Hospitals, the course of action has been for the CEO to come forth and not only admit that they are entirely not guilty, but that the systems in place are entirely functional and perfect in all regards. After the press conference, they get back into the directors room and vote themselves some kind of huge pay raise, raises that are larger than what most people would make in a year or two. And still, the equipment is not properly cleaned, medical instruments are improperly autoclaved, and feces covers everything.

So sure, maybe we should go on a witch hunt and punish Maple Leaf for finding a problem then doing something about it; while we should congratulate the hospital CEOs for having unmotivated staff that are lax in their work (if they even do any work), for not maintaining standards, or the buildings, or even maintaining any degree of dignity for the patients.

So people want to blame Harper for tainted meat - and if that is so, then people had better be prepare to blame Stelmach for murdering babies, McGuilty for the 91 murders at Joe Brant Hospital, and Charest for murdering patients and cheese eaters in his filthy province.

Our problems stem less from government inspections or lack of them, and more about an administration that takes responsibility and does something to correct problems - which is something that Michael McCain has done, while not one hospital CEO has stepped forward with their head hung in disgrace of their own malfeasance, and their sins of greed, lust and avarice.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Just wanted to address this one point. I, too, would like to see someone like this in politics. Unfortunately, it'll never happen. As illustrated on your magazine cover, the bleeding hearts would be on he/she/it in a New York minute. As much as many people say they want change, whole-hearted revolution scares the hell out of most of them. They much prefer the comfort of status quo.
> 
> As has been oft repeated in these political threads, people prefer the devil they do know as opposed to the one they don't.
> 
> Too bad.


You're right, FeXL...unfortunately. It seems that we need to emancipate ourselves from this new form of mental slavery.

And MLeh...

I'm sorry you fail to remember the math we learned in school as children. Do you remember place values...with the little wooden cubes (at least in our school we were taught it with wooden cubes). Ones, tens, hundreds, thousands and so on. You seem, my friend, to have forgotten that the basic unit or building block of a society...is an individual. If you start losing the individuals by the wayside, what kind of society will you have? 

AND you know fully well that garbage collection, roads and hospitals are not what I am referring to. 

AS A SIDE NOTE: I don't consider waiting ten hours in an emergency room, which is what I had to do with my father two weeks ago, government providing adequate medical care. I also lost my mother to medical malpractice at Toronto East General Hospital (this matter is currently before the courts), so do yourself and me a favor and don't go there.

To correct YOUR definition, the Canadian government takes the collective efforts (taxes) of many and provides (sub-standard) services to many (and pockets the rest to share amongst the Parliamentary old boys...Hear, hear.)

I wish that my vote counted....believe me...I really wish that I could make a difference. I wish I could vote for a candidate who's willing to turn Parliament upside down instead of turning the lives or regular citizens upside down. I just don't see the value of it. I may be wrong in the eyes of my learned colleagues here or I may have validity, it's up to them to decide.

I want you to know MLeh that I respect your opinion...and I respect it enough to challenge it.

Please read this...your own words...

"Government historically is nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with society working together for the betterment of ALL."

Neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor the U.S. Constitution (specifically the Bill or Rights, the first ten amendments of said document) are government rights or societal rights (plurality), but individual rights. 

You say that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are fallacies, but yet, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government of the United States from depriving these rights from individuals without due processes of law. The CCRF also states the same. These staples were not included into these documents for fun were they? But the CCRF has a Notwithstanding clause in it doesn't it? People are being locked away in Guantanamo Bay without access to legal counsel aren't they?

The documents are not perpetrating these violations....the governments are.

So think again about your own words...

"Government historically is nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with society working together for the betterment of ALL." If we could all work together for the betterment of ourselves, then what would we need the government for?

Canada, and the US for that matter, were founded on the rights of individuals.

These governments have sworn to secure the rights in these documents. The documents didn't fail, the governments have. The documents are not corrupt...the governments are.

We have rights that deserve to be defended and are supposed to be defended and ever so slowly, day by day, our rights are being eroded. It was Maher Arar today, it was the entire taxpaying population of Ontario once again swindled by McGuinty, it was 2000 people who lost their jobs at a GM contractor and thousands more affected in the Oshawa plants, and it could be me or you tomorrow. 

Where is the government when you can't pay your mortgage because of your manufacturing job loss while they cry out "Jobs and prosperity are abundant, hear, hear!!!!"

Where is the government when your children are lying in the streets with half of their head shot off while they cry out "Peace and safety, hear, hear!!!!!"

Where is the government when the families of our boys are left in tears as they accompany the bodies of their honored dead on the Highway of Heroes ...following orders and fighting a war that we don't have any business being involved in while they shout out "The mission is succeeding, hear, hear!!!!!!!!!"

Search yourself and see that the governments have played great roles in these debacles and many others. Either they are part of the cause or they have failed to act to protect or prevent. 

Our currency didn't have to shoot up so high that it blasted our manufacturers into oblivion. Guns and drugs don't have to come into this country at all, but they are allowed easy access. Let's send millions in humanitarian aid world wide but when the poor of our own nation needs services all they hear from the mouths of their government is NO!!!!, they don't even get a "Hear, hear".

I know we could use a little life, liberty and happiness around here. So don't you, MLeh, belittle those values, those rights.

In conclusion, today's politicians are nothing more than spin doctors and now we are in the silly season, there's a lot of politricks going on.

I'm turning my television and radio off until after October 14, good thing I've got a big iPod library on my iPhone.

Understand your political science and history, MLeh...don't get it twisted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Shadow: I agree with your post. Government becomes the solution to problems they perpetrate. Not only can government not solve these problems, they don't want to--providing just enough of a tease to make one believe that a major improvement is just around the corner. 

Do we want to eliminate poverty? We could eliminate all poverty by ending corporate welfare and giving all Canadian citizens a guaranteed minimum income--while ending all other forms of social welfare. No means testing, no massive delivery system that consumes three-quarters of what it aims to deliver. Just send out the cheques. It would save us money.

At best government can pave the way for individuals to achieve their own goals.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Do we want to eliminate poverty? We could eliminate all poverty by ending corporate welfare and giving all Canadian citizens a guaranteed minimum income--while ending all other forms of social welfare. No means testing, no massive delivery system that consumes three-quarters of what it aims to deliver. Just send out the cheques. It would save us money.


That is an interesting concept... so what constitutes social welfare?

EI?
Healthcare?
SSI?
Infrastructure (highways, sewers, etc...)?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Do we want to eliminate poverty? We could eliminate all poverty by ending corporate welfare and giving all Canadian citizens a guaranteed minimum income--while ending all other forms of social welfare. No means testing, no massive delivery system that consumes three-quarters of what it aims to deliver. Just send out the cheques. It would save us money.


I could agree to this in principal, but I would have to see the details or the example of such a system at work. Don't they do something like this in Scandinavian countries?

I can't imagine any pol, left or right proposing this though. People would jump to the conclusion that everyone would quit their jobs to collect their minimum income cheques. Not that I believe that would happen, but that would be the fear.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

PM says letting Green leader into debates 'unfair'

CBC.ca - Canada Votes - PM says letting Green leader into debates 'unfair'

I think i'll vote the tree huggers........ vaya con "love" people!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

To me, the issue of government control, or not, can be summed up in one fundamental difference. The day I can vote out those who control say Rogers or any other corporation because we don't like their policies I will begin to think handing control over to corporations is a good idea. 

Unfortunately we do live in a country where we place things like supporting bilingual access(1.1 billion??) over better funding our healthcare, polling twice a day and a host of other wasteful expenditures over other more important things.

But somehow, there are those that think that private companies would best run healthcare. It works oh so well for the Americans.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

We let the Progressive Conservatives into the televised debate after they were trounced in 1993 and had only two sitting MPs going into the following election, so why not let a party that is growing in support, now well above 10% in popularity, participate as well?

Either Harper is posturing, and doesn't believe the Green Party takes Conservative votes away, or is scared, and does. Neither interpretation matters.

And it's a shame it's in the hands of the broadcasters and not some independent body. Let the Supreme Court decide!




gastonbuffet said:


> PM says letting Green leader into debates 'unfair'
> 
> CBC.ca - Canada Votes - PM says letting Green leader into debates 'unfair'
> 
> I think i'll vote the tree huggers........ vaya con "love" people!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> It comes down to the course of action. Maple Leaf found a problem and recalled not only the affected products, but all products. They are putting a huge effort into cleaning what is already the cleanest packing plant in the country, they have been entirely transparent in their actions. And it comes down to the fact that everything they were doing was entirely within the government regulations.


It's not clear that everything they were doing was entirely correct. The problem at Maple Leaf was found and products were recalled only after deaths occurred and contamination was traced back to Maple Leaf. Many of the products that killed had been produced many months prior to being eaten.

Again, to quote the food inspector that I quoted above:


> Kingston is concerned with the length of time it took Maple Leaf to notify authorities of problems detected in its plant. "Every time a reporter asked Maple Leaf Foods' president Michael McCain if they informed an inspector when they had positive lab findings, the only reply was that the info 'was available.' There are two questions I'd ask: was there a requirement to notify an inspector, and did you? And if it wasn't why not? The manual of procedures says very clearly if you get a positive result, you'll notify an inspector, and you'll have a plan in place, within 10 days.


This is a situation that Harper's self-reporting and self-inspection rules brought about. If the lab findings were positive for listeria did an immediate shut down occur? We don't know that.

The problem with self-reporting is that it leaves the decision about whether or not to take action in the hands of plant employees who have a natural conflict-of-interest. Shutdowns cost a lot of money, in the case of a big manufacturer like Maple Leaf, probably vast amounts of money. No one can say that there wouldn't have been pressure to find some other way of avoiding a shut down.

With self-inspection and self-reporting we rely on the goodwill and conscience of a conflicted employee about what to do.

This is not a way that Harper and Harris before him should be choosing to shave a few bucks off a budget, but no doubt the arm-twisting from large food corporations has some share in this de-regulation as well.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> We let the Progressive Conservatives into the televised debate after they were trounced in 1993 and had only two sitting MPs going into the following election, so why not let a party that is growing in support, now well above 10% in popularity, participate as well?


That 1993 election was like shooting rats at the dump when we were kids. You gotta get em all. Leave only one of each sex and look what happens. The vermin are swarming all over the place before you can turn around!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rofl


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> That is an interesting concept... so what constitutes social welfare?


It includes all federal payments--EI, OAS, CPP, Child Benefit, GST Tax Credit and welfare--currently topping off at around $130 billion. You just look at the person's own income as stated on their income tax, and then write them a cheque to top it off. No humiliation. No means testing. Yes, you have to ensure there is no fraud about income levels, but that's already being done.

This is an example and not my idea of an actual poverty line figure, but say that a person is making $5,000 on a part-time job and collecting $10,000 in provincial welfare payments. You decide that the guaranteed minimum income is $20,000 and the feds cut you a cheque for $5,000. That's it.

EI payments are still collected. If you lose your job, you can collect $20,000 per year while looking for another.

That's a gross oversimplification, but you could certainly save money by administering all federal social welfare in this fashion---possibly even replacing provincial welfare programs as well.

The tax structure could be altered to provide incentives to earn more money without immediately losing the basic minimum support.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> To me, the issue of government control, or not, can be summed up in one fundamental difference. The day I can vote out those who control say Rogers or any other corporation because we don't like their policies I will begin to think handing control over to corporations is a good idea.
> 
> Unfortunately we do live in a country where we place things like supporting bilingual access(1.1 billion??) over better funding our healthcare, polling twice a day and a host of other wasteful expenditures over other more important things.
> 
> But somehow, there are those that think that private companies would best run healthcare. It works oh so well for the Americans.


Only when government limits my choice through regulation do I lose my choice in a competitive marketplace. My dollar vote works a lot better than my political vote in rewarding and punishing companies that either serve my needs or don't.

Even if government continues to foot the bill for health care, it's fr more efficient to provide it privately. The U.S. situation is largely an insurance crisis created by government.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

HowEver said:


> We let the Progressive Conservatives into the televised debate after they were trounced in 1993 and had only two sitting MPs going into the following election, so why not let a party that is growing in support, now well above 10% in popularity, participate as well?


That is an interesting point... IF the Conservatives squeak through a majority this election may be it would be time for the left to do some coalition building and rebuild like the right did.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Only when government limits my choice through regulation do I lose my choice in a competitive marketplace. My dollar vote works a lot better than my political vote in rewarding and punishing companies that either serve my needs or don't.


Almost, the problem is when you run into Monopolies or Industry Collusion. In those situations your "vote" by way of the dollar becomes worthless.

Even free markets have to have some regulations...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Only when government limits my choice through regulation do I lose my choice in a competitive marketplace. My dollar vote works a lot better than my political vote in rewarding and punishing companies that either serve my needs or don't.
> 
> Even if government continues to foot the bill for health care, it's fr more efficient to provide it privately. The U.S. situation is largely an insurance crisis created by government.


Ultimately, a 'dollar vote' follows what is cheapest, not necessarily what is best as we are finding out with Maple Leaf's latest gaffe. We can see easily what a political party can achieve by buying people's votes with promises of being 'cheaper', getting more money in your pocket. Canadians will likely vote along the same lines politically as we are finding out. So a 'dollar vote' in my view isn't the most effective way of ensuring safety or quality.

And how did the US government create an 'insurance crisis'? The HMO model isn't about providing quality healthcare at all in fact it's horrible. It's based purely on profit and has clearly proven itself to be one of the worst ways of providing health care.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

The Shadow said:


> And MLeh...
> <snip>


I still fail to understand how refusing to vote solves the problem however you perceive it.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I still fail to understand how refusing to vote solves the problem however you perceive it.


Who said anything about solving the problem, I know I can't solve it. I'm stating what OUGHT to be, not what IS. There is no solution; not at this time and not with the foolishness we know as the current state of Canadian politics. 

Now THEY want to say who can speak and who can't...

CityNews: Green Party Excluded From Debates Again As All Candidates Hit The Ground Running

The Green Party is not allowed to participate in the debates just because the other parties say so. Jesus, where is the Supreme Court in all of this. Peoples' rights are being violated and it seems like these infractions are now going to become the status quo. Ughhhhh, somebody go get my baseball bat.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Shadow said:


> The Green Party is not allowed to participate in the debates just because the other parties say so. Jesus, where is the Supreme Court in all of this. Peoples' rights are being violated and it seems like these infractions are now going to become the status quo. Ughhhhh, somebody go get my baseball bat.


And what 'rights' are those?


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

The Green Party has the right to be heard and included in the debates. That opinion is shared by the ombudsman of the CBC.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

The Shadow said:


> Who said anything about solving the problem, I know I can't solve it. I'm stating what OUGHT to be, not what IS. There is no solution; not at this time and not with the foolishness we know as the current state of Canadian politics.


Solving a problem is the next logical step after identifying it. Any problem. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air, and discussion is futile. Or do you expect everyone _else_ to do something while you rant and rave and flail your arms about?



> This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about this, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.


For all your previous diatribe regarding personal rights and freedoms and 'place values', you and I have totally different perceptions of the power of one.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Solving a problem is the next logical step after identifying it. Any problem. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air, and discussion is futile. Or do you expect everyone _else_ to do something while you rant and rave and flail your arms about?
> 
> 
> 
> For all your previous diatribe regarding personal rights and freedoms and 'place values', you and I have totally different perceptions of the power of one.


And you and I have the right to have those different perceptions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This thread's recent posts are way out of line. Good to see it has been reported.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Mississauga said:


> What would Canada look like with a Harper majority? ... like all the intelligent people departed.


I hate to break this to you, but nobody with even a basic understanding of economics would ever vote for Dion. His stupid carbon tax is just another added cost of doing business in this already expensive country. And guess what? Businesses will say "I don't need to put up with this crap", they'll pack up, and people will lose their jobs. If that doesn't happen, then Canadian industry would simply become less competitive on the world stage, thanks to this extra cost.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sort of what's happening now under Harper?


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

rgray said:


> That 1993 election was like shooting rats at the dump when we were kids. You gotta get em all. Leave only one of each sex and look what happens. The vermin are swarming all over the place before you can turn around!


I really like your comparison between conservatives and rats. Very tasteful. Now how about Liberals and the plague?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> sort of what's happening now under Harper?


Yes he destroyed our economy in two short years.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes he destroyed our economy in two short years.


excuse me? Don't put words in mouth. I merely pointed out that what the fear mongering predicts is already happening under Harper and he is doing squat to address it.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> Yes he destroyed our economy in two short years.


And, BTW, how did he destroy our economy? Our dollar is at its highest point in decades. Economic growth has been solid, only rounding off slightly with the impending US recession. If you're talking about Ontario's choking economy, you may want to direct your blame at Mr. McGuinty.

Everyone, go visit Statistics Canada or something and check out the economic growth stats by province and nation-wide.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure. We have a PM who professed that Alberta needs a firewall around it.

I said before Harper came to power that Alberta would rise and Ontario would sink. 

No brainer.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> Yes he destroyed our economy in two short years.


unbelievable.....yes and he was single handedly responsible for gas prices and world oil prices. which led to gm layoffs of gas guzzling trucks...also everytime a bill came up, he voodoo'd the opposition into voting for it. Because he knew at anytime if they wanted too they could vote it down and have an election. A guy with all that power I want on my side. Rather then a party who looks the other way. Perhaps you would also like to blame the weather on Harper also?


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

oops a little misquote on my part grabbed the wrong quote by mistake.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

groovetube said:


> sure. We have a PM who professed that Alberta needs a firewall around it.
> 
> I said before Harper came to power that Alberta would rise and Ontario would sink.
> 
> No brainer.


Ontario sunk for many reasons. Number one: McGuinty's unfriendly environment for industry and corporations, two of Ontario's most important employers. Number two: McGuinty's inability to cope with the high Candian dollar. One thing about Liberal governments is that they thrive under weak currencies. Number three: reasons beyond our control; high oil prices, the collapsing automobile sector, housing crisis in the United States. Which reminds me... it's a good time to buy a property in the United States. Number four: Yes, Mr. Harper is not very sympathetic towards his home province. Perhaps it was because he watched it drive itself into a snake pit.

But reminder: it's not just Alberta that's doing well. Look at British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They're fine. Northwest Territories? They're doing quite nicely as well (remember, everyone: Diamonds).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

broken_g3 said:


> Ontario sunk for many reasons. Number one: McGuinty's unfriendly environment for industry and corporations, two of Ontario's most important employers. Number two: McGuinty's inability to cope with the high Candian dollar. One thing about Liberal governments is that they thrive under weak currencies. Number three: reasons beyond our control; high oil prices, the collapsing automobile sector, housing crisis in the United States. Which reminds me... it's a good time to buy a property in the United States. Number four: Yes, Mr. Harper is not very sympathetic towards his home province. Perhaps it was because he watched it drive itself into a snake pit.
> 
> But reminder: it's not just Alberta that's doing well. Look at British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They're fine. Northwest Territories? They're doing quite nicely as well (remember, everyone: Diamonds).


unfriendly environment? Did McGuinty raise corporate taxes? Did he make Mike Harris' 'friendly environment more unfriendly?

And no one is denying external influences on the slowing economy. I'm not sure why that's a point here.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> sure. We have a PM who professed that Alberta needs a firewall around it.
> 
> I said before Harper came to power that Alberta would rise and Ontario would sink.
> 
> No brainer.


Yes and 7 years of McGuilty and Miller time has done nothing but put us ahead of every other Province in this Country. And the big 3 are hurting because they didn't want to adapt to the market.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's interesting that all I've gotten is deflection. 

No where have I said that McGuinty was a knight in shining amour, nor Miller. I also haven't said that the slumping Ontario economy, along with it's job losses etc. were solely the fault of Harper.

I merely pointed out that the very things Harper fear mongers about with the liberals are the very things that are happening under his watch.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Something is not making sense with the Liberal Party's "Green Shift Calculator". I put in that I earned $600,000 and my wife earned $400,000 in the province of NL. We would get back $2344. Then I put in that I earned $6000 and my wife earned $4000, and we would receive back $797 dollars. Both amounts are fictional, since we might earn a million dollars in over a decade of work. However, how can those who earn the most get the most back? Since there would be a greater tax on goods and services, those with the lowest incomes should get the most back, with those earning the most should get little or nothing back. To me, this is fair, since I could cut back on my carbon footprint to make the increase/benefit revenue neutral. However, if I was part of the "working poor" in this country, I would need some help, moreso than the millionaire. 

Where am I going wrong on my thinking?

thegreenshift.ca


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well that should make right leaning ideologues breathe a little easier.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube, that may be the case, but it is still not fair. I should get less back because of my income compared to someone just scraping by, and NOT more.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Something is not making sense with the Liberal Party's "Green Shift Calculator". I put in that I earned $600,000 and my wife earned $400,000 in the province of NL. We would get back $2344. Then I put in that I earned $6000 and my wife earned $4000, and we would receive back $797 dollars. Both amounts are fictional, since we might earn a million dollars in over a decade of work. However, how can those who earn the most get the most back? Since there would be a greater tax on goods and services, those with the lowest incomes should get the most back, with those earning the most should get little or nothing back. To me, this is fair, since I could cut back on my carbon footprint to make the increase/benefit revenue neutral. However, if I was part of the "working poor" in this country, I would need some help, moreso than the millionaire.


In percentage terms, the lower earning scenario *does* get more back.

The $600000+$400000 ($1mil) earning scenario gets back 0.23% (rounded to 2 decimals) whereas the $6000+$4000 ($10 thou) scenario gets back 7.97% which represents the best part of an order of magnitude difference. In percent terms the lower earners do get back radically more. I recognise this is a very simplistic analysis but it appears to answer the question in a typically Liberal program fashion... ???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks, rgray. However, "In percentage terms, the lower earning scenario does get more back" does not help someone in the working poor pay the bills.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Thanks, rgray. However, "In percentage terms, the lower earning scenario does get more back" does not help someone in the working poor pay the bills.


Agreed, but then these politicos, rhetoric aside, don't really care about that do they? In policy terms the percentages LOOK good and that is all that counts with these people - after all they (the politicos) are, as the British might put it, making a "good screw" (good income) out of our pockets...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Shadow said:


> The Green Party has the right to be heard and included in the debates. That opinion is shared by the ombudsman of the CBC.


I didn't know that the opinions of the CBC were enshrined in our Constitution.

Again I ask, what rights?


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> ...To me, this is fair, since I could cut back on my carbon footprint to make the increase/benefit revenue neutral. However, if I was part of the "working poor" in this country, I would need some help, moreso than the millionaire.
> 
> Where am I going wrong on my thinking?
> 
> thegreenshift.ca


Here in Toronto, I *choose* to leave my car at home most days, and I *choose* to wait for the damn bus, get on the damn subway and then hop on the damn College streetcar. This is MY way of helping the environment (and saving about $60 a week- which I then spend on Dinner out). Others *choose* to take the Don Valley Parkway, but I don't care. It's a free country. The whole carbon tax and carbon credit system is just bogus; you're not really helping the environment that much. You're just wasting money. Your choices are what help the environment- not paying more $$$ to the evil government.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Thanks, rgray. However, "In percentage terms, the lower earning scenario does get more back" does not help someone in the working poor pay the bills.


I grew up in Gov't housing and let me tell you it was far from efficient, I could only imagine what hydro and gas would sky rocket to, with little to no relief for those with low incomes. Unless of course the gov't was going to fork over the dough to retrofit these buildings to alleviate this, but I doubt that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: It's all about punishment anyway. All things being equal, most people would choose an environment-friendly idea, but pretending that people truly have reasonable choice and options at this point is a fallacy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> groovetube, that may be the case, but it is still not fair. I should get less back because of my income compared to someone just scraping by, and NOT more.


I agree.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jumbo: It's all about punishment anyway. All things being equal, most people would choose an environment-friendly idea, but pretending that people truly *have reasonable choice and options at this point is a fallacy.*


and that's likely going to happen when hell freezes over with SH vision of Canadian super energy power and albertan oil.

The green shift may not be the best plan, but it is the first time we've seen a daring attempt at trying to build a greener economy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I didn't know that the opinions of the CBC were enshrined in our Constitution.
> 
> Again I ask, what rights?


wasn't Preston Manning allowed into the leadership debate with one MP and not enough of a popular vote to get federal funding? Does he have more rights if so?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> The green shift may not be the best plan, but it is the first time we've seen a daring attempt at trying to build a greener economy.


It is both daring _and_ inane.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It is both daring _and_ inane.


I'm afraid we'll have to disagree there. I think it's far more inane to do nothing to kickstart a sustainable economy.

A missed opportunity that we'll never see from a Harper government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> wasn't Preston Manning allowed into the leadership debate with one MP and not enough of a popular vote to get federal funding? Does he have more rights if so?


The Canadian media conglomerate that runs the debates isn't under any sort of regulations, so they make the rules. I don't know if May has a case when she takes them to court. There might be some argument that the conglomerate is changing their own rules and is therefore being unfair to the Greens on this issue.

But it looks like, in this case it was the parties that chose this by threatening to not show, according to what the conglomerate has put out for public consumption. They say they tried to get May included but it was 3 or the 4 parties that vetoed the idea.

This rigging by the parties is completely undemocratic. TV debates are an important part of any modern election and should be under clear Election Canada rules. Something simple like a certain threshold of votes in the last election, such as what is used to determine if a party receives public funding would be an improvement.

Harper, Layton and Duceppe look like cowards in this. If Harper has an issue with May's actions he should put the question to her in an open debate, not seek to rig the process. The same goes for Layton and Duceppe. I hope it bites them all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CNW Group | LEADERS DEBATE BROADCAST CONSORTIUM | News Release - 2008 Leaders' Debates

This is a press release from the PR firm for the network consortium that runs the leader's debate. There's contact info on the page. In case the link dies, I'll copy it here:

For further information: Jason MacDonald, Spokesperson for the Network
Consortium, T (416) 482-1357, C (647) 205-4744, [email protected]

I sent an email which I've copied below:



> Dear Mr. Macdonald,
> 
> Your consortium's decision not to include the Green Party in the Leader's debate was the wrong decision, was thoroughly undemocratic and was not made in the "interest of Canadians" as your consortium claims in it's press release. It's obvious to all but the most gullible that your consortium's decision was made in the interest of the 4 political parties who currently are part of the debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It includes all federal payments--EI, OAS, CPP, Child Benefit, GST Tax Credit and welfare--currently topping off at around $130 billion. You just look at the person's own income as stated on their income tax, and then write them a cheque to top it off. No humiliation. No means testing. Yes, you have to ensure there is no fraud about income levels, but that's already being done.
> 
> This is an example and not my idea of an actual poverty line figure, but say that a person is making $5,000 on a part-time job and collecting $10,000 in provincial welfare payments. You decide that the guaranteed minimum income is $20,000 and the feds cut you a cheque for $5,000. That's it.
> 
> ...


I don't know if this is only co-incidence, but E May announced today that the Green Party would implement just such a plan.

The National Pest made short shrift of it while the commentors invoked the knee-jerk spector of lazy bums quitting their jobs to live the high life on the guv'mint dole.

Green Party's poverty-elimination confusion - National Post


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: It is a complete coincidence, actually. My feeling is that this system would create roughly the same amount of indolence the current system does. I don't necessarily think that large amounts of welfare are a great idea, but structured in such a way that the tax system favours a person who tries to get off welfare, I think it makes sense. When bureaucracies benefit from creating and maintaining a large "client" base we'll just see more and more people added to assistance rolls under the current system.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I didn't know that the opinions of the CBC were enshrined in our Constitution.
> 
> Again I ask, what rights?


Yeah, you know what Vandave, you're absolutely right...forget about what I said. 

Even though all the Canadian people and the people of the Green Party are entitled to these fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

....summed up...when everyone has these rights, it creates an even playing field.

I believe that banning the Green Party from the debates goes against that even playing field, CBC or no CBC, editorial or not. But I'm just a little ni**er from the hood, Vandave, what do I know? I'm one of those dutty-skinned, barracks people that high society looks down upon, not worth a damn.

I'm done with expressing my opinion about this subject and any others.

Last night I was threatened with physical violence by a member of this forum in my private messages. He wanted to meet with me locally for the purpose of harming me and instructed me not to tell anyone else on the forums about it. 

My perceptions of our so-called great nation reflected right here in these forums.

That's the end of the line for me. I got my kids and my studio to worry about, I don't have to worry about people trying to get back at me for speaking my mind. And I don't wanna be pushed into a position where I'll have to get into it and then finish it. I managed to give up the gang life years ago and not lose my life in the process, and I'm not interested in having to relive that past life with some maniac. 

If anyone here is a moderator, please you may terminate this account. If one man can't express an opinion, then one man can't make a difference. And if one man can't make a difference, there is no way one vote can.

My best to all of you in your future endeavors.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> wasn't Preston Manning allowed into the leadership debate with one MP and not enough of a popular vote to get federal funding? Does he have more rights if so?


Didn't his MP get elected? Did you know that the Reform Party was polling very high at the time, relative to the current Greens. You analogy doesn't fit here.

And you still haven't answered the question on rights. The reason is... no such right exists. Nobody is taking anybody's freedom of speech away. 

I don't see the purpose in letting a fringe party join a debate on equal footing. Why not let the Rhino's in? You know, freedom of speech and all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Harper, Layton and Duceppe look like cowards in this. If Harper has an issue with May's actions he should put the question to her in an open debate, not seek to rig the process. The same goes for Layton and Duceppe. I hope it bites them all." I strongly agree, GA. The Green Party may get more votes nation-wide than the Bloc will get in PQ. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not being allowed to speak in a public-funded CBC-organized debate might be an abrogation of rights, if the rules for inclusion were stated in advance. If the debate is merely being broadcast on CBC then no abrogation exists.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean free access to the airwaves.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Once you are polling between 10 and 15 % of the popular vote, you are no longer a "fringe" party.





Vandave said:


> Didn't his MP get elected? Did you know that the Reform Party was polling very high at the time, relative to the current Greens. You analogy doesn't fit here.
> 
> And you still haven't answered the question on rights. The reason is... no such right exists. Nobody is taking anybody's freedom of speech away.
> 
> I don't see the purpose in letting a fringe party join a debate on equal footing. Why not let the Rhino's in? You know, freedom of speech and all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Once you are polling between 10 and 15 % of the popular vote, you are no longer a "fringe" party.


You are when you have never elected an MP and have a slim and none chance of doing so this time around either.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> You are when you have never elected an MP and have a slim and none chance of doing so this time around either.


So you're definition of "fringe party" includes those that poll over 10% of the popular vote?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> So you're definition of "fringe party" includes those that poll over 10% of the popular vote?


Sure. Given 90% of people don't support them. Definitely fringe.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Ugh._Quite the narrow set of principles. Sheesh... with an attitude like that, please count me in the fringe zone, thanks very much.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If they elect a handful of MPs this time around, they'll be off the fringe list.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What were the PCs when they just had two members of Parliament after the Kim Campbell blow out???


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> What were the PCs when they just had two members of Parliament after the Kim Campbell blow out???


Karma'd.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Gratuitous: It is a complete coincidence, actually. My feeling is that this system would create roughly the same amount of indolence the current system does. I don't necessarily think that large amounts of welfare are a great idea, but structured in such a way that the tax system favours a person who tries to get off welfare, I think it makes sense. When bureaucracies benefit from creating and maintaining a large "client" base we'll just see more and more people added to assistance rolls under the current system.


You'd have to argue hard with your compatriots on the right to sell them this, because they seem to be very hostile to the idea.

Just to be the devil's advocate, under your and E May's idea, what would prevent someone who was earning, say, $1000 less than the top up amount of, say, $20,000 at some low paying job from just quitting and getting the dole without having to do all that work. 

I'm sure a system like this would have to include some sort of mechanisms to avoid this, — or, would you just let the market decide? This would mean that minimum wage and low-paid work would have to pay significantly more than the minimum to attract any workers. This would result in inflation, wouldn't it and then the minimum would become too low to live on. How would this be handled or how do other jurisdictions do it?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good one, FeXL.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> If they elect a handful of MPs this time around, they'll be off the fringe list.


In comments all over the web I'm seeing how opponents of the Green Party participating seem to value the expediency of their party over principle. This shows in that they use various justifications that have nothing to do with the issue or they make up their own version of what the rule for inclusion should be as SINC has done.

Whether you agree or disagree with E May or her politics, changing the rules for inclusion in the debate, as the broadcast consortium has done at the urging of the Cons, NDP and Bloc shows a bias of expediency over principle.

To the opponents of the Greens inclusion, you are aware that this issue is a huge cause célèbre for May? It will actually help her gain votes and will hurt others, especially Harper, who appears quite mean-spirited and manipulative in this, in opposition to his new warm and cuddly TV ads.

Saying that she is the leader of a fringe party is a less than specious argument. In most places in the world where proportional systems are in place, the threshold of voting for receiving a seat are never more than 5%, sometimes as low as 2%. This is how the world defines a "fringe" party and if you look at the votes, no one besides the Greens of the small parties has met even the 2% threshold.

The fact that the Green Party managed to get over half a million votes, greater than the population of quite a few Canadian major cities and because of this has met the bar to receive election funding from the federal government should end that argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You'd have to argue hard with your compatriots on the right to sell them this, because they seem to be very hostile to the idea.
> 
> Just to be the devil's advocate, under your and E May's idea, what would prevent someone who was earning, say, $1000 less than the top up amount of, say, $20,000 at some low paying job from just quitting and getting the dole without having to do all that work.


Nothing would stop them from doing it. But you could pay 6,500,000 Canadians $20,000 each and break even. One way of encouraging people not to sit on their asses is to create an income tax system that rewards additional work,. You would tax the benefit at the highest rate and then have a zero tax rate at some break-even point--say $40,000. The top and bottom rates would be identical. People wanting to achieve the best for themselves would work toward the break-even point. The more they earn on the way to break-even, the less they pay.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Nothing would stop them from doing it. But you could pay 6,500,000 Canadians $20,000 each and break even. One way of encouraging people not to sit on their asses is to create an income tax system that rewards additional work,. You would tax the benefit at the highest rate and then have a zero tax rate at some break-even point--say $40,000. The top and bottom rates would be identical. People wanting to achieve the best for themselves would work toward the break-even point. The more they earn on the way to break-even, the less they pay.


Well we can see how the Green Party's carbon tax-shifting ideas have caught on 20 years or so after they were first proposed by them. Maybe their basic minimum income idea will also catch on with the major parties, by 2030.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> What were the PCs when they just had two members of Parliament after the Kim Campbell blow out???


Fringed.

So bad they were refused entry in the annual Edmonton Fringe Festival.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Fringed.
> 
> So bad they were refused entry in the annual Edmonton Fringe Festival.


Yes, but that's debatable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well we can see how the Green Party's carbon tax-shifting ideas have caught on 20 years or so after they were first proposed by them. Maybe their basic minimum income idea will also catch on with the major parties, by 2030.


Milton Friedman beat the Greens to the punch on this. Conservative Senator Hugh Seagal is also pushing the idea.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> For further information: Jason MacDonald, Spokesperson for the Network
> Consortium, T (416) 482-1357, C (647) 205-4744, [email protected]


Just heard this PR guy who is speaking for the shadowy network consortium and he clearly was doing some butt-covering, by saying that the consortium "really" tried to find a way to include May, but it was 3 or the 4 parties that vetoed it.

So far, the Bloc has come out and said they didn't threaten to boycott, although they didn't agree to May's inclusion, so it's down to Jack and Steve.

Jack won't say if he threatened to boycott and Steve is probably the one who said he would boycott. Sounds like we're in CYA territory.

If the debate had gone ahead including May, there is no way that Harper wouldn't have shown up because it would be political suicide. So he ran a bluff and the weak-willed consortium caved.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Back in 1993, Preston Manning was included in the debate on the basis of Deborah Grey being the only Reform member sitting in Parliament. Reform was very much on the _fringe_ back then. Arguing that May should be excluded from the upcoming round because she leads a party on the fringe, very much like Reform was back then, is hypocritical.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Copied my comments on the leader's debate over to the Debate? thread.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

bout right....in more ways than one..


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macfury said:


> It is both daring _and_ inane.


You mean _insane_.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

You have to love 'call him as he sees him' Danny Williams:



> Premier Danny Williams levelled his most blistering attack yet against the prime minister, telling a business audience Wednesday that a Stephen Harper-led majority government would mark one of the darkest eras in Canadian history.


The Canadian Press: Harper-led majority would signal dark era in Cdn history, Williams says


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> You have to love 'call him as he sees him' Danny Williams:
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Press: Harper-led majority would signal dark era in Cdn history, Williams says


*Go Danny!!!!* *Trust a Newfoundlander to call it like it is!!!* :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> You have to love 'call him as he sees him' Danny Williams:
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Press: Harper-led majority would signal dark era in Cdn history, Williams says


I think Mr. Williams just realizes that, with the added oil & gas revenue, a Harper majority may *gasp!* accordingly reduce equalization payments to Newfoundland.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> You have to love 'call him as he sees him' Danny Williams:
> The Canadian Press: Harper-led majority would signal dark era in Cdn history, Williams says


Heard Danny on Politics with Don Neuman today. 
He came off a bit paranoid. His comments reminded me of those pathetic "Gun's in the streets" ads the Liberals concocted last time around. He did manage to give me a chuckle. His big beef was that Harper didn't follow through on his promise! Oh my God not a politition that broke an election promise! ALERT THE MEDIA and launch a national campaign to stop this rare dishonest politician!
Me thinks Danny likes the attention. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think he comes off wonderfully. Those words are loud and clear and hopefully will resonate. Try aiming your cynicism at Harper and see what ****** appear in the armour.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> I think he comes off wonderfully.


Well ya! Any Liberal would. He's preaching the same "scary Harper" gospel we've heard for years. You can be sure the Liberal media will put him to good use. :yawn:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I think he comes off wonderfully. Those words are loud and clear and hopefully will resonate. Try aiming your cynicism at Harper and see what ****** appear in the armour.


The ****** are all over the place.

Afghanistan. Either Harper lied to NATO or he lied to the Canadian people about the mission.

The debate. The public has spoken and the debate WILL include the Greens. Harper flip-flops.

It just goes on and on. People should remember that the Cons were against NAFTA until they got elected and then, flip, bamm, thank you Ma-mm, and we've got NAFTA and NO jobs. Mulroney waxed long and lyrical against Trudeau's spending and then turned around and DOUBLED the debt. Then there are the lies and deception in the very birth if the current Con incarnation thanks to Peter MacKay where he made a deal with Reform and flipped it when it suited him. These people wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit them. Harper decries Liberal spending but has squandered their elimination of the deficit and payment of the debt in just 2 years.

Then there is this whole election schtick. Harpo breaks his own law by calling an early election - says Parliament doesn't work (except everything he wants has gone thru) and he "needs" a majority. Next he says he would be satisfied with a minority - so why the f*ck are you and I going to have to stump up something like $200mil to give him what he has got right now????? What exactly (secret agenda???) does he need a majority for? Harpo won't tell us THAT because he thinks the public too stupid to do anything but pay taxes.

Just what the hell will it take to see these Cons for what they really are???

And the Con commercials... I really don't give a sh!t if Harpo plays piano with his kid. What the hell has that got to do with his ability to govern?????


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Well ya! Any Liberal would. He's preaching the same "scary Harper" gospel we've heard for years. You can be sure the Liberal media will put him to good use. :yawn:


I can deal with Conservatives. Just not Reformatives. The issue for Williams and so many others goes way beyond Party lines. Liberal paranoia doesn't help in getting to the core of these issues. It's simply paranoia.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Just what the hell will it take to see these Cons for what they really are???


Only a majority government will reveal their true identities...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The Shadow said:


> I'm done with expressing my opinion about this subject and any others.
> 
> Last night I was threatened with physical violence by a member of this forum in my private messages. He wanted to meet with me locally for the purpose of harming me and instructed me not to tell anyone else on the forums about it.
> 
> ...


If true the member should be banned


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

*One more reason to worry . . . or be paranoid if you prefer ....*

Does Canada really want an evangelical Christian with these sorts of core beliefs running the show? 

"The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren't born-again are "lost." 
taken from:

Vancouver Sun blogs

Fortunately our system of government doesn't allow the PM anywhere near the power and autonomy of a US president - much to Harper's chagrin no doubt - but really!! How seriously can you take a guy who subscribes to this nonsense? 

I have little doubt these beliefs inform his policy on Israel and the Middle East. Harper has been extremely careful not to speak of this to the media when asked. No surprise.

I don't think we need to give in to hysteria BUT... 

A majority Conservative government would be a very different animal and I don't think their record as a minority really gives us an accurate taste of what to expect. Clearly Harper has called this election now because he thinks he has a chance of a majority or at least improving the number of seats. Everything to this point has been designed to allay the fears of the majority of Canadians who don't share the core values of the former Reformers who still make up the base of his support. 

Leopards don't change their spots easily and I have seen no evidence that the Frankenstein that is the CPC (patched together from Reform, Alliance, PCs) has changed anything but the window dressing in the quest for power and in the service of political expediency.

Is it written somewhere that Canada has to repeat every mistake made in the US ten years later? 

That's a habit I'd really love to see us break.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Only a majority government will reveal their true identities...


not worth the risk.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> If true the member should be banned


If true, the member should be prosecuted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Greenlion said:


> Does Canada really want an evangelical Christian with these sorts of core beliefs running the show?


I've seen Catholics take office who supposedly owe their allegiance to the Pope. Hasn't bothered me, as long as they perform decently in their job.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day and most evangelical Christians believe the world is 6000 years old. Believe. Not metaphorically.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day and most evangelical Christians believe the world is 6000 years old. Believe. Not metaphorically.


The timeline that says the world began 6000 years ago also says that it ends in 2012, which goes a long way to explain why these people don't give a sh!t about Kyoto, global warming, running out of oil, etc. They *believe* they will be in "Rapture" before any of that stuff matters......


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

rgray said:


> Afghanistan. Either Harper lied to NATO or he lied to the Canadian people about the mission.


Umm...it was the previous Liberal government that got us into Afghanistan. What's next - blame Harper for the demise of the passenger pigeon?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day and most evangelical Christians believe the world is 6000 years old. Believe. Not metaphorically.


I have never heard Stephen Harper suggest he believes even one of those things. But why not keep going? There are all sorts of MPs with many colourful beliefs. Why not pick them apart right now?

Jews? Muslims? Clearly, they can't perform in these important jobs.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

hhk said:


> Umm...it was the previous Liberal government that got us into Afghanistan. What's next - blame Harper for the demise of the passenger pigeon?


I'm not talking about the getting in. That's done. The lying is about getting out.

Harper told Nato that Canada would consider extended involvement in Afghanistan. He tells Canadians we'll be out as currently scheduled. The two statements are mutually exclusive - one is a lie.

Try to keep up.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have never heard Stephen Harper suggest he believes even one of those things. But why not keep going? There are all sorts of MPs with many colourful beliefs. Why not pick them apart right now?
> 
> Jews? Muslims? Clearly, they can't perform in these important jobs.


Prove you can separate Church and State and none of this matters. It does matter when it comes to human rights issues being looked at through the lens of evangelicals.

You know, pesky little things like gay rights, abortion etc. etc. etc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Heard Danny on Politics with Don Neuman today.
> He came off a bit paranoid. His comments reminded me of those pathetic "Gun's in the streets" ads the Liberals concocted last time around. He did manage to give me a chuckle. His big beef was that Harper didn't follow through on his promise! Oh my God not a politition that broke an election promise! ALERT THE MEDIA and launch a national campaign to stop this rare dishonest politician!
> Me thinks Danny likes the attention.
> 
> ...


oh lookie the conservative saying it's all no big deal for a politician to lie. We'll criticize the liberals ruthlessly if they lie, but when Haper lies, well every politician lies eh! Com'on!!!

Next we'll hear that it's no big deal to be dishonest about financial matters.

oh. Wait...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh lookie the conservative saying it's all no big deal for a politician to lie. We'll criticize the liberals ruthlessly if they lie, but when Haper lies, well every politician lies eh! Com'on!!!
> 
> Next we'll hear that it's no big deal to be dishonest about financial matters.
> 
> oh. Wait...


With lies being acceptable, it makes you wonder who they think they're voting for.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Let's see ... Promises made and broken ... GST: Chretien promised to scrap it. Didn't. Harper said he'd lower it to 5%. Did. Not going to get into whether or not I agree with either promise - but I do believe in 'say what you'll do, do what you'll say', as opposed to 'say whatever it'll take to get elected and then do what you want'.

But when it comes down to it, a lot of this is pot/kettle.

(And, as a member of a church that has the word 'Evangelical' in its name, I'd caution people against making broad and sweeping comments about what 'all evangelicals' believe. kthxby)


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Prove you can separate Church and State and none of this matters. It does matter when it comes to human rights issues being looked at through the lens of evangelicals.
> 
> You know, pesky little things like gay rights, abortion etc. etc. etc.


Yes because you know those other religions don't have problems with those and others like *womans rights*. Still love how attacking Christians and Catholics is kosher on this board but you introduce any others, no one will touch them with a ten foot pole.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Let's see ... Promises made and broken ... GST: Chretien promised to scrap it. Didn't. Harper said he'd lower it to 5%. Did. Not going to get into whether or not I agree with either promise - but I do believe in 'say what you'll do, do what you'll say', as opposed to 'say whatever it'll take to get elected and then do what you want'.
> 
> But when it comes down to it, a lot of this is pot/kettle.
> 
> (And, as a member of a church that has the word 'Evangelical' in its name, I'd caution people against making broad and sweeping comments about what 'all evangelicals' believe. kthxby)


Let's see... Promises made and broken ... Income trusts: Harper promised he wouldn't tax it. Did. Cost Retiring Canadians millions in savings.

So does the 'rules' change a little when Harper total lie on income trusts cost many people millions in retirement savings? Was that a more 'acceptable' lie?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Still love how attacking Christians and Catholics is kosher on this board but you introduce any others, no one will touch them with a ten foot pole.


Atheists, too, get attacked here....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

rgray said:


> Atheists, too, get attacked here....


It's an attacking free for all!


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

adagio said:


> I'm voting Green and be damned with either Harper or Dion. I'm not holding my nose for either. I refuse to vote for something I don't believe in. If there's any hope of any other political party making a breakthrough then we'd better start following up on our convictions or things will always remain the same.





Dr.G. said:


> "Everyone should get out an vote. Defeatists attitudes simply show the politicians that they can get away with anything. If you do not like your incumbent, vote Green and make your voice heard." EvanPitts wrote this in another thread, and I am in total agreement with his idea.


I agree with both. Vote Green, Rhino, Libertarian, write in a candidate or "none of the above" or spoil your ballot if you want to show discontent with the system and you can't find any candidate to support with your conscience. At least then it would be evident that the two major parties do not really have xx% of support. As it stands, if you don't vote then the votes that are cast have a higher % value, contributing to the defeatest mentality that the two major options are entrenched.



Macinguelph said:


> my preferred outcome of this election would be another Conservative minority government . . . The Liberals need a new leader


The good news is that whichever party loses will have to choose a new leader. Since there are some Lib. candidates I'd be happy voting for (even though I'm not a liberal party supporter) I also kind of want this scenario to happen. If there were an up and coming Conservative I liked, I'd likely want the reverse.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> Atheists, too, get attacked here....


Yes we should keep them out of office too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

an atheist is far less likely to enforce their beliefs on the population than an evangelical Christian.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> an atheist is far less likely to enforce their beliefs on the population than an evangelical Christian.


Is that a fact? I see a lot more criticism from the atheist side on this board than recruiting of Christians/Catholics. Trying to convince believers that they are wrong sounds like enforcing their beliefs onto others to me.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And what 'rights' are those?


my right to a fair debate? 
is that too thick a concept for you to grasp?

Fringe, inane, senseless........every passing year the big boys club's policies look greener. I believe that alone is a good enough reason to have them in a debate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Is that a fact? I see a lot more criticism from the atheist side on this board than recruiting of Christians/Catholics. Trying to convince believers that they are wrong sounds like enforcing their beliefs onto others to me.


criticism is generally about the christians enforcing their beliefs on others.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

The Shadow said:


> Yeah, you know what Vandave, you're absolutely right...forget about what I said.
> 
> Even though all the Canadian people and the people of the Green Party are entitled to these fundamental freedoms:
> 
> ...


In case you are lurking by, can't you reveal the identity of this individual. Maybe show us this threats. i would really like to know. And please, don't mind this threats, they never, ever, ever had come to realize.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

sarah11918 said:


> Vote Green, Rhino, Libertarian, write in a candidate or "none of the above" or spoil your ballot if you want to show discontent with the system and you can't find any candidate to support with your conscience. At least then it would be evident that the two major parties do not really have xx% of support. As it stands, if you don't vote then the votes that are cast have a higher % value, contributing to the defeatest mentality that the two major options are entrenched.


This is perhaps the single poorest piece of advice ever given and in the end accomplishes nothing.

Encouraging people not to vote? For shame.

Voter apathy is one of the reasons that politics are in such a sorry state in this country. Low voter turnout goes against democracy itself, never mind knowingly spoiling a ballot.

Weight the issues, make a decision and then VOTE.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see that we don't yet have a religion-by-religion breakdown of why we shouldn't vote for one candidate or another. Only Evangelical Christians seem worthy of note. 

No courage of convictions here? Let's see the full list of religions that must be considered in deciding who to vote for.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Actually, the poster was doing the exact opposite: they did not encourage people not to vote, they encouraged people to *vote*.





SINC said:


> This is perhaps the single poorest piece of advice ever given and in the end accomplishes nothing.
> 
> Encouraging people not to vote? For shame.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver--one of the poster's suggestions was to spoil the ballot. My personal feeling is that, if you don't intend to cast a vote, that spoiling the ballot at least prevents someone else from using it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Actually, the poster was doing the exact opposite: they did not encourage people not to vote, they encouraged people to *vote*.


Actually you didn't read this part:



sarah11918 said:


> write in a candidate or "none of the above" or spoil your ballot


That is sure an odd way to encourage people to vote.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> criticism is generally about the christians enforcing their beliefs on others.


No, generally it is making light of what they believe in.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

SINC said:


> That is sure an odd way to encourage people to vote.


My point was to do something to make sure that your intention was counted. A spoiled ballot is recorded and noted. 

If only people who think it's worth it to vote Lib or Cons voted, then the news media would report n% of voters voted liberal and (100-n)% of voters voted conservative. I think this contributes to the problem of voter apathy. If the 70-ish percent of people who apparently don't vote at every election voted *something* then perhaps there would be less dismay over our unofficial 2-party system.

To look at my post and say that I'm enouraging people not to vote is quite ridiculous. As a last resort, I'm saying that if you can't find any way in good conscience to vote FOR someone, or to write in a name of someone else, then at least spoil your ballot and register your unhappiness. That IS a form of voting. Staying home is not, at least not in a way that can be counted or included.

Actually, the point isn't to *vote* - the point is to *participate* in the system we have. I simply listed ways that people can participate.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I figured that with opportunity to vote Green in every riding across the country, they wouldn't get past the first part of this part:


> Vote Green, Rhino, Libertarian, write in a candidate or "none of the above" or


I agree that spoiling one's ballot is toolish, especially with so many parties to choose from. Parties for everybody!




SINC said:


> Actually you didn't read this part:
> 
> 
> 
> That is sure an odd way to encourage people to vote.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

HowEver said:


> I figured that with opportunity to vote Green in every riding across the country, they wouldn't get past the first part of this part:


Thank you. Someone who understands how a list of options (typically with the most desperate/extreme at the end) works.  Just trying to be inclusive!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> No, generally it is making light of what they believe in.


if they weren't so busy trying make others conform to their beliefs, perhaps people would be less likely to criticize, or 'make light'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

sarah11918 said:


> My point was to do something to make sure that your intention was counted. A spoiled ballot is recorded and noted.


Sure is. 

I can see the scene in the count room now. Four piles of ballots neatly arranged with a total for each pile noted.

And off to the side, a couple of lonely ballots.

"What are those two ballots over there?" asks the returning officer.

"Oh those", replies the poll clerk, "a couple of voters wrote in names of a couple of people we've never heard of, so they spoiled their ballots".

Yep, they sure do get recorded and noted all right. 

Spoiling a ballot is foolish.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> if they weren't so busy trying make others conform to their beliefs, perhaps people would be less likely to criticize, or 'make light'.


Let's try this one out: 



> "If socialists/environmentalists/capitalists/unionists weren't so busy trying make others conform to their beliefs, perhaps people would be less likely to criticize, or 'make light'.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Let's try this one out:


You forgot Libertarians.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes because you know those other religions don't have problems with those and others like *womans rights*. Still love how attacking Christians and Catholics is kosher on this board but you introduce any others, no one will touch them with a ten foot pole.


My point was in separating Church and State _period_. Evangelicals, or Fundementalists for that matter are the chosen example because of the beliefs of some in the Reformative Party. Take for example, Stockwell Day.

Is this more clear for you?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep, they sure do get recorded and noted all right.
> 
> Spoiling a ballot is foolish.


You're right. That's exactly how they get treated. I think we need to have a proper system of accounting for 'none of the above', or a spoiled ballet. I don't think it is foolish. I would rather somebody show up and spoil a ballet, then not vote at all.

For arguments sake, let's assume that 'none of the above' garners the most votes. I would suggest that nobody should the be voted in as an MP in that riding. Rather, it could simply sit empty. Think of the message it would send to the next round of candidates.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> I'm not talking about the getting in. That's done. The lying is about getting out.
> 
> Harper told Nato that Canada would consider extended involvement in Afghanistan. He tells Canadians we'll be out as currently scheduled. The two statements are mutually exclusive - one is a lie.
> 
> Try to keep up.


Considering something is not a statement of commitment, one statement also pre-dates the other and therefore they are not mutually exclusive and therefore neither is lie.

I suppose you have never said one thing and then when things change finding that you say something else.

Despite the portrayals of of some people, politicians are only human beings and are indeed capable of changing their minds just like anyone else without it constituting a plot or some sort of deception.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Let's try this one out:
> "If socialists/environmentalists/capitalists/unionists weren't so busy trying make others conform to their beliefs, perhaps people would be less likely to criticize, or 'make light'.


You seem to be unable to distinguish politics from religious beliefs. 


Which may seem to explain your undying devotion to Harper.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You seem to be unable to distinguish politics from religious beliefs.


You seem to make special distinction for religious beliefs--as opposed to the philosophical beliefs that inform socialism, capitalism, environmentalism--as making candidates unsuitable for office.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You seem to make special distinction for religious beliefs--as opposed to the philosophical beliefs that inform socialism, capitalism, environmentalism--as making candidates unsuitable for office.


Well given I'm not electing a religious leader or a pastor for my church, well yes.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You seem to make special distinction for religious beliefs--as opposed to the philosophical beliefs that inform socialism, capitalism, environmentalism--as making candidates unsuitable for office.


Well, it's reasonable to screen your potential leadership for evidence of mental illness, isn't it? Believing that a certain economic system is likely to lead to a more sustainable society is a philosophical position that might make a candidate more or less popular, but believing that their invisible friend(s) will tell them what is right or wrong, and, more importantly, that the dictates of their invisible friend(s) ought to be imposed on all people, certainly should be enough to disqualify someone from the public trust of political office.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: these are all worthwhile criteria in making a personal voting decision. I appreciate that you have the courage to identify all religious beliefs in your own criteria--rather than identifying just one or two for special consideration.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Only Sky Daddy free, clear thinking "Brights" should be considered for government. History shows us their record is impeccable.
Slobodan Milosevic, Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot......


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> My point was in separating Church and State _period_. Evangelicals, or Fundementalists for that matter are the chosen example because of the beliefs of some in the Reformative Party. Take for example, Stockwell Day.
> 
> Is this more clear for you?


Looks like you still do not understand the concept of the separation of Church and State. It has nothing to do with the religion of whoever is running, or their policies that they may profess. It simply means that the State can not Establish a National Church, and in reverse, it means that the Church can not control it's properties in fief to the State.

If you wish to make the point that people with religious beliefs should not be able to have a say in government, or to be elected as a representative of their own belief system - don't call it the separation of Church and State (since we do have that separation in Canada because the attempt to Establish a Church failed in the 1830's) - call it what it is, _bigotry_.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Looks like you still do not understand the concept of the separation of Church and State. It has nothing to do with the religion of whoever is running, or their policies that they may profess. It simply means that the State can not Establish a National Church, and in reverse, it means that the Church can not control it's properties in fief to the State.
> 
> If you wish to make the point that people with religious beliefs should not be able to have a say in government, or to be elected as a representative of their own belief system - don't call it the separation of Church and State (since we do have that separation in Canada because the attempt to Establish a Church failed in the 1830's) - call it what it is, _bigotry_.


Fair enough. By definition, I am incorrect. By intent, not. Voting in a politician/ party based on their religious viewpoint is close enough for my liking. Keep your religious views to yourself. Don't let them influence policy.

Oh and btw, me wanting to keep a politician's religious viewpoints out of the affairs of the State makes me a bigot? You make me laugh. No really.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Looks like you still do not understand the concept of the separation of Church and State. It has nothing to do with the religion of whoever is running, or their policies that they may profess. It simply means that the State can not Establish a National Church, and in reverse, it means that the Church can not control it's properties in fief to the State.
> 
> If you wish to make the point that people with religious beliefs should not be able to have a say in government, or to be elected as a representative of their own belief system - don't call it the separation of Church and State (since we do have that separation in Canada because the attempt to Establish a Church failed in the 1830's) - call it what it is, _bigotry_.



Well said! :clap: :clap: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Well, it's reasonable to screen your potential leadership for evidence of mental illness, isn't it? Believing that a certain economic system is likely to lead to a more sustainable society is a philosophical position that might make a candidate more or less popular, but believing that their invisible friend(s) will tell them what is right or wrong, and, more importantly, that the dictates of their invisible friend(s) ought to be imposed on all people, certainly should be enough to disqualify someone from the public trust of political office.
> 
> Cheers


You have displayed a wide variety of hatreds, bigotry and prejudice in such a few short sentences. And not only that, you go on to slam anyone who is Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Anamist as well as about a half million people who are mentally ill.

I see no reason why someone of faith should not be given the same rights as those who are not of faith. Everyone in this nation should have the right to run for public office, no matter what their colour, ethnic extraction, economic beliefs, etc. Your statement demonstrates why freedoms of religion and conscience need to be imbedded in our most basic and fundamental laws.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Fair enough. By definition, I am incorrect. By intent, not. Voting in a politician/ party based on their religious viewpoint is close enough for my liking. Keep your religious views to yourself. Don't let them influence policy.


unfortunately neither of them will admit to this and will hide behind definitions. 

A conservative government who needs to placate the religious right who supports them, and has an evangelical christian as it's leader, You can call me whatever name you like, but I reserve the right to want to know this about a future leader of my country and make my decisions based on what could likely have an effect on policy decisions.

If not, I have to ask then, what are you afraid of if it needs to be hidden.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> unfortunately neither of them will admit to this and will hide behind definitions.


I don't worry too much about the opinions of those who feel it's acceptable for a politician to be lead around by their religious agenda. My philosophy is simply, I don't care what your faith, don't let it influence or interfere in the governing process. Represent the diversity of citizens as fairly and equally as possible.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Fair enough. By definition, I am incorrect. By intent, not. Voting in a politician/ party based on their religious viewpoint is close enough for my liking. Keep your religious views to yourself. Don't let them influence policy.
> 
> Oh and btw, me wanting to keep a politician's religious viewpoints out of the affairs of the State makes me a bigot? You make me laugh. No really.


However, where do we create that "limit"? If we restrict the presentation of Religion, would we not also have the opportunity to resrict any other notion? Perhaps we could ban Chinese, because we don't want any policies to be dicated by Bejing. Or perhaps we should ban Germans because they were all Nazi lovers that were all Hitlericious. Or perhaps we should ban anyone who follows monetary policies akin to that of Warren Buffet, because he is an American and we all know American ideals are entirely filthy.

You see, trying to ban people from running for office goes against all of our notions of freedoms and rights, and that is why our most basic laws need to protect against that.

People prance around and say "we have to vote based on issues", and of course, the lobbyists and glad handlers want to sucker the voters right into that trap. Don't vote by "issues" - vote for the person with the greatest amount of integrity, the person that will work the hardest, the person that will stand up and ask the tough questions, and the person that will make the right decisions based on the facts rather than on prejudice and thoughts of scoring cheap political points by embracing acts of class warfare.

Perhaps the biggest problem that Canadians have is that they so want to vote based on the minutae; like voting for a candidate because they are for or against abortion, or because they want to get tough on crime or let more criminals off. This has landed us any number of "liars" into office, and we end up suffering from their mediocrity for any number of years, only to be "punished" later when we vote them into a cushy public service job where they can do even less work.

Look at it this way, vote for the person that, if you had your own giant corporation, would want to hire. Would you want the person that works hard, who is analytical, who can make clear decisions; or would you want the slacker who comes in late, leaves early, takes the three hour liquid lunch, does terrible work of dubious quality, and spends the balance of the time photocopying their butt or chilling at the water cooler.

We don't vote for the Prime Minister, unless you are in the person's riding. So don't vote for some glad handling lamer who will be nothing more than an expensive seat warmer. Vote for the person who can best do the job, and that job is in representing the riding in our national legislature. That person should have qualities of leadership, someone who puts integrity far and above the largesse of free lunches and blowing out the expense accounts.

Also, don't just vote for who you think the "winner" will be. A lot of people vote like lemmings, you know "I wasted my vote because the dude I voted for lost". No vote is ever wasted. Even if your dude loses, if the winner only won by a measily hundred votes, they will be on the hot seat. And don't vote blindly for some party platform, since there has never been a political party that has ever accomplished anything that they have put into their platform. 

We all select a candidate for a different set of reasons, so it is just not right to discriminate against someone because they belong to one faith or another, just like one should not discriminate if they wear something from Korrie's on the Danforth rather that having Hugo Boss make a custom suit to fit...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I don't worry too much about the opinions of those who feel it's acceptable for a politician to be lead around by their religious agenda. My philosophy is simply, I don't care what your faith, don't let it influence or interfere in the governing process. Represent the diversity of citizens as fairly and equally as possible.


spot on, and simple enough.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You want to talk about pushing beliefs, no one is doing it more than Dion, and he is pushing it through with a big green shaft.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> You want to talk about pushing beliefs, no one is doing it more than Dion, and he is pushing it through with a big green shaft.


It becomes ever clearer as you post how insightful your views are on politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dion's socialist bent is coming through loud and clear with the Green Shift, a massive, philosophically based income redistribution program.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Dion's socialist bent is coming through loud and clear with the Green Shift, a massive, philosophically based income redistribution program.


I know it's rather fuzzy and hard, but.

Dion makes no bones about his policy. It's clear for you to see, and either vote for, or not.

Harper's possible evangelical christian beliefs and ties to the christian right will very likely have an influence on policy, and it's fair to want to know this about a future leader of this country.

Why the secrecy and hush hush then.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I know it's rather fuzzy and hard, but.
> 
> Dion makes no bones about his policy. It's clear for you to see, and either vote for, or not.
> 
> ...


Ah ... the (in)famous 'hidden agenda'. *sigh*

Many Liberal leaders have been Catholics, who also don't believe in women priests, and are actually supposed to cede to the wishes of the Pope, but apparently _that's_ okay?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I know it's rather fuzzy and hard, but.
> 
> Dion makes no bones about his policy. It's clear for you to see, and either vote for, or not.


Stephane Dion finds God



> Dion asked about the denominational breakdown of those of our viewers who are Christian. "You see, the Catholics can be relied on to vote Liberal, always, but the Protestants much less so," he explained. "It's very difficult to get them to vote for us. I am a Catholic."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Stephane Dion finds God


Yet these "profoundly decent" men continually and always "do the right thing." Which is more than you'll able to say if you hand Stephen Harper a majority.



> "It's very difficult to get them to vote for us. I am a Catholic." As were Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. Men who championed abortion, same-sex marriage and many other policies that ran counter to basic Catholic teachings. In other words, they were Catholic by birth but Liberal by belief and works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not sure that Dion isn't involved in some sort of secret alliance with the Pope. I surely don't want the Vatican to dictate Canadian government policy.

Or is Dion one of the "good ones"? The type of religious guy you can trust because he doesn't really mean it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> You have displayed a wide variety of hatreds, bigotry and prejudice in such a few short sentences. And not only that, you go on to slam anyone who is Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Anamist as well as about a half million people who are mentally ill.


I don't hate the mentally ill. I just don't want them making decisions for me.



> I see no reason why someone of faith should not be given the same rights as those who are not of faith.


Neither do I. People who are sick have the same rights as anyone else. But I don't want someone with a cold preparing my food, and I don't want someone infected with a memetic virus that causes them to base their ethical system on a bronze age myth to be in charge of making my laws.

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm not sure that Dion isn't involved in some sort of secret alliance with the Pope. I surely don't want the Vatican to dictate Canadian government policy.
> 
> Or is Dion one of the "good ones"? The type of religious guy you can trust because he doesn't really mean it?


You'll have to try a little harder than that. Although I do appreciate the comedy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I don't hate the mentally ill. I just don't want them making decisions for me.


bryanc: You'll have to be a little more generous here. Can't you write off some of these beliefs to delusion or early indoctrination?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> You'll have to try a little harder than that. Although I do appreciate the comedy.


Sidestep it, then. I thought you would find that nugget of information about Dion difficult to fit into your political theories.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

About Elizabeth May. From Wikipedia:

Elizabeth May - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Although the Green Party's official policy on abortion is pro-choice, while speaking to the Sisters of St. Joseph during the London by-election, May stated that she personally sees the issue as a "moral dilemma" and not "clear-cut black-and-white". May, who is a Christian, further stated her personal views, "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose".





> May is studying theology at Saint Paul University, and describes herself as a devout Christian.
> 
> She indicates that her devout religious position and path towards becoming an ordained minister with the Anglican Church does not clash with her role in the green party, and sees a clear separation between religion and politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

From Jack Layton:



> The NDP has a long history of developing public policy on the basis of the faith-informed perspectives of those who actively support the NDP or who, out of their faith perspective, support certain policies put forward by the NDP. In a context where the public face of religion in the media tends to be focused on the religious right, it is important to remember that there has always been, and continues to be, a religious left in Canada, a religious left which has had a significant and beneficial formative influence on modern Canada...
> 
> There will always be a role for Christians, and for people of other faiths, to speak out of their prophetic traditions, challenging the rulers of their day to do justice, to love kindness and mercy, and to measure their political choices not in terms of how they help the rich and already powerful, but how they help the hungry, the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized and the environment that future generations will have to live in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A note from the Bloc Quebecois, 2006 in response to questions of faith in Canadian politics:



> On behalf of Mr. Gilles Duceppe, Member of Parliament for Laurier–Sainte-Marie and leader of the Bloc Québécois, we acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated November 18. We appreciate that you have taken the time to contact us. However, we believe you will concur that matters of faith and religion enter into the realm of private affairs and that consequently, decisions regarding them rest with the individual. You will understand, then, that we will not respond to the question you have submitted to us. We thank you in advance for your understanding. Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to adopt a responsible attitude and to act in every situation in the interests of the Canadian people.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> ...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Holy crap someone should lock all of these crazies away, they might start running this country.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Yet these "profoundly decent" men continually and always "do the right thing." Which is more than you'll able to say if you hand Stephen Harper a majority.


You keep stating this opinion but have nothing but your own assertions to back it up. Your lack of perspective on the comparisons & similarities between the various leaders of _all_ the parties would be almost laughable if it weren't bordering on paranoia as pertains to the current PM.

So, you start off contending that it's bad for _Harper_ to be religious, but when it's pointed out that other parties' leaders have religious convictions too, it's okay for _them_ to be religious, but not Harper?

You've started off with fear-mongering and haven't moved one iota, proving nothing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You know some things can be rather obvious, but not always to everyone. One sometimes assumes that people can reason with obvious things in front of them, but one can never assume that, especially in a forum. Watching MF and jumbo falling over themselves to cover something has been mildly amusing, but it's always the same thing with those.

"I know you are, but what am I!" always ensues whenever anyone dares makes a criticism of the tories, and this issue of evangelical Christianity has gone in enough circles for me.

If you can't spot the difference, then party on... Garth, or, whatever your name is.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Holy crap someone should lock all of these crazies away, they might start running this country.


Well, this does help explain the apparent inability of politicians to develop any grip on reality.



MacFury said:


> bryanc: You'll have to be a little more generous here. Can't you write off some of these beliefs to delusion or early indoctrination?


Okay, fair enough. But you have to admit that indoctrination/brain-washing/delusion/etc. are not mutually exclusive with insanity.

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> You know some things can be rather obvious, but not always to everyone.


Groovetube, they're called blinders.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Flip little comments won't help you out of the hole you dug for yourselves.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I have no problem with anyone being a Christian or believing in whatever they choose. If they like to wear frilly underwear or take baths in jello I respect their right to do that also. I don't think that theistic beliefs are a sign of mental illness, but I often come to the conclusion that this shows some muddled thinking. But we're all muddled somewhere in our lives and the way we live them, so I don't put a lot of stock in that. If the theist is saying things that otherwise seem like a good idea to me, I'll take that at face value.

What I do have problem with is theists who feel they have to bring me onside with their mythical stories. Especially when I've already indicated "No thanks". And I have an even bigger problem with those who get into politics to use that power to impose their theistically based moral values on everyone else. Those who do that often have the most extremist views as well. Those people are dangerous. I am not being discriminatory in any way, if I strongly oppose those people. There is a huge movement of these types in the US and a some in Canada also.

There are politicians who are theists who seem to know how to keep that stuff to themselves. I have friends who I respect greatly who are theists and who would never dream of trying to convert me to anything.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm f*cking sick and tired of this thread. Whenever I try to unsubscribe, it doesn't. Dude, what the hell?!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I haven't noticed Stephen Harper attempting to convert Canadians to any particular belief. Don't like his policies? Fine. But I don't want to hear any nonsense about his dangerous brand of religion while giving others with religious beliefs a free pass.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I haven't noticed Stephen Harper attempting to convert Canadians to any particular belief. Don't like his policies? Fine. But I don't want to hear any nonsense about his dangerous brand of religion while giving others with religious beliefs a free pass.


Are you responding to me MF, because I didn't make that charge?

I don't know anything about Harper's spiritual beliefs because he seems to generally keep them to himself, from what I know. From what I can tell about him he'd declare himself to be atheist, commie, homosexshul, if that would get him the majority government power he craves.

He has some social con fundies within his caucus who worry me, but I think he knows that letting them out of their cages would no help his main agenda. I do worry that if he does get a majority he let them out to spread their wings more if only to mollify the social con base that he needs.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I haven't noticed Stephen Harper attempting to convert Canadians to any particular belief. Don't like his policies? Fine. But I don't want to hear any nonsense about his dangerous brand of religion while giving others with religious beliefs a free pass.


Then don't listen.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I haven't noticed Stephen Harper attempting to convert Canadians to any particular belief. Don't like his policies? Fine. But I don't want to hear any nonsense about his dangerous brand of religion while giving others with religious beliefs a free pass.


For those who don't see the potential problem with extreme evangelical beliefs, check the link below. Am I suggesting Harper is as unhinged as Bush? Not really. Jury is still out. But to equate all beliefs as either equally dangerous or innocuous is silly. Believing in equal pay for equal work is not the same as believing the world will be ending in a literal apocalypse in the next 5 years as foretold in the Book of Revelations! I mean both beliefs may actually be based in personal religious conviction and the interpretation of a scriptural tradition - and there is nothing wrong with this at all - but the implications of these beliefs as played out in the actions of a person of influence is very, very different indeed. One doesn't become an evangelical by accident or on a casual basis. To want to evangelize - i.e. preach your truth with the purpose of converting others to your belief - "saving someone" in other words - you have to hold strongly and passionately to your faith AND see it as needing to be expressed in action in the physical world.

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq - Americas, World - The Independent


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Here's a good read:



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been associated with evangelical Protestantism for decades, but it is an aspect of his political agenda about which he seldom talks publicly





> About two decades ago, Harper shifted away from the mainline Protestant denominations of his father and began finding a home in the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, which has about 2.5 million members and 14,000 congregations worldwide. One fifth of its members live in North America, with Alberta a Canadian hotbed.





> Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct."
> The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.
> The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy.





> Bruce Foster, head of policy studies at Mount Royal College in Calgary, believes Harper keeps his religious beliefs close to his chest because he's a strategic thinker who worries it would hurt his chances of winning a majority government.
> "If Harper came out and said those who don't know the Lord are 'lost,' are doomed, he'd be held up to ridicule," Foster said. "In a multicultural, diverse, relativistic country like Canada, that's toxic stuff for most voters."


A matter of faith


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Are you responding to me MF, because I didn't make that charge?


No, I wasn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And because of Harper's Alliance Church roots, homosexuals are not permitted to marry in Canada today. Give me a break.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a look later and I still see blinders on.

No ability to see the possibilities. 

Don't tell me for one second that a party with strong roots and support from the righteous right, with a leader a believer, many members of the party part of the righteous right, that that won't be an influence.

I'm simply not that stupid. 

There's a very large difference between someone with religious beliefs, and those that wish to change others. I guess some wish to downplay this and get all defensive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube, you're wetting yourself trying to get out of the pitiful trap you've set for yourself. You're stuck trying to defend your religious discrimination...and you clearly don't like it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube, you're wetting yourself trying to get out of the pitiful trap you've set for yourself. You're stuck trying to defend your religious discrimination...and you clearly don't like it.


Again, thanks for the comedy!

Not only are there blinders on, but fingers in the ears as well.

Now just repeat the mantra, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na and you won't hear a thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy, I daresay your discomfort level is palpable. Please refrain from using generic posts in an effort to distract people from your original utterings.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Hardly, I'm quite comfortable. Your powers of internet observation are astounding!

:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube, you're wetting yourself trying to get out of the pitiful trap you've set for yourself. You're stuck trying to defend your religious discrimination...and you clearly don't like it.


trap? Trap? ha ha ha ha ha ha.

MF nowhere have I said no one should e allowed to run for public life because of their religious beliefs.

But as a Canadian voter I have a right to know the beliefs, devotion to ideals and a religious group bent on shaping the policies that affect my life and yours, of a political leader looking to be my prime minister.

As much as being made about Dions character, his aloofness being a 'professor', whatever, it's fair game. So now you're whining because there is something of Harper's charactar we want to know.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa.

Come on now, what's the desperate need to hush hush all this?

Now if there was a muslim leader that has strong beliefs and ties to a very radical group with beliefs that goes against many of ours you'd be all over that in a heartbeat that we should know about it if they kept it hidden.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> But as a Canadian voter I have a right to know the beliefs, devotion to ideals and a religious group bent on shaping the policies that affect my life and yours, of a political leader looking to be my prime minister.


You don't have that right at all. You have the right to ask, but not the right to know the answer. The law protects freedom of conscience in this way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm afraid you live in a bubble. This is politics we're talking about.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'm afraid you live in a bubble. This is politics we're talking about.


If you have the right to know a candidate's religious beliefs, how would you exercise that right and who would enforce it?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You don't have that right at all. You have the right to ask, but not the right to know the answer. The law protects freedom of conscience in this way.


I usually (whether I say so or not) don't agree a whole lot with MF, but here he is right, law or no law. You may want to know. It may be a personal criteria as to whether or not you give your vote. But you don't have any right to know the constructs of another person's conscience.

More importantly, and from a philosophic point of view, no person can ever KNOW for absolute certain the contents of another person's mind. You might have a perception of the contents of the other's mind, but that perception is yours NOT theirs. One should be prepared to own one's perceptions.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Here's a good read:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you quote these things, as if they are somehow bad!

You seem to be taking the point that you would rather have some namby-pamby Fiberal kind of government that does things like protects child molesters, playground candymen, and degenerates like Bernardo or Olsen; than to have someone who not only professes a faith, but practices that faith.

There seems to be a thread of thought that soemhow, being a Protestant that perhaps even attends church makes that person unworthy of doing anything. I, for one, would expect that someone who belongs to a faith would attempt to live a moral life free of all of the sins that not only tainted, but consumed many of the predecessors of the current Prime Minister.

Martin placed above all his hatred and channeled it to all of the acts of class warfare that he wanted to impose, and not only wished for the destruction of his perceived enemies, but worked to destroy them even if it meant the destruction of his own party.

Chretien didn't intend to engage in such grave sins, it was just the tools he used to collect the cash he used to grab at and extend his power. His greatest sin was his hatred of the Canadian people, and how he continued with the policies of Balkanization and Apartheid in this nation, and did it by illegally using the money of the People against the will of the People.

At least Mackenzie King consulted with his dog on issues of national importance, and also held sayonces for difficult problems - which is a hell of a lot better than just selling out to special interests or dishing out cash illegally to cronies of the regime.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> I usually (whether I say so or not) don't agree a whole lot with MF, but here he is right, law or no law. You may want to know. It may be a personal criteria as to whether or not you give your vote. But you don't have any right to know the constructs of another person's conscience.
> 
> More importantly, and from a philosophic point of view, no person can ever KNOW for absolute certain the contents of another person's mind. You might have a perception of the contents of the other's mind, but that perception is yours NOT theirs. One should be prepared to own one's perceptions.


I'm suggesting there's no law to prevent anyone from disclosing the ties to religious groups a candidate may have. A candidate doesn't have to disclose it him/herself, but I want to know, and obviously enough people want to know that it becomes public. I have a problem with those who try to keep it hush hush, as if there is something to hide. MF has done his best to take this into circles about discrimination but he's just dancing around the issue.

Because he'll justify anything Harper does, he has made a hilarious display of 'nothing to see here' merry go round arguments that has amounted to hot air. The hypocrisy of his position is that if anything deemed 'untoward in Dion's associations in the past even if it were personal it'd be posted loud and clear here in a new york minute, and has.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I knew you'd come around.

Dion? I don't believe I've said anything about his background except that he thinks of himself as Catholic.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Some people choose to break records and others choose to be a broken record! :yawn:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So if Dion was secretly a homosexual, would you want him to out himself before he became PM?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

round n round she goes...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So if Dion was secretly a homosexual, would you want him to out himself before he became PM?


Dion is secretly homosexual?....  ..... Aghast.... aghast.....

Frankly I'd be more concerned about secrecy than about homosexuality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Dion is secretly homosexual?....  ..... Aghast.... aghast.....


To be homosexual, I think you need a little more presence than that!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> To be homosexual, I think you need a little more presence than that!


Man, that is just plain insensitive.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> I usually (whether I say so or not) don't agree a whole lot with MF, but here he is right, law or no law. You may want to know. It may be a personal criteria as to whether or not you give your vote. But you don't have any right to know the constructs of another person's conscience.
> 
> More importantly, and from a philosophic point of view, no person can ever KNOW for absolute certain the contents of another person's mind. You might have a perception of the contents of the other's mind, but that perception is yours NOT theirs. One should be prepared to own one's perceptions.


I disagree. It is my right to know, if it wasn't, Harper would have the right to demand all reports of his religious group ties be removed from any public news source.

It's up to the people as to whether to probe, and report it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> round n round she goes...


Hey, we're not the ones that want to pry into the personal lives of our politicians.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Hey, we're not the ones that want to pry into the personal lives of our politicians.


joke post of the day.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I don't hate the mentally ill. I just don't want them making decisions for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really do carry the football when it comes to hatred, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. Your Klan approved bedsheet should be on it's way from Greensboro right now.

When it comes down to it, if we took out the "mentally ill", even if we could make an exact definition of it, we would loose most if not all of our most gifted people that we have ever had. People that rise to power do not do it because they are 'stupid". Everyone goes around talking about George Bush being stupid, and if he is so stupid, then someone smart like yourself should easily be able to become President. He is only "stupid" because his policies do not fit into what you may want to have as policies.

We have had a great number of Catholic Prime Ministers, and at no point did Canada become a fiefdom of the Holy See. We had Pearson, the son of a Baptist minister, and he didn't impose his religious will upon Canada. Canada has never had an Established Church, Canada has never become a theocracy, and Canada has never signed a Concordat with the Church. In fact, even before we established the freedom of religion and conscience within our most basic laws, we practiced those very freedoms de facto, being the first place in the world that allowed Jews their free and unfettered practice of their faith (and in, of all places, in Catholic Quebec!).

As for Harper being a "fundamentalist", again, his faith is his own deal, and our laws guarantee that. He has made no indication that he would impose the tenets of his faith upon the nation, nor has he ever taken any action in such direction. And if he was to attempt to do so, that attempt would easily be quashed by the guarantees of the Constitution.

If one was to discount anyone who has a specific faith or is a church goer, one would have to discount all of the leaders and pretty much the entire slate of candidates. There are 17 Million Roman Catholics in Canada - none of which would have the right to run under your scheme of banning the "mentally ill". We would also have to discount any Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. seeing that they are also "mentally ill". Agnostics are obviously "mentally ill" since they can't make up their mind, and Athesists because they have to be "criminal" since they are bound by no moral ot ethical structures. We'd have no one left.

Thinking that Harper would impose his religion upon the nation is entirely silly, and nothing different that thinking that Dion would turn the nation into the Papal States, or that Layton would force every worker into a union, and destroy the cities while forcing people into communes, or even thinking that a vote for May would lead to the immediate dismantling of all technology.

If you are going to base your vote because you worry about Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, rather than on anything concrete and pertinant, perhaps you are also "mentally ill" for having such a fixation on a two thousand year old scrap of paper that means nothing.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Wow, you really have no idea how that works, do you?




JumboJones said:


> So if Dion was secretly a homosexual, would you want him to out himself before he became PM?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Wow, you really have no idea how that works, do you?


groovetube would like to reveal the skeletons in everyones closets to avoid conspiracies and hidden agendas. What religion someone believes in along with their sexual preference is their own business, and has nothing to do with how they would run this Country. If groovetubes wishes came to being, just imagine the slippery slope we would be on, who knows where else the public will want to go.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I hear this is common, but for some reason the irony in your posts entirely escapes me.





JumboJones said:


> groovetube would like to reveal the skeletons in everyones closets to avoid conspiracies and hidden agendas. What religion someone believes in along with their sexual preference is their own business, and has nothing to do with how they would run this Country. If groovetubes wishes came to being, just imagine the slippery slope we would be on, who knows where else the public will want to go.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> I hear this is common, but for some reason the irony in your posts entirely escapes me.


You trying to get at something here? If so spit it out.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You trying to get at something here? If so spit it out.


Sure: when you made the strange comment about Dion and homosexuality, there was no way to know you were being ironic, or anything else.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I disagree. It is my right to know, if it wasn't, Harper would have the right to demand all reports of his religious group ties be removed from any public news source.


So I repeat my question. If you have the right to know this, then how is that right enforced?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Sure: when you made the strange comment about Dion and homosexuality, there was no way to know you were being ironic, or anything else.


It's amazing you can read into peoples posts and twist them in ways that boggle the mind, but when it comes to Obama and his pig reference, you are dumbfounded.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> It's amazing you can read into peoples posts and twist them in ways that boggle the mind, but when it comes to Obama and his pig reference, you are dumbfounded.


Did you watch the video, including the lead-up to the lipstick reference? Did you watch the video of McCain using the same reference one year prior?

Obama's message in general is entirely vacuous, but harping on this reference as if it's disparaging to Palin is thick at best.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Did you watch the video, including the lead-up to the lipstick reference? Did you watch the video of McCain using the same reference one year prior?
> 
> Obama's message in general is entirely vacuous, but harping on this reference as if it's disparaging to Palin is thick at best.


Then half of America is thick, along with its press, why do you care so much?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So I repeat my question. If you have the right to know this, then how is that right enforced?


if you reread my post you'd perhaps see the utter silliness of your question.

The bottom line is, both you and Jumbo are running around in circles like total hypocrites. You are trying to tell us that details of those seeking public life in office is off limits. What planet do you 2 live on? Meanwhile you neocon hypocrites chortle over photos posted of Obama (or Osama as some like to use...) dressed like a Muslim, yet get all high and mighty when someone dares to question something actually real about Harper. You 2 are so afraid to address this you're willing to look like fools trying to tell us details of those seeking public office are off limits. Yet the second the side you don't like has something juicy you'd be all over it in seconds.

Oh I know, "i never did that...'

Right. Just keep shovelin it boys.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Then half of America is thick ...


Yeah, I think about half voted for Dubya - twice!

Truest thing you've ever posted JJ.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You are trying to tell us that details of those seeking public life in office is off limits. What planet do you 2 live on? Meanwhile you neocon hypocrites chortle over photos posted of Obama (or Osama as some like to use...) dressed like a Muslim, yet get all high and mighty when someone dares to question something actually real about Harper. You 2 are so afraid to address this you're willing to look like fools trying to tell us details of those seeking public office are off limits. Yet the second the side you don't like has something juicy you'd be all over it in seconds.


You have every right to ask those questions and examine whatever aspect of a politician's life you choose. You have no right to an answer. 

I have no idea what this business of Obama dressed like Muslim has to do with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You have every right to ask those questions and examine whatever aspect of a politician's life you choose. You have no right to an answer.
> 
> I have no idea what this business of Obama dressed like Muslim has to do with it.


you seem to be confused on this issue of 'right'. Not having the right to know to me means I am not allowed to know something. At all. In fact I'm not supposed to ask. The fact that you pointed the obvious, that someone has the right to refuse an answer, has no bearing at all on this at all. Harper cannot stop a media source from publishing true items about his links to religious organizations, therefore, I do have a right to know that.

He might threaten to sue said media source, which knowing Harper wouldn't surprise me.

So you have fallen flat here. As for the Obama thing, you have made reference to his past and ties to previous religious individuals. So you are, like I said, a complete hypocrite.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yeah, I think about half voted for Dubya - twice!
> 
> Truest thing you've ever posted JJ.


Which means you should watch what you say during an election campaign, you never know who you'll offend. Timing was just horrible for Obama's brain fart.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Meanwhile you neocon hypocrites chortle over photos posted of Obama (or Osama as some like to use...) dressed like a Muslim


Like usual I have no idea what you are talking about.

Why does your curiosity stop at Harper, why not push to have all candidates spill the beans?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Like usual I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Why does your curiosity stop at Harper, why not push to have all candidates spill the beans?


2 can play the merry go round game. Since both of you decided to chase your tails because your fav leader has something that may not be palatable to some voters, why bother making any more sense at all.

And absolutely let's know more about all the potential candidates. I'm not talking about ridiculous things, but relevant things that may shape their decisions and policies. I certainly, won't play favorites.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

groovetube said:


> *And absolutely let's know more about all the potential candidates.*​


Yes! Right on! :clap: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Harper cannot stop a media source from publishing true items about his links to religious organizations, therefore, I do have a right to know that.


I think you're having semantic difficulties here. You certainly do have the right to read anything about Harper in the newspaper or other media outlets. I'll leave it at that.



groovetube said:


> As for the Obama thing, you have made reference to his past and ties to previous religious individuals. So you are, like I said, a complete hypocrite.


When did I do that?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think you're having semantic difficulties here. You certainly do have the right to read anything about Harper in the newspaper or other media outlets. I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> When did I do that?


oh -I'm- having semantic difficulties? Really. After the whole merry go round you and buddy ran around trying to protect your leader from anyone considering his links and ties to the religious right. What a joke...

Do a search. I recall your references to Obama's past. You seem to find the lack of references to his ties with religious leaders 'interesting' as well.

But I'm quite sure there's another merry go round there for you to play with so enjoy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Do a search. I recall your references to Obama's past.


I nominate this for "Lazy-Ass Post of the Day."

Do your own search and tell me if I said anything out of line regarding Obama's religious background.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I haven't time to play your games.

So 2 minutes and wala. http://www.ehmac.ca/721501-post675.html

Seems you found Obama's past, or lack or references to, interesting.

So you've begun your little merry go round again. You've now turned it into, I haven't said anything 'out of line'. Well I never said you did say anything 'out of line'. Keep your eye on the ball. So we can now expect multiple posts about how that's different, or that isn't your intention, or some kind of another game.

Go play your silly little games elsewhere.

The fact is, a leaders past, their ties to groups, anything of interest we as voters would be interested as it relates to how they will lead and what might shape their policies are very much important, and you can play hide and go seek on the issue all you like.

I still stand by my earlier statement "And absolutely let's know more about all the potential candidates."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, I did find it interesting that Obama had no people endorsing him personally when he won the party nomination. 

Please tell me where I "seem to find the lack of references to his ties with religious leaders 'interesting'...

And once again, I agree that you should do all you can to find out about any leader. Anyone has the right to report on such things. You have the right to ask any question. The leader has no obligation to answer. 

If you want to speculate that--in choosing a prime mister-- Stephen Harper's religious beliefs are inferior to the religious beliefs of Stephane Dion or the religious beliefs of Jack Layton...or even the religious beliefs of Elizabeth May...that is also your right.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I did find it interesting that Obama had no people endorsing him personally when he won the party nomination.
> 
> Please tell me where I "seem to find the lack of references to his ties with religious leaders 'interesting'...
> 
> ...


ah you just love games don't you. Read the article you posted that you found interesting. Or maybe it's not so interesting now, that you look like a hypocrite.

You and co. spent pages over a nincompoop merry go round after someone posted an article talking about Stephen Harper's ties to a religious group that he seems to be keeping on the 'down low'. We found it, 'interesting'.

But that's not interesting apparently, but the lack of past associations both personal and religious for Obama is?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*The Calgary School*



> The Calgary School is the term used to refer to a group of like-minded right-wing academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments.
> 
> The term, originally a play on the Chicago School of economics, was coined by an American political scientist, David J. Rovinsky, in "The Ascendancy of the West in Canadian Policymaking," 1998 paper published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. [1] (Pdf)
> 
> These academics make up to about a quarter of the faculty of the political science department at the University of Calgary and have a large influence. Some on the university campus refer to them as the "Horsemen of the Apocalypse". The Calgary School has been credited with being instrumental in the rise of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his party. Harper studied under them.


Calgary School - SourceWatch



> But the key figure in this neoconservative Calgary School, linked so closely with the Fraser Institute, is Tom Flanagan, an American-born political scientist with Straussian philosophies at the University of Calgary who founded the right-wing Civitas Society, and who is considered to be the "man behind Stephen Harper." [5].
> 
> Since his arrival in Canada in the 1960s, he has quietly and steadfastly worked to eliminate the "socialism" he found in the country. He has shaped many students who are today influential figures in the Canadian political and neo-conservative media, including Ezra Levant, publisher of the eight-month-old Western Standard magazine, which echoes the far-right rhetoric and champions the far-right causes of the Weekly Standard in the US. Levrant is quoted as saying of Flanagan, "I call him Don Tomaso. He is the master strategist, the godfather – even of Harper." [6]
> 
> Tom Flanagan was an adviser to Preston Manning (a fellow of the Fraser Institute) and the right-wing Reform Party in Western Canada between 1991-93. In 2001-02 he began to work for Stephen Harper, managing his campaigns for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance in 2002 and then of the Conservative Party of Canada (2004). He also managed the Conservative Party’s national election campaign in 2004 and he worked as Senior Communications Adviser in the Conservative war room during the party’s successful 2005-06 election campaign. [[7]]. Notably, Tom Flanagan is also a Senior Fellow (on leave) at the Fraser Institute.


Interesting reading about Harper and how he evolved.... 
David Orchard: Media Coverage
Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy :: Mediacheck :: thetyee.ca
The Galloping Beaver: The Calgary School - The Voices In Harper's Head



> Trying to find those perfect guests for your next dinner party? Folks who'll put everyone at ease with light banter and innocuous opinion? A hint â€“ don't invite these men:
> 
> Barry Cooper thinks welfare should be abolished. Tom Flanagan believes that aboriginal Canadians must be assimilated. David Bercuson once suggested that getting rid of Quebec might just be the key to long-term Canadian prosperity. And, according to Rainer Knopff and Ted Morton, the Canadian political system is being hijacked by a cabal of red-robed leftists on the Supreme Court.


paul mitchinson.com » Calgary Neo-Cons Hunt Controversy


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *Flanagan, Tom* - The Calgary School
> 
> Stephen Harper's closest advisor, Tom Flanagan, is an academic famous for his stands against native land claims and rights, and who claims native people were Canada's earliest immigrants.
> 
> ...


The Harper Index - Flanagan, Tom - The Calgary School


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I firmly believe that average Joe and Josephine voter have no idea of the far reaching implications of electing Harper majority government. 

No idea.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I firmly believe that average Joe and Josephine voter have a very good idea of the far reaching implications of those who use fear mongering to try and influence voters to be wary of a Harper majority. 

A very, very good idea.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> But that's not interesting apparently, but the lack of past associations both personal and religious for Obama is?


Not to me. It was the fact that the Democrats decided not to have people on stage glad handing him and feting him as is often done with the convention winner, and whether that indicated alack of support from the Democrat establishment.

Once again, I implore you to seek out any religious implication you can identify in each of the candidates if that's your thing--just don't expect to get a free pass trying to declare Harper's religious beliefs as somehow worse than the other leaders, especially if he hasn't expressed these beliefs explicitly.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *Tories don't have hidden agenda, just an ugly one*
> 
> Frances Russell
> Updated: September 10, 2008 at 06:54 AM CDT
> ...


Winnipeg Free Press


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I firmly believe that average Joe and Josephine voter have a very good idea of the far reaching implications of those who use fear mongering to try and influence voters to be wary of a Harper majority.
> 
> A very, very good idea.


Apparently, only voting against the Conservative Party in some fashion is a sign that one know what one is doing. Quite frankly, the list of ideas posted by Ottawaman presents part of the full range of ideas people might have about Canadian society. Most of them would be impossible to institute.

Is even mentioning these ideas supposed to be a taboo? So frightening that the average Canadian quakes at reading them?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> It's one thing to temporarily exploit a political adversary's self-inflicted weaknesses. But it's another to scheme to permanently erase it from the electoral map.


I think we can see the the LIberals have always had the interests of the other parties at heart, always hoping to win--but never to crush.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I firmly believe that average Joe and Josephine voter have a very good idea of the far reaching implications of those who use fear mongering to try and influence voters to be wary of a Harper majority.
> 
> A very, very good idea.


A bit of nerve talking about fear mongering after posting your chain email full of disinformation from the "Angry. Very Angry." old folks on the other thread, SINC. tsk tsk.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I firmly believe that average Joe and Josephine voter have a very good idea of *the far reaching implications of those who use fear mongering* to try and influence voters to be wary of a Harper majority.
> 
> A very, very good idea.


Really.

Yea Harper wouldn't know anything about *fear mongering* now would he.

And I think all that is needed is for the public to think Harper will get a majority. No fear mongering needed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not to me. It was the fact that the Democrats decided not to have people on stage glad handing him and feting him as is often done with the convention winner, and whether that indicated alack of support from the Democrat establishment.
> 
> Once again, I implore you to seek out any religious implication you can identify in each of the candidates if that's your thing--just don't expect to get a free pass trying to declare Harper's religious beliefs as somehow worse than the other leaders, especially if he hasn't expressed these beliefs explicitly.


Not to you. I see. Well how surprising.

I really couldn't care less what your opinion of that is. 

I will seek out the information I want with or without your 'imploring' thanks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A bit of nerve talking about fear mongering after posting your chain email full of disinformation from the "Angry. Very Angry." old folks on the other thread, SINC. tsk tsk.


Funny how that's overlooked.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The Calgary School "is a Canadian appropriation of American neo-conservatism," warns Shadia Drury, who taught with and fought with the Calgary School for 27 years before leaving the University of Calgary last year for the Canadian Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina.
> 
> Their thinking represents, for her, "a huge contempt for democracy," and this election campaign, "the greatest stealth campaign we have ever seen," run by radical populists hiding behind cloak of rhetorical moderation.


globeandmail.com: Educating Stephen
JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail, June 26, 2004


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A bit of nerve talking about fear mongering after posting your chain email full of disinformation from the "Angry. Very Angry." old folks on the other thread, SINC. tsk tsk.


I simply reported what I witnessed and read at the local seniors centre.

Like it or not it IS what they were doing when I was there and they WILL be a greater force as boomers "come of age".

Political parties will be forced to listen and pander to seniors, a growing segment of the demographic in a very few years.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Excellent articles Ottawaman. Thanks for those. They seem to illustrate quite nicely what Canada will look like if Harper wins a majority.

Very frightening indeed.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

You're welcome


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> In 2003, Harper delivered an important address to the Civitas Society. This secretive organization is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists, and think-tank propagandists. Harper said his goal is a future ruled by socially conservative values and small government. Movement toward this goal must be “incremental”�, he told Civitas members. Regime change one step at a time.


Harperstein | Straight.com

Letter From Canada: The New Christian Right


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Letter From Canada: The New Christian Right


Definitely the most damning so far.



> Harper's combination of bellicosity, slash-and-burn attitude toward Canadian social programs and religious fervor makes many Canadians nervous. Unfortunately for Canada, Harper has a lot of American help. James Dobson has set up a Canadian branch of his Focus on the Family three blocks from the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. The organization, called the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, provides political expertise to and otherwise supports Harper's allies in the bid to turn Canada into an Americanized Christian state. Dobson, who rails against Canada's defense of gay rights and legalization of same-sex marriage, buys radio time in Canada to attack the nation's tolerance of gays and calls for legislation to roll back these measures. The proliferation of new Christian groups is dizzying, with organizations such as the National House of Prayer, the Institute for Canadian Values and the Canada Family Action Coalition, whose mission is "to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada," publishing election guides, working with sympathetic legislators and mobilizing Canadian evangelicals in local and national campaigns. These groups turn frequently to American Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, who came to Canada two years ago for an "Emergency Pastors Briefing" to rally 400 evangelical ministers against a bill before Parliament that included a provision making it a hate crime to denounce homosexuals. Other stalwarts, like former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and televangelist John Hagee, have come north to spread their toxic message to the newly energized Canadian evangelical church. And in the Harper government they have found not only a willing convert but an important ally.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Keep digging, that smoking gun has got to be around here somewhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yea nothing to see here...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Keep digging, that smoking gun has got to be around here somewhere.


Obviously you are not a detective.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If I believed that Harper would cut social programs and the size of government, I'd be out campaigning for him.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I simply reported what I witnessed and read at the local seniors centre.
> 
> Like it or not it IS what they were doing when I was there and they WILL be a greater force as boomers "come of age".
> 
> Political parties will be forced to listen and pander to seniors, a growing segment of the demographic in a very few years.


I've replied to you in the thread that we were discussing it in originally.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc has started so many champagne threads he's lost track


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc has started so many *champagne* threads he's lost track


Please, won't you contribute to the EhMac Fund to Stop Hilarious Misspellings?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Please, won't you contribute to the EhMac Fund to Stop Hilarious Misspellings?


It's "ehMac," not "EhMac."

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Please, won't you contribute to the EhMac Fund to Stop Hilarious Misspellings?


MacDoc means threads in which the originator appears to be celebrating the victory of a particular party--in advance. Champagne.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Was it assumed that campaign was misspelled as champagne? I thought it had only to do with capitalization to which I was thinking r-e-l-a-x....

Which I still am actually.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Please, won't you contribute to the EhMac Fund to Stop Hilarious Misspellings?


Champain???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was considering the possibility that the post was misunderstood as referring to Samuel de *Champlain* and his L’Ordre de Bon Temps/Order of Good Cheer established at Porte Royale in 1606. That is, SINC would be experiencing a sense of good cheer should the Conservatives win a majority.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

*oh nooooooos!*

globeandmail.com: Conservative lead narrows



> *Conservative lead narrows*
> Article Comments (10)
> The Canadian Press
> September 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM EDT
> ...


38% is still a healthy lead but it'll be interesting to see who melts down over the next few weeks.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> If I believed that Harper would cut social programs and the size of government, I'd be out campaigning for him.


I'd campaign for him if I thought he might actually prosecute all of the filth that were involved in AdScam...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Those on the left aren't the only ones who don't like Harper:

Real conservatives have no one to vote for - National Post



> Indeed, perhaps this is Canada’s longest-standing minority government precisely because its movement toward conservative ideals has been glacial. But the fact remains that campaign pledges, such as leaving income trusts untouched and sticking to fixed election dates, as well as matters of long-standing principle, such as significant income tax cuts and reforming the CBC, have gone unfulfilled.


But for me the bottom line and most revealing information was in the reader comments after the article:



> Harper is a conservative, but he's had to reward PC's (Liberals in drag) to salvage his minority government.
> 
> *When he gets his majority it will be time to reward us conservatives for being patient.* The doors of the despicable and morally bankrupt CBC should be slammed shut. As should the CRTC and marketing boards. The Liberal bureaucracy has to be drastically cut back and handouts to advocacy groups and corporate welfare bums (GM, Ford, etc) ended.


This unwitting comment shows why most conservatives aren't worried about Harper's disingenuous blather on climate change, his spending over the summer of $19 Billion in an attempt to buy votes, his complete evisceration of the former budget surplus, his seeming unconcern on same-sex marriage or abortion, his recent image makeover as a protector of universal health care or his uncomfortable looking mugging for the camera in sweater vests. 

They know what their boy is all about and know why he'll do or say anything to get his mitts on a majority government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> They know what their boy is all about and know why he'll do or say anything to get his mitts on a majority government.


He'll never do it. "Stepehen," I said, "Stephen, do it." 

But he never does it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> his seeming unconcern on same-sex marriage or abortion


Fits most Conservatives thinking to a tee. Let people do what they will do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Here is a vision of what Canada would look like under a Harper Majority... 

Anyone ever hear of Bennett Buggy?










During the 1930's gas was so expensive that people could not afford to use it in their cars. The name termed from the _"Conservative"_ Prime Minister of the day Richard Bennett.

Well the 21st century version would be a Harper Hummer?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Here is a vision of what Canada would look like under a Harper Majority...
> 
> Anyone ever hear of Bennett Buggy?
> 
> ...


Now that's what I call a real GreenShift. No carbon footprints but watch where you step or you'll be making footprints of another sort. Harper should do well with the EnviroNuts if he can achieve that. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arnab (May 27, 2008)

i think we should give them a chance and see how they end up doing. we have had liberal majority governments recently. let's have the new conservative government and if they ruin it bad then they will never come to power anytime soon.

Therefore, let's give them a chance and see what they do before getting all scared. Remember, the Conservative ideologies is actually the same or even more lefty than America's Democrats.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Just about everything that ever existed on the Canadian political scene is left of the American's Democratic party. That's hardly an endorsement.




arnab said:


> i think we should give them a chance and see how they end up doing. we have had liberal majority governments recently. let's have the new conservative government and if they ruin it bad then they will never come to power anytime soon.
> 
> Therefore, let's give them a chance and see what they do before getting all scared. Remember, the Conservative ideologies is actually the same or even more lefty than America's Democrats.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

arnab said:


> i think we should give them a chance and see how they end up doing. we have had liberal majority governments recently. let's have the new conservative government and if they ruin it bad then they will never come to power anytime soon.
> 
> Therefore, let's give them a chance and see what they do before getting all scared. Remember, the Conservative ideologies is actually the same or even more lefty than America's Democrats.


Sadly there are social issues that they just can't be trusted with to have a majority government. 

Healthcare
Social Justice/Privacy
Same Sex Marriage
Separation of Church and State
Aboriginal Rights
Constitutional Rights
Abortion

If Harper wants a majority on the basis of centrist appeal he has to make assurances and promises that he won't impinge on rights and institutions that Canadians have worked hard to establish.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope that Harper impinges on none of the rights and freedoms, and many of the institutions.


----------



## arnab (May 27, 2008)

da_jonesy said:


> Sadly there are social issues that they just can't be trusted with to have a majority government.
> 
> Healthcare
> Social Justice/Privacy
> ...


What possibly horrible can they do in four years? Banning abortions? Taking away aboriginal rights? Harper becoming head of church (lol)?

Jokes aside, if they do any of these things or anything radically different that Canadians don't support in general then Canadians won't vote for them in next 12 years. Isn't that what a lot of us, Toronto small "l" liberals want?

Conservatives know that very well. Therefore, there is no reason to be scared of them I think. These types fear mongering politics is not acceptable in a developed country such as Canada.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It seems to me there is so much fear of a "hidden agenda" of the Conservatives that it makes me wonder about the mental capacity of the electorate.

If we fear "hidden agendas", then why did we do NOTHING when Chretien was handing out billions of dollars of the rate payer's money to his own cronies and cling-ons, without having any Parliamentary discussion or approval for his schemes?

If we fear "hidden agendas", then why did the voter put Trudeau back into power because he "promised" to keep gas taxes low - while his real plan was to squeeze everyone on energy while blindsiding everyone with his defective (and as it has been shown, unrepairable) Constitution Act?

I think the person who votes based on a "hidden agenda" is just dumb. Politicians all have hidden agendas, and no one party is any better than another. For example, Bob Rae, who headed the NDP in Ontario was "pro-worker", and even passed one piece of progressive legislation protecting the worker before he ripped off the worker's pants and went jolly roger with his Social Contract, which was little more than a return to institutionalized slavery...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> Sadly there are social issues that they just can't be trusted with to have a majority government.
> 
> Healthcare
> Social Justice/Privacy
> ...


A load of hogwash. Without a Constitutional amendment, no government can impinge upon Constitutional Rights - nor have I ever heard of such a case where infringing upon rights is some kind of requirement.

Aboriginal Rights, well, we all know the white man can't be trusted to follow the treaties that they themselves penned. This is a very real issue, and the First Nations needs to be given back all of the things that were wrongfully stolen from them. The Government has to get into the business of actually abiding by treaties.

Healthcare is a sinking ship. In a recent study, we rated among the worst in the developed world, with an inefficient system that takes far too long to provide the appropriate care. Throwing more cash at it will not fix this mess. The problem isn't with doctors or nurses, but that there grows a giant administrative tumor on the system, administrators like CEOs that make huge bucks while providing no health care (though the eat lots of free lunches and dinners on the tax payers dime). There needs to be innovations, like having people in hospitals actually doing work, rather than loafing around and proping up desks or swapping porn.

You love to carry the football when it comes to the separation of Church and State. And again, just like flogging a dead horse that is now a skeleton - CANADA HAS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND ALWAYS HAD. No one, not even Harper, or Day or anyone has ever proposed the establishment of a national, autocephalic Church, nor has anyone proposed placing Bishops and Cardinals into the system of civil government. No one has proposed negotiating a Concordat with the Church, nor of installing a Papal Legate in Rideau Hall. No one has accused any person currently running for election of Popery, or of instituting a Caliphate or having the country run by a High Council of Aaronist Priests.

As for issues like abortion, privacy and marriage - yes, we do need to have proper legislation in place to regulate such things, as it is part of the legal code that is devoid of any clear policies. If these policies had been important - then the Fiberals had a good dozen years or more to institute such regulations.

I have never seen one case where Harper has proposed overthrowing the Constitution on any issue, nor would he be able to without mounting a putsch and invoking Enabling Laws - and even then, there is Notwithstanding where any provice can overturn any Federal law that they wish t overturn.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

arnab said:


> What possibly horrible can they do in four years? Banning abortions? Taking away aboriginal rights? Harper becoming head of church (lol)?
> 
> Jokes aside, if they do any of these things or anything radically different that Canadians don't support in general then Canadians won't vote for them in next 12 years. Isn't that what a lot of us, Toronto small "l" liberals want?
> 
> Conservatives know that very well. Therefore, there is no reason to be scared of them I think. These types fear mongering politics is not acceptable in a developed country such as Canada.


It is pretty easy for them to mess things up in 4 years...

Healthcare... Imagine a 2 tier system where people are allotted service based on who pays the most as opposed to who needs it the most. There is a lot of room to fall into an American model of HMO's and private hospitals not to mention the pharmaceutical industry being put into a position where it holds citizens for ransom like they do in the US.

Social Justice/Privacy... Imagine a dramatic reduction in funds for welfare, employment insurance, workers rights, etc... So what happens when Bill C-61 isn't enough and they authorize the Music industry to be able to sue Apple for your Genius playlist so the can find out how much music you've downloaded from P2P. 

Same Sex Marriage... Imagine that when they have a majority they repeal the Civil Marriage Act?

Separation of Church and State... Imagine when they force the introduction of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in the education system.

Abortion... Imagine when they put in place laws which strip a woman from the right to control their own reproduction.

It is pretty easy for these guys to mess things up in 4 years if they are given control with no check and balances.


----------



## arnab (May 27, 2008)

"Imagine a 2 tier system where people are allotted service based on who pays the most as opposed to who needs it the most"

Our current healthcare is just plain horrible. My friend's mom with a kidney problem had to wait 4 hours to get into emergency. The people, who can afford to get a better healthcare should be allowed to do so. We will always have universal health care for everyone.

"Social Justice/Privacy... Imagine a dramatic reduction in funds for welfare, employment insurance, workers rights, etc... So what happens when Bill C-61 isn't enough and they authorize the Music industry to be able to sue Apple for your Genius playlist so the can find out how much music you've downloaded from P2P. "

Yes, Bill C-61 is something I worry about too. However, this is the bill what our Liberals came up with. Therefore, this thing would have been passed regardless of who is in power. Even liberals didn't really make a lot of buzz about this. Let's accept this and move on because it will be passed anyways.

"Same Sex Marriage/Abortions/Church/State"

Let's say conservatives repeal all of them. Can we not put them back within 4 years again? The social issues cannot be pushed down our throat. If the people in general r not ready for gay marriage or abortions you cannot impose them on people. I personally have no problem with gay marriage but I think Canadians should decide this on some kind of referendum.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> Healthcare... Imagine a 2 tier system where people are allotted service...


Imagine a system where one can get an MRI in under six or seven months? Imagine a system where one doesn't have to spend a few days sitting in feces and vomit because some toady loser is playing a game of cards with his buddies, while his boss is out playing golf? Again, our healthcare system is entirely broken. No private business could exist with the massive overhead of useless people that our hospitals are stiffed with.

No one has proposed "going American" when it comes to healthcare - but the current system is entirely dysfunctional, and is the most inefficient system in the developed world where people are not treated in a timely or effective manner. Perhaps spooling off some of the non-critical health needs would help the system, or at least serve as a catalyst so that hospitals would have to become much more efficient in providing their services.



> Social Justice/Privacy... Imagine a dramatic reduction in funds for welfare, employment insurance, workers rights, etc...


There should be far fewer people on Welfraud - and anyone capable of working should be working. This city is full of people that are basically drunken losers with half a dozen kids so they can loaf around their apartment watching soap operas.

News for you - employment insurance has already been scalped by Mr. Martin. The most anyone can get is 36 weeks, most people are lucky to score 26 weeks. Half a year is barely enough to find a job in this workplace environment - considering that many companies are not certain if they are even going to be in Canada next week, or if they will be moved to Mexico in the middle of the night.

Workers rights - they were stripped over the years, and for the most part, unions have been nothing more than the glad handlers for the special interests. That is, next to those unions that are basically owned by the corporations. I have seen so very few workplaces where the worker has any rights, or even compliance with the most minimal of the employment standards act. These items are generally a provincial mandate anyways, so no Federal government has any real say except when it comes to federalized employees.



> Same Sex Marriage... Imagine that when they have a majority they repeal the Civil Marriage Act?


Yeah, imagine when the Marriage Sacrament is returned to where it belongs - the Church (or Mosque or Temple). As you said - Separation of Church and State, thus, it is high time the government gets out of the business of being a religious sacrament provider.



> Separation of Church and State... Imagine when they force the introduction of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in the education system.


Imagine when you begin to understand exactly what the Separation of Church and State is! Again, we are not going to embark on the institutionalization of a national autocephaic Church. Education is not the baliwick of the Federal government, so no matter what any Federal government may want, they can not impose any changes to the Educational system.

They would be further hampered by the fact that freedom of religion and conscience is built into the Constitution, as well as the protection of the separate school system in Ontario and Quebec, and by force of a Concordat in Manitoba, and of a more recent agreement in Newfoundland & Labrador.

With all of the possible issues that any Government may need to deal with - I think making the nation a fief of the Holy See is perhaps last on the possible list of issues.



> Abortion... Imagine when they put in place laws which strip a woman from the right to control their own reproduction.


However, you ignore the fact that there is no law in place right now. The former criminal code statues were tossed out twenty years ago, and nothing has been put into place. So you say "strip a woman from the right..." while it is a fact that there currently is no guaranteed right.

All that the court ruled on was that the provision of an abortion is not against the criminal code. Nothing has been put into place. Abortions are not available in a great number of areas, and even in areas where abortions can be procured, there is no guarantee that the doctor is qualified to provide the proceedure, nor are there any regulations when it comes to health standards, sanitation, regulation, nor any provision of a requirement to make an informed and educated decision. Hospitals are not required to provide the procedure except out of surgical necessity.

Any government that would attempt a "ban" on abortions in this country would be acting contrary to the decision of the court, and any law would end up being overturned on the principles of the Constitution. No one would waste their time. But then, no one has bothered wasting their time to actually bring in a law that would regulate it because it is too polarizing of an issue.



> It is pretty easy for these guys to mess things up in 4 years if they are given control with no check and balances.


Face it, even with an exacting system of checks and balances, Bush managed to mess up the US in much less than his first four years, and so did Clinton...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well said.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

underfund a system and call it dysfunctional.

What was one of those 5 priorities Harper had last election? Right. Vapourized.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The hospitals will always be "underfunded" because they're dyfunctional structures. They're designed to be that way, no matter how much cash is thrown at them.

How much extra money would you put into hospitals 'tube?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what makes them dysfunctional?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that one, too. Is that a chilling Aryan tone I'm sensing in that 'dysfunctional' remark?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Public hospitals are initially designed to put a cap on price, by creating a finite level of care. That care is rationed out in such a way as to provide the least possible amount of "just-in-time" care available. Long waiting tmes are built into the system to discourage some patients, or to ensure that the sickest die before they receive care in a strict actuarial sense. Those who can be easily saved are saved over an extended and exhausting timeline.

The business of a public hospital is not to heal or save the most people, but to stream them according to the wishes of government actuaries. Public hospitals are not rewarded for healing or saving people, but for spending all of their budget and making a case for a shortfall. Crises are invented to call for more public funds--much in the same way that public parks, when faced with budget cuts, shut pools and washrooms first. No matter how much money is funneled into hospitals, all of it will be spent, and there will always be a perceived shortfall.

Watch McGuinty building brand new hospitals all over Ontario whole slashing nurrsing staff in the existing ones. Does this make sense? Only if the purpose is to create more dysfunctional hospitals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Public hospitals are initially designed to put a cap on price, by creating a finite level of care. That care is rationed out in such a way as to provide the least possible amount of "just-in-time" care available. Long waiting tmes are built into the system to discourage some patients, or to ensure that the sickest die before they receive care in a strict actuarial sense. Those who can be easily saved are saved over an extended and exhausting timeline.
> 
> The business of a public hospital is not to heal or save the most people, but to stream them according to the wishes of government actuaries. Public hospitals are not rewarded for healing or saving people, but for spending all of their budget and making a case for a shortfall. Crises are invented to call for more public funds--much in the same way that public parks, when faced with budget cuts, shut pools and washrooms first. No matter how much money is funneled into hospitals, all of it will be spent, and there will always be a perceived shortfall.
> 
> Watch McGuinty building brand new hospitals all over Ontario whole slashing nurrsing staff in the existing ones. Does this make sense? Only if the purpose is to create more dysfunctional hospitals.


regardless of what system you have, health care costs money. Whether you charge for it at the facility full price or create a public system. It's really quite simple.

The for profit systems have the same problems in the US, except may many more people in the US can't access -any- healthcare.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Hospitals are always going to be full, because they want to be full. When they're slow they admit you for a hang nail, when they're busy they push you through the door on your death bed. No patients = no money, no money = fat cats without their bellies full. And when that happens they look to make the money up in other ways, like say using expired lunch meat.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, yes. Hospitals are notorious for using expired lunch meat. It's one of their major strategies for keeping within budget - and bonus! - it makes for additional business, too.

Methinks you're not in the hospital business. Dysfunctional or otherwise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> regardless of what system you have, health care costs money. Whether you charge for it at the facility full price or create a public system. It's really quite simple.


It's not that simple. When you throw billions more dollars at a public hospital system you still get the identical situation. All of the money is spent--some well, some not--and the hospital still claims to be on the verge of ruin.

In a private hospital, more money is raised by improving quality of care, improving speed of service, or raising prices. They're selling a service of curing/treating people. 

In a public system, more money can only be raised by managing the hospital into a financial crisis that will attract the attention of politicians. The hospital has no other method of raising operating cash. It can ask for private donations, but these usually go into capital funds (new buildings, new equipment) leaving the hospital without funds to operate the new assets (a new financial crisis).


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> Ahh, yes. Hospitals are notorious for using expired lunch meat. It's one of their major strategies for keeping within budget - and bonus! - it makes for additional business, too.
> 
> Methinks you're not in the hospital business. Dysfunctional or otherwise.


No I'm not, but my wife is a nurse and she sees first hand how our "health care" system works or doesn't. Ask her about how they bring in nurses at a higher hourly wage because they wont hire full time. Ask her about the doctors that keep patients when they're slow and discharge when they're overflowing. Ask her about the people from other countries that use our system without paying into it. But I guess as long as the wheel keeps on turning the system is working.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I had an elderly relative in a Toronto hospital for two weeks this month. She had broken her hip and wrist and had clearly had a stroke (slurred speech, one eye half open, and one side of mouth downturned) as well. I pointed out to her nurse and doctor that she had a history of minor strokes.

She had been sent back to the retirement home after three days and then returned to the hospital because she wasn't well enough. After the 8th day in the hospital I asked them specifically what condition they thought they were treating her for. The answer: depression.

It appears to me that much of that stay was arbitrary.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

In the recent study - our hospitals came out far and ahead when it came to funding - but ranked last when it came to actually delivering. The system is "inefficent" and "can not deliver health care in a timely manner".

The cash is being consumed by greedy, overpaid administrators that frankly, do nothing to provide health care. The system is entirely dysfunctional.

For example, I has been at the hospital for a number of things while I was waiting for seven months for my MRI on my shoulder - and seriously, I wouldn't had a problem if there was an actual wait. But every time I walked by, there were groups of people just hanging out doing nothing, while the machine remained empty for pretty much the entire day. If MRI machines were run by private companies - I doubt that there would be a hoard of slackers reading bridal maganzines while the machine is completely empty. Another example. I needed an occular xray taken, so the private X-Ray clinic got me in that afternoon, while it would have taken three months to get one at the hospital because of "backlog".

Our hospitals are entirely dysfunctional. Take a walk through it and just see the number of people that are loafing around at desks doing nothing. There will be those people who will be on Facebook, others reading magazine, others chit-chatting - all at the same time that there will be patients in distress, or sitting in vomit and feces, or whatever. Meanwhile, the CEOs are scoring a half million a year to be glad handlers, other administrators making uninformed decisions based on what will build their empire the best, rather than on what will serve the purposes of the facility the best.

There are other problems, like the perennial shortage of doctors. They have strang ethings, like if a doctor graduates and wants to set up practice in Hamilton (where we are going to be short by at least 60 GPs in the next five years), they end up going to Burlington because they can get a $40,000 grant from the government - that they can't get for Hamilton because there is a medical school here. No one in their right mind would graduate and not take the $40,000...

Then there is the complaint that nurses are always "leaving the province". Nurses leaving is a load of bunk. All of the hospitals these days want nurses with a minimum of 20 years experience, so graduates can not get real jobs in the field. Sure, if they want to slave cleaning bed pans part time on weedend nights for $10 an hour, they can get a job that doesn't make ends meet. I am not saying that people should have to earn their chops, but it is absolutely insane that a nurse takes early retirement, collects a pension, then goes back "on contract" to do some double dipping.

We have unclean, germ ridden hospitals with slothful, unmotivated staffs consisting of buddies and nepotists, administered by glad handlers and empire builders, all overseen by a government that beleives long term planning consists of scoring points for the next election.

Time to turn this whole mess over to the technocrats. I think they should make the thing private, and invite Japanese companies over to set up efficient, clean, healthy hospitals that deliver superior, cutting edge care that is timely, while treating the workers with dignity. If that happened, the dumpsites around here would be out of business in a year.

For all of the America bashing that goes on - one can get an MRI done that day, an X-Ray done that day, and an operation done that day. None of this nonsense of waiting four years until the cancer is entirely inoperable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've spoken here of the one-day trunaround I can get at Buffalo MRI as opposed to the 8 months promised me here. 

Since veterinary care is privately offered, animals get immediate MRIs in Canda. It is illegal to compete with the hospitals by scanning a human being with such a device. I don't think the difference can be any better stated than through that example.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Anyone that tries to tell me that a for profit hospital system is going to provide all Canadians with better health care is delusional. It's easy to say you can get an mri in the states in 1 day and hold that up as an example of what's wrong with public healthcare but that is moronic. One could get an mri in 1 day in Buffalo, but we also have free health care on this side. On the US side, things are drastically different. Sure one could pay for health care and get it faster if you have the $$, but that system clearly doesn't work either.

There seems to be a mental block on the idea that public healthcare could, and should be fixed. If there are too many administrators taking the $$, get rid of them. It is a publicly funded organization. If more staff is needed, then bloody well hire them. 

I would give up my tax cuts (gst etc.) in a heartbeat if I knew a government would live up to it's promises and deal with the public healthcare system responsibly. As it is, I don't trust private health care models anymore than I do public. Period.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> It's easy to say you can get an mri in the states in 1 day and hold that up as an example of what's wrong with public healthcare but that is moronic.


How about in cases of cancer screening and treatment, where weeks and months make a very big difference in survival rates. I have an aunt, and really, she would have died years ago if she had bothered with the "Canadian" way. Instead, she goes to Ann Arbor, where the treatments are immediate, advanced, and successful. I know too many people who have suffered with our crummy system.

No one is saying that we have to go whole hog and adopt an exact clone of the American system - because it has it's dysfunctions as well. But as the report issued yesterday clearly states, Canada has an inefficient health care system that can not deliver timely care.

In the US, any hospital that forced a patient to sit in feces and vomit for hours on end would end up being sued and would be paying out the biggest possible cash to settle a law suit. Here - they have spent years with filthy hospitals and still the dirty pigs that run them have done absolutely nothing.

I think having private ventures would bring competition. And it is a fact, we do not have an entirely "public" system. Your GP is not a government employee, but is a contractor that operates their own business - and they do what they can because the more business they can drum up the better. Same with the many laboratories, where one may get a blood test or an x-ray, not to mention optical care and dentistry that are not covered by the government at all. These places are far more responsive to the business climate than any known hospital.



> One could get an mri in 1 day in Buffalo, but we also have free health care on this side.


Free? Health care in Ontario consumes 40% of the provincial budget, and I think at least half that money is wasted on overpaid executives that do nothing and all of the other maladies that go along with fiscal abuses. And all of that money comes from all of us through taxes. For all of the money that we spend, we should have the most advanced and opulent health system imaginable - but the free luncheons and steak dinners for the cling-ons would have to end.



> If there are too many administrators taking the $$, get rid of them. It is a publicly funded organization.


Yeah, good luck - they are all political lackeys that are being well fed at the trough.



> If more staff is needed, then bloody well hire them.


All of the nurses that have the prerequisite 20 years of experience are already working at the hospitals - or are dead. Until hospitals begin to take responsibility for training people that are out of school - then there will never be any progress in this regard. This does not only afflict hospitals, it is punishing businesses like crazy in general.



> I would give up my tax cuts (gst etc.) in a heartbeat if I knew a government would live up to it's promises and deal with the public healthcare system responsibly.


The sad fact is that a responsibly run health care system would not see you having to "give up" on tax cuts - in fact, health care would be significantly more inexpensive while having better quality and more timely care.

But it would require a whole change in mindset: administration by technocrats, the elimination of empire building, expecting people to accomplish something for their pay cheque, having management that paves the way to an environment conducive to work, a network of front line GPs so everyone has timely access to the very first step in the process, backed up by a second network of specialists who operate efficient and clean clinics to do all of the routine items, and to have an efficient utilization of equipment.

And though you won't like it - the most efficient providers of much of this care are in the private sector, like the GPs, home nursing services, clinics and testing laboratories.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> How about in cases of cancer screening and treatment, where weeks and months make a very big difference in survival rates. I have an aunt, and really, she would have died years ago if she had bothered with the "Canadian" way. Instead, she goes to Ann Arbor, where the treatments are immediate, advanced, and successful. I know too many people who have suffered with our crummy system.
> *well then let's start building those centers. If people are willing to pay for them in the US, then why are we crying about tax cuts when those tax cuts can go to fund those centers.*
> 
> No one is saying that we have to go whole hog and adopt an exact clone of the American system - because it has it's dysfunctions as well. But as the report issued yesterday clearly states, Canada has an inefficient health care system that can not deliver timely care.
> ...


I'm sorry I don't buy your theory that private healthcare will provide better, cheaper healthcare whatsoever.

The solution is simple, fix the bloated system -now- and properly fund it without governments (federal and provincial) paying lipservice while doing absolutely nothing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry I don't buy your theory that private healthcare will provide better, cheaper healthcare whatsoever.
> 
> The solution is simple, fix the bloated system -now- and properly fund it without governments (federal and provincial) paying lipservice while doing absolutely nothing.


And run it like which non-bloated government entity? And properly fund it how? By having health care eat up 60% of the province's budget instead of just 40? 

And when they get that money, the hospitals will just raise up their arms like that silhouette advertisement at Taco Bell and declare: "At last I'm full!"?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Here is one of numerous studies. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf
> 
> Compared healthcare in OECD countries (generally Europe, Japan, Korea, U.S., Mexico, see list here http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,..._1_1_1,00.html).
> 
> ...


Mac Forums - View Single Post - To those in countries that have universal healthcare


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In the U.S. they consume more health care than we do because nobody is capping the total size of the sector. In Canada we restrict access to healthcare, shrink the entire health care pie and then declare that we have a system that costs less per capita. You could find a backwater where scarcely any health services are available, then declare that they deliver it for less per capita.

The personal choices of Americans may not result in better health, but that's the danger of freedom. 

Still, it isn't an either/or choice. There's no reason why we shouldn't have private MRI clinics avaialable in Canada for those who continue to fund the public health care system through tax dollars. Buffalo MRI would gladly set up a Toronto ofiice, but McGuinty has declared the private ownership of an MRI scanner illegal in Ontario.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Buffalo MRI would gladly set up a Toronto ofiice, but McGuinty has declared the private ownership of an MRI scanner illegal in Ontario.


When you're in Buffalo getting your MRI, get some wings and go to the Albright Knox! Make a day of it! Stay overnight, or just stay!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In the U.S. they consume more health care than we do because nobody is capping the total size of the sector. In Canada we restrict access to healthcare, shrink the entire health care pie and then declare that we have a system that costs less per capita. You could find a backwater where scarcely any health services are available, then declare that they deliver it for less per capita.


What a bunch of nonsense. You don't think medicare isn't capped wake up. And there's a huge percentage of Americans who don't even have healthcare.

I think someone needs a little road trip outside of Buffalo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> What a bunch of nonsense. You don't think medicare isn't capped wake up.


Medicare can't cap the total amount of health care available. What it doesn't cap is supplied privately. One of the planks of Hillary Care in the mid-90s was to save on health care spending--including private spending--by decreasing the total amount of health care availabe in the U.S.



mrjimmy said:


> When you're in Buffalo getting your MRI, get some wings and go to the Albright Knox! Make a day of it! Stay overnight, or just stay!


I go the Albright Knox about 4 times a year--they snag some really good shows and their standing collection is amazing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Medicare can't cap the total amount of health care available. What it doesn't cap is supplied privately. One of the planks of Hillary Care in the mid-90s was to save on health care spending--including private spending--by decreasing the total amount of health care availabe in the U.S.


You still are talking nonsense. Since that report took the **** out of your argument right quick. I'm sure the US government would like to reduce spending on healthcare as they have private facilities the citizens can pay for. Exactly what would happen here. Anyone that refuses to see the move to US style is a fool.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You still are talking nonsense. Since that report took the **** out of your argument right quick. I'm sure the US government would like to reduce spending on healthcare as they have private facilities the citizens can pay for.


groovetube, your understanding of the U.S. system is somewhat limited. The U.S. government continually increases the amount it spends on Medicare. Private health care existed before Medicare and not the reverse. Medicare currently finances more than half of all U.S. medical expenditures. I wouldn't adopt the U.S. system in its entirety because it relies on an insurance system so heavily regulated by government that it inflates costs instead of controlling them.

What would happen here is that people would continue to fund universal health care through taxes, while taking advantage of private services when they were desperate, thus relieving the burden on the public system.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube, your understanding of the U.S. system is somewhat limited. The U.S. government continually increases the amount it spends on Medicare. Private health care existed before Medicare and not the reverse. Medicare currently finances more than half of all U.S. medical expenditures. I wouldn't adopt the U.S. system in its entirety because it relies on an insurance system so heavily regulated by government that it inflates costs instead of controlling them.
> 
> What would happen here is that people would continue to fund universal health care through taxes, while taking advantage of private services when they were desperate, thus relieving the burden on the public system.


you make me laugh. I know very well the US system I've experienced first hand as does my family. Limited indeed...

Nothing you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. Go down there and experience it for yourself for a while and get a clue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you make me laugh.....Nothing you're saying makes any sense whatsoever.


I don't know what to say to such powerful rebuttals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

What you thought I would take your musings seriously?

lol

Come on prove to me the government wont be tempted to save money off of public healthcare and rely more on the private. You even admitted the US government wanted to do the same thing.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

We also need a national drug plan.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Come on prove to me the government wont be tempted to save money off of public healthcare and rely more on the private. You even admitted the US government wanted to do the same thing.


I don't think there's any proof that will satisfy you. But after the next election you'll see I'm right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> We also need a national drug plan.


Throw in toilet paper and diapers while you're at it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Throw in toilet paper and diapers while you're at it.


You zany misanthropes have a comeback for everything! 

Good one! :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't think there's any proof that will satisfy you. But after the next election you'll see I'm right.


Because there isn't any. I look south like any sane person and see right under my nose.

Somehow you think the Canadian government will be different :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Because there isn't any. I look south like any sane person and see right under my nose.
> 
> Somehow you think the Canadian government will be different :lmao:


If you like it the way it is, I think you should enjoy it while it lasts, without people such as myself bothering you about it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If you like it the way it is, I think you should enjoy it while it lasts, without people such as myself bothering you about it.


I think if you had a tail you'd chase that too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think if you had a tail you'd chase that too.


Hey, that's a great debate closer!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

closer? I doubt it.

But I think you know precisely what I meant.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Throw in toilet paper and diapers while you're at it.


Very witty. Health care should be a basic human right, not an economic one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Health care should be a basic human right, not an economic one." Right on, brother.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Very witty. Health care should be a basic human right, not an economic one.


You certainly have the right to hold that opinion, but the issue is far more complex than a slogan. Rights only exist when they can be enforced. 

Can my cousin have an artificial heart or my uncle a radical cancer treatment? No? But health care is their right! 

In England, people mob dental offices for hours before the office opens, when there's an announced opening for a new patient. But dental health care is their right! On paper it is anyway, but the service can't really be delivered in a timely fashion. So they have the equal right to access dreadful care.

My mother-in-law was knocked down by a patient in a senior citizens home last week and broke her hip and wrist. But she had the right to a safe environment while receiving health care--the paper on the wall said it was her right! Yes, but the right is unenforceable after the fact.

If one political party succeeds another, some formerly free medical services can disappear with the stroke of a pen. Another violation of basic rights? Can I sue the Ontario Liberals? During a budget crunch, government health care routinely becomes an economic issue.

An old man wants to mortgage his home, his sole possession. An operation may save his life, but the chances are slim. The Ontario government refuses to allow him to spend his money on that chance. Better he should die so others don't feel he got away with something. Thank goodness someone is willing to stand up for the basic right to health care and divorced it from economics! He's as sure as dead, but Canadian values win out!

A fine slogan, but not an enforceable one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"A fine slogan, but not an enforceable one." A valid point, Macfury. Thus, we all have to work to make this concept of health care for all a reality. I think that one way to help this along is to not let politicans promise us one thing and then not deliver.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed - and an excellent post, MF!

[pinches self, shuddering involuntarily]


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MF is entirely correct. Why dole out rights if they can not be implemented.

Health care is a peculiar problem because, for the most part, the Federal Government does not have much power - it is a Provincial Baliwick under the terms of the Constitution Act. Some items are, however, Federal powers, like the regulation of drug safety, liability of medical practicioners, etc. The recent study showed that the system is not consistent, and that Saskatchewan, home of public health care, is lagging the rest of the nation.

The problem does not come from a lack of funding, as our health care system is one of the best funded system that exists. It is just that the system is so inefficent. The provinces are loath to turn powers over to the federalis, and vice versa, so there is a necessity for a large corps of paper pushers to keep the system flowing at all. Then there is a very real problem with the administration, as it simply lacks the technocrats and scientists that can understand the situation and deploy the appropriate response. So it ends up being a political game. Something like Cancer becomes "popular" because everyone has had someone die of it. But is funding a bunch of treatment centers really an appropriate use of money when little or nothing is spent on early screening, having enough GPs to channel people to a sufficient number of oncologists, when it takes a half year or more to get basic tests like MRIs...

Politicians would say yes, Cancer is "important" because everyone knows someone and can score votes. A Technocrat, on the other hand, would look at the system as a whole, and determine that we wouldn't need gigantic treatment centers if we caught more people at much earlier stages. Instead of massive radio- and chemotherapy programs that ruin people's health, caching it in the bud would mean less suffering overall. People may thing - oh, less treatment centers would make for longer waits and more deaths - but not understand that many forms of cancer, if caught early, can be easily treated and thus, we wouldn't need as much treatment.

And so on, with everything. Our system is inefficent because it has become the domain of the empire builders and political cling-ons, rather than based on scientific principles and implemented by informed and qualified people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What would it look like ....more of the same......a story in pictures...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some people of course have tainted views, but as long as we all understand that, you're welcome to post silly pictures. I could post the opposing side, but what the hell, fill your boots. I'll be back to review your silly pictures after the election to see how accurate they really turn out to be.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So other than political opportunism, why did Harper call the election a year before his own new legislation mandated?




SINC said:


> Some people of course have tainted views, but as long as we all understand that, you're welcome to post silly pictures. I could post the opposing side, but what the hell, fill your boots. I'll be back to review your silly pictures after the election to see how accurate they really turn out to be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> So other than political opportunism, why did Harper call the election a year before his own new legislation mandated?


Likely because the legislation was designed to limit the term of majority governments.

That and the fact that no opposition party had the cojones to either support or collapse the government.

Note: I like to post the quote, then the reply to keep things in the order they should be.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Likely because the legislation was designed to limit the term of majority governments.
> 
> That and the fact that no opposition party had the cojones to either support or collapse the government.
> 
> Note: I like to post the quote, then the reply to keep things in the order they should be.


It was pure political opportunism. Call it what it is.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> So other than political opportunism, why did Harper call the election a year before his own new legislation mandated?


Ummmm .... wait, I know .... ummmm, ..... partisan expediency??


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think the 'blame' for the election is equal all around. Just because Harper called the election doesn't mean the dynamics created by the other parties didn't play a role. Dion signaled all summer that he was likely to push for an election shortly. The Liberals were not even showing up to vote much this year (if at all), which is a pretty strong statement that they didn't support the government. The NDP have said as much since the start of this Parliament. 

So, Harper was left with two options. Choose the date himself or let others do it for him in short order. Not much of a choice.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> t.
> 
> So, Harper was left with two options. Choose the date himself or let others do it for him in short order. Not much of a choice.


Then why go to the pretence of promising and setting a fixed election date and making it a law?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Then why go to the pretence of promising and setting a fixed election date and making it a law?


Once again, the set term is there to prevent *majority *governments from governing for more than a set term.

What is so hard to understand about a set term for *majority* governments?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Then why go to the pretence of promising and setting a fixed election date and making it a law?


Because it is a good idea but clearly unrealistic for minority governments.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It was one off pandering.
Spin it all you like. 

Harper is not what I want in a leader.
His background is not what I want for a leader. I disagree with his philosophy. 

The 30 - 40 percent of the people who do like his style don't have to like me or ppl like me, but we won't roll over.
Bitch all you like.
I'm no Liberal lover, but this new version of the reform party is not what I want for my Canada.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think the 'blame' for the election is equal all around. Just because Harper called the election doesn't mean the dynamics created by the other parties didn't play a role. Dion signaled all summer that he was likely to push for an election shortly. The Liberals were not even showing up to vote much this year (if at all), which is a pretty strong statement that they didn't support the government. The NDP have said as much since the start of this Parliament.
> 
> So, Harper was left with two options. Choose the date himself or let others do it for him in short order. Not much of a choice.





> "Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."
> 
> Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.
> 
> ...


Steve's own words from May 2006. Link

The man has lied plain and simple and is relying on subtle parsing of what he meant to try and get off the hook. Sort of like when he said we should have sent troops with the US to Iraq and then tried to parse his words to backtrack on what he plainly meant. 

Sorry Steve, you lied --- man up!!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*lies my prime minister told me*



> AN EXPLORATION OF STEPHEN HARPER AND THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S TRUTHINESS ISSUES


Lies My Prime Minister Told Me




> Welcome to Scandalpedia the free encyclopedia of Conservative scandals
> 
> 
> Scandalpedia
> ...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Lies My Prime Minister Told Me: "My government is clear, it will not be seeking an early election."
YouTube - Harper on fixed elections dates



> So said the Prime Minister in May 2006 as he pressed Parliament to pass his fixed election date legislation.
> 
> Still smarting from Paul Martin's election call in 2004, Harper vowed to establish fixed election dates to prevent any party from being able to arbitrarily call an election simply to improve their own party's standings.
> 
> ...


Lies My Prime Minister Told Me


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

"Stephen Harper stated, "The Government is clear that it will not be seeking an early election. Of course, at any time Parliament can defeat the government and provoke an early election if that's what the opposition irrepsonsibly chooses to do."

In his own words, the Prime Minster is acting irresponsibly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Once again, the set term is there to prevent *majority *governments from governing for more than a set term.
> 
> What is so hard to understand about a set term for *majority* governments?


He never specified majority governments. But I'm sure he knew full well the loophole and made political hay out of the pomposity of what he declared.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There was already a 5 year limit on majority governments - what poppycock.
Harper did not want to face parliament....period.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So this crowd's eyes have been opened to the fact that politicians twist their own words. Must have been a tough reckoning to have your youthful, innocent dreams dashed on the rocks of political reality.

BUt why is it in "Scanadalpedia" that Harper agreed with undoing of universality of various programs?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm sure you'll all be happy to keep the next Harper minority until the next fixed election date then.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Culture in Danger (Culture en Péril)

YouTube - Culture in Danger (Culture en PÃ©ril, with subtitles)

:clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So this crowd's eyes have been opened to the fact that politicians twist their own words. Must have been a tough reckoning to have your youthful, innocent dreams dashed on the rocks of political reality.


I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not at all surprised that Harper lied. He's done it before, he'll do it again. 

I do find it curious though that the Con partisans can't seem to admit that their golden boy lied and will twist and contort reality to great lengths to explain away his lying. 

Next thing y'know we'll hear outraged cries about the "Lie-berals". 



JJ said:


> I'm sure you'll all be happy to keep the next Harper minority until the next fixed election date then.


Then there's those who'll just try to change the subject.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

News flash: They all lie. Some of them keep some of their promises.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Culture in Danger (Culture en Péril)


I think that's just a shorter version of a longer film called _Welfare Culture in Danger_.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Things are getting worse for the PC in QC ... even the federal employees (which are normally very low profile) are now out in the streets requesting that the PC minister, Gerry Ritz, resigns after the listeria scandal


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you quote, please display common etiquette and identify the source of the quote.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

.........


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> .........


The guy holding up the sign was a participant at a pro-Iraq war rally. His lower sign originally said "GO USA".

Since he's in favour of the Iraq invasion, I guess he'd be heartily welcomed at any Steven Harper rally ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh, gosh 'sauce--you caught Vandave cold with that bit of deception of his.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> So other than political opportunism, why did Harper call the election a year before his own new legislation mandated?


Because he didn't want to face the test of a Non-Confidence Vote. He wanted to have the image that he was in control - and wanted to pull the Election before we are clobbered with a Recession.

His "legislation" is nonsense, since it is meaningless because it is both arbitrary and not a part of the Constitution. It is nothing more than a scrap of paper by which he can claim to have had some notion of "democracy" - but without seeking the unanimous approval of the people.

The GG is a disgrace, she shouldn't have granted the writ in the first place, since there wasn't a motion of Non-Confidence, nor has the government come anywhere near the five year mark. So much for having a clueless foreigner in control of such things.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

That's the funniest picture - since the dude can't spell "Morons".

I am still waiting for the much touted "Invasion of Iraq" and all of the "Shock And Awe" we were supposed to get. So far, we have had a buch of poorly trained militia reservists go there to get shot up by Al Qaida nutcases, billions of dollars turned over to Halliburton, and Saddam found in a Spider Hole. What a waste of time and effort.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Oh, gosh 'sauce--you caught Vandave cold with that bit of deception of his.


I didn't mean that to look like I was trying to catch Dave out on anything. I immediately recognized the pic when I saw it, because it has been something of a symbol for the kind of idiots who supported the Iraq war for years. I just thought it was quite strange to be turning this guy into someone who would support Dion over Harper, since Harper supported that war. I passed on the info about the original context of the pic for those who might not have known.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

*What will it be like under a Conservative majority?*

Just want to set an angry cat amongst the pigeons!beejacon Here are some thoughts:

What will it be like under a conservative majority?

The government will be distinctly friendly to big business and not to consumers. This means:

• Industry will get more self regulation (food, mining, aviation).
• Bell and Rogers will be given a free hand to throttle, raise rates and turn the internet into a service similar to TV. (The small ISP’s will be thrashed!)
• New laws will be introduced to reduce consumers rights.
• More concentration of industry will occur. Bell and/or Rogers will have the opportunity to buy out their competition or each other.
• A new digital copyright act will be introduced. It will make bill 61 look good. Private companies will be allowed to police & enforce the act. Monitoring of all internet traffic will be permitted if not required (similar to what is proposed in the U.K.).

They will reopen the issue gay marriage if the opportunity presents itself.

They will reopen the issue of abortion if the opportunity presents itself.

The Canada Family Action Coalition, Focus On The Family (McVety et al) will have the ear of the Prime Minister.

They will not be interested in solving any environmental problems.

The party may be able to assist the economy slightly by aiding corporations (corporate welfare will not stop!) but they will not be too interested in the plight of the average worker or the urban poor etc.

They will work hard to stifle Parliament by making parliamentary committees unworkable.

Harper is too smart to let Intelligent Design be taught in our schools, he also realizes that the country is too diverse to push his personal religious ideas upon us. But if a opportunity presents itself to reopen some of the ‘conservative’ social issues the Conservatives certainly will.

By the way - Religion isn’t a good measure for leadership, unless the religion is seriously kooky like Scientology. Remember Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau; a overwhelmingly Protestant English speaking nation elected a French speaking Catholic who appointed a Jewish man called Bora Laskin as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

(I knew I was back in Canada once when I went to a restaurant in Toronto where a Chinese women was teaching a Indian guy how to cook Mexican food!)

When will the Red Tories make a come back?  

Debate amounst yourselves; please keep the level of debate above the standards of the Canadian Parliament!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Pretty good synopsis BGW


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"When will the Red Tories make a come back?" We have a candidate here in St.John's East of the Progressive Canadian Party, which is a party founded by Sinclair Stevens Progressive Canadian Party, PC Party . However, I don't think that this is a real return to the Red Tory party that had progressive conservatives considering those in need in our great country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bgw said:


> What will it be like under a conservative majority?...Here are some thoughts:


Oh, why not just go all the way:


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Oh, why not just go all the way:


No Harper wont do that; Gordon Brown of the Labour Party in the U.K. is planning that!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How 'bout this? Dystopian. Social Darwinism.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Haven't read that one... sorry can't comment. 

P.S. Your a Prisoner fan?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bgw said:


> P.S. Your a Prisoner fan?


A magnificent television series!


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> A magnificent television series!


I agree! I don't think any thing like it has been made since. I don't think anything on TV has come as close in intellectual depth or breadth since! No only that, it was just plain fun to watch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bgw said:


> I agree! I don't think any thing like it has been made since. I don't think anything on TV has come as close in intellectual depth or breadth since! No only that, it was just plain fun to watch.


And the best use of a Beatles song on a TV show as well. People should watch that episode about the Village elections around this time of year.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> People should watch that episode about the Village elections around this time of year.


It should be required viewing for anyone involved in the democratic process. I wish some of our politicians could see it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

more of the same.....



> *Lax standards to blame for rise in food recalls, experts say
> 'Right now, we're walking in a fog. We don't have any idea what foods are making us sick in this country'*
> 
> KAREN HOWLETT
> ...


you'd think the idjits would learn from Walkerton....
globeandmail.com: Lax standards to blame for rise in food recalls, experts say

But of course this is same crowd that allows Alberta to **** into the atmosphere at will.....even provides corporate welfare to do so.......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> But of course this is same crowd that allows Alberta to **** into the atmosphere at will.....even provides corporate welfare to do so.......


Yeah it is a shame isn't it? How are things coming along in your own back yard with shutting down all those foul, polluting coal fired plants?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Quite a load of fear mongering...



bgw said:


> What will it be like under a conservative majority?
> 
> The government will be distinctly friendly to big business and not to consumers.
> ...
> Debate amounst yourselves; please keep the level of debate above the standards of the Canadian Parliament!


Pretty much looks like the same boatload of policies that the Fiberals engaged in over their years in power.

For the record, the Fiberals did nothing about Abortion - it is still not available in most places and remains entirely unregulated. Of course, if you think that it is adequate that such procedures are done in filthy back rooms in slum neighbourhoods, performed by people who have little or no training, and that even that level of "care" is provided in only a selected few cities in this country, then I suppose one is happy with the status quo - where Abortion is legal only because it is decriminalized, but difficult if not impossible to obtain by the vast majority of the nation.

They also deregulated most industry, while strangling off consumer protections, and when companies have engaged in corporate rip-offs, the Fiberals were no where to be seen.

Gay marriage - was that even an issue?  Marriage is a sacrament, it should be left entirely to the religions. Government should get out doling out sacraments. Besides, the same people that argue for gay marriage also prattle on about the separation of Church and State, so they just end up looking silly when they try to justify that messy argument.

How can he have had so many leaders of various faiths in this country - and only now are the paranoid prattling on about Harper's faith? We have had Catholics and Protestants of various denominations - never once did any of them sell out to whoever. Thompson didn't sell Canada to the Vatican, nor did Laurier or St. Laurent or Trudeau, or Mulroney, or Martin. MacDonald didn't establish the supremacy of the Kirk here either. Pearson was the son of a Baptist minister - but no one talked about how everyone was going to be "born again". We had a Governor General that was Orthodox, but he didn't eastablish Canada as a hotbed for the Metropolitan of Moscow (or anywhere else).

So get over it folks, Harper is not going to turn Canada into some kind of Christian commune featuring death camps for disbelievers. He is not going to change the entire education system by promulgating some kind of pseudo-science hogwash. Nor is he going to invading each province and reeducate the education systems because of this. There is not going to be some giant Basilica built in Ottawa, with a Papal Legate established over a system of Papal States. Nor will there be some kind of Inquisition coming to your house to make sure you have pork sausages hanging from your kitchen ceiling, ready to put to death anyone who refuses to eat a chunk of ham.

I hope that Canadians do not go into the voting booth with all of these crazy prejudices - but rather, go in and vote for the person who will do what is best for the nation as a whole. This is something that Canadians have been bad at, as they rather choose a glad handler who loots the treasury than to vote for people who work hard out of a love for the nation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i would think the rise in food recalls is proof of vigilance, not lax standards.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Then by all means start buying imported, we all know how you like foreign systems better anyway.

Canada testing Chinese dairy products, Hong Kong issues recall

MF some people just don't get it.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> i would think the rise in food recalls is proof of vigilance, not lax standards.


I think Walkerton is proof that having a dude hire his unqualified, simpleton brother as head of the waterworks just proves that nepotism and corruption are bad things. I don't think it demonstrates anything wrong with any inspection regime, since anyone can write and file a fake report, and any government inspector can be purchased for the right amount of cash.

Just look at all the roach infested food dives in Toronto that miraculously "pass". It's pretty bad when a place is so bad, the roaches stay away from it in droves, but it still "passes". I wouldn't want to imagine how dirty the "fail" places are.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Then by all means start buying imported, we all know how you like foreign systems better anyway.
> 
> Canada testing Chinese dairy products, Hong Kong issues recall
> 
> MF some people just don't get it.


Or ... we could attempt to have regulations in place that make our system safer and more accountable than whatever they have going in China or elsewhere. Wouldn't that be the sensible action? 

Harper's directives in the last year to take away regulation in the food industry and go to self-regulation don't make us safer. In that vein think we should also do away with any traffic enforcement also, because we know that all motorists are responsible rule followers and would never risk their safety or the safety of others simply to gain some slight advantage in traffic -- right?

Yep, some people just don't get it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> I don't think it demonstrates anything wrong with any inspection regime, since anyone can write and file a fake report, and any government inspector can be purchased for the right amount of cash.


Yes, let's get rid of police too, because they can be bribed. People can always be trusted to do the right thing, but if you have cops around they will inevitably get bribed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, let's get rid of police too, because they can be bribed. People can always be trusted to do the right thing, but if you have cops around they will inevitably get bribed.


I would say that deregulating people will result in the need for far fewer police.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, let's get rid of police too, because they can be bribed. People can always be trusted to do the right thing, but if you have cops around they will inevitably get bribed.


Not at all - you just have to have a hard core of fervent police that make sure the others are not corrupt. Plus, if the Government actually ever punished anyone for corruption, then people would think twice about the costs.

The point stands, it wasn't Mike Harris that caused Walkerton - since the Province does not administer the waterworks in the first place. Waterworks are a municipal responsibility, and it only turned into the crazy witch hunt because no one wanted to blame and punish the culprits.

And it isn't even equivalent to the Listeria outbreak - which did not result from malfeasance, and Maple Leaf did close the plant down, do a complete cleansing, etc... Perhaps the only question stands unanswered is: why were there hospitals doling out the meats that had been expired by seven or eight months???


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Not at all - you just have to have a hard core of fervent police that make sure the others are not corrupt. Plus, if the Government actually ever punished anyone for corruption, then people would think twice about the costs.
> 
> The point stands, it wasn't Mike Harris that caused Walkerton - since the Province does not administer the waterworks in the first place. Waterworks are a municipal responsibility, and it only turned into the crazy witch hunt because no one wanted to blame and punish the culprits.
> 
> And it isn't even equivalent to the Listeria outbreak - which did not result from malfeasance, and Maple Leaf did close the plant down, do a complete cleansing, etc... Perhaps the only question stands unanswered is: why were there hospitals doling out the meats that had been expired by seven or eight months???


The argument stands as well as drunk at the end of a weekend binge.

Everything I've read about Walkerton puts part of the blame on the Harris government's deregulation of water testing and cuts to the responsible ministry, as a contributing factor. If de-regulation had nothing at all to do with it then why did the Ontario government subsequently increase the regulations for water treatment? It's because the public told him that water quality was something too important to leave completely in the hands of small town amateurs who may or may not choose to follow the rules.

We don't know yet if the listeria contamination had to do with the Harper deregulation, which they had to admit in August was already in place when this meat was produced. The Maple Leaf CEO has yet to answer why he didn't make the voluntary reporting of his own testing that he should have.

From the article I quoted several pages back in this thread:


> Kingston is concerned with the length of time it took Maple Leaf to notify authorities of problems detected in its plant. "Every time a reporter asked Maple Leaf Foods' president Michael McCain if they informed an inspector when they had positive lab findings, the only reply was that the info 'was available.' There are two questions I'd ask: was there a requirement to notify an inspector, and did you? And if it wasn't why not? The manual of procedures says very clearly if you get a positive result, you'll notify an inspector, and you'll have a plan in place, within 10 days.


There is nothing conclusive yet on what role the new deregulation had in this matter. As far as expired product, I've haven't seen anything about that. If you're trying to say that it was expired product that caused the problem, I think it's clear the contamination occurred at the plant. It's possible that the meat in question was bought in bulk and was frozen, which would make sense in large institutions.

Anyway, if it was lax standards at the plant or elsewhere that contributed to the problem, the solution isn't to throw up your hands and say "See regulations don't work!" and then get rid of them. As in my example of traffic enforcement, if the enforcement isn't working, you improve it, not just give up and hope everyone complies.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would say that deregulating people will result in the need for far fewer police.


I tend to agree with the libertarian/anarchist idea that people are generally decent and will do the right thing if left to their own devices. 99.9 percent of people need no regulations to tell them what is the right thing to do or how to treat their neighbours. It's that .1% that causes all the problems, that's why we have locks on our doors and police to attempt to keep them from screwing with the rest of us.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh I have complete faith in the corporations that they have my best interests at heart particularly those that were frustrated at having to test for listeria.

What a pain in the ass I know.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Everything I've read about Walkerton puts part of the blame on the Harris government's deregulation of water testing and cuts to the responsible ministry, as a contributing factor.


Obviosly because those reports were all issued by the McGuilty Government. Every report entirely skipped over the fact that the person in charge of the waterworks was not only incompetent, but unqualified, and got the job because his brother was mayor. And of course, none of the reports showed that money that was budgeted and was supposed to be spent on maintenance was wasted elsewhere. Oh, it is so easy to pin the blame on Mike Harris and avoid the truth of the matter.

It comes down to this, regulations or no regulations, was the waterworks in question operated in a competent matter in the best interests of the public at large. Of course, the answer is a big fat no, and the Government, in order to score whatever political points it wanted, wasted no time letting the murderer off on all counts.



> If de-regulation had nothing at all to do with it then why did the Ontario government subsequently increase the regulations for water treatment? It's because the public told him that water quality was something too important to leave completely in the hands of small town amateurs who may or may not choose to follow the rules.


The rules are there to be followed - Walkerton decided that it was best if they let a glad handling scalawag grab a high paying, easy job, even though he was not qualified in the least, and worse, he did not even bother or attempt to upgrade his education. The idiot didn't even bother to read a text book, or do anything within the realm of common sense. Having the town well directly under a cow pasture may have been the first clue something was wrong.



> We don't know yet if the listeria contamination had to do with the Harper deregulation, which they had to admit in August was already in place when this meat was produced. The Maple Leaf CEO has yet to answer why he didn't make the voluntary reporting of his own testing that he should have.


Quite a load of Fiberal tripe. Listeria contamination is a difficult matter, since it thrives in environments that are unsuitable for other bacteria. The plant not only followed federal standards, it exceeded them. And Listeria affects all kinds of places, and there is a seven times greater risk of Listeria from "organic" sources as compared to a federally regulated plant.

Once the samples were isolated, Maple Leaf put out a recall, again, well within compliance to the law. The real question, and Fiberals like you completely ignore this point - why were hospitals serving meat that was at least six months out of code? Sounds like there is not much of a case against Maple Leaf, since they did what they had to - while the hospitals were sending out filthy, bacteria laden rotten food to their patients.



> If you're trying to say that it was expired product that caused the problem, I think it's clear the contamination occurred at the plant. It's possible that the meat in question was bought in bulk and was frozen, which would make sense in large institutions.


As the law stands, such facilities (or stores or whatever) are not allowed to serve out of code product - frozen or not. Contamination at the plant is one issue, but the outbreak consisted of meats that were produced over a year ago, as they were out of code by at least six or seven months.  If one can dig up any cases where people ended up with Listeria from meat that wasn't a half year out of code - then you may have a point. But it isn't, the meat was a year old, and if they didn't die of Listeria, they might have been kiled by botulism or any other nasty kind of filth that is bred by the dirty hospital environments.



> As in my example of traffic enforcement, if the enforcement isn't working, you improve it, not just give up and hope everyone complies.


But that clearly did not happen in this case, as Maple Leaf put their products through a complete regimen of tests, and recalled the questionable products once they got positive results. In your example- it's like saying that traffic enforcement in Toronto is inadequate because they should have more cops enforcing it in Hamilton. The problem is not Maple Leaf - but on the filthy institutions that chose to "save money" by serving filthy, year old rotten meats. It's time to prosecute the people that are in charge of such policy decisions, and not only because of Listeria, but for operating facilities that are coated in vomit and feces - ideal breeding grounds for the kinds of deaths they have been shipping out.

Besides, only a Fiberal would make a bigger mountain out of a Maple Leaf recall - while four times the number of people have been killed because of filth (and filth alone) at Joe Brant...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Obviosly because those reports were all issued by the McGuilty Government.


I never read anything issued by the McGuinty government.



EvanPitts said:


> The rules are there to be followed - Walkerton decided that it was best if they let a glad handling scalawag grab a high paying, easy job, even though he was not qualified in the least, and worse, he did not even bother or attempt to upgrade his education. The idiot didn't even bother to read a text book, or do anything within the realm of common sense. Having the town well directly under a cow pasture may have been the first clue something was wrong.


Given that any of your hyperbole is close to being true, then you're response is: "do away with inspection, loosen regulation and trust entities to self-report." This is beyond illogical.



EvanPitts said:


> Quite a load of Fiberal tripe. Listeria contamination is a difficult matter, since it thrives in environments that are unsuitable for other bacteria. The plant not only followed federal standards, it exceeded them. And Listeria affects all kinds of places, and there is a seven times greater risk of Listeria from "organic" sources as compared to a federally regulated plant.
> 
> Once the samples were isolated, Maple Leaf put out a recall, again, well within compliance to the law. The real question, and Fiberals like you completely ignore this point - why were hospitals serving meat that was at least six months out of code? Sounds like there is not much of a case against Maple Leaf, since they did what they had to - while the hospitals were sending out filthy, bacteria laden rotten food to their patients.





EvanPitts said:


> The problem is not Maple Leaf - but on the filthy institutions that chose to "save money" by serving filthy, year old rotten meats. It's time to prosecute the people that are in charge of such policy decisions, and not only because of Listeria, but for operating facilities that are coated in vomit and feces - ideal breeding grounds for the kinds of deaths they have been shipping out.


The listeria came from the plant. That much is clear. Your diversion about the state of the hospitals is only a product of your overworked imagination. Nothing they did killed those people. They died because of listeria contamination. On the other hand the facts aren't in about what rules Maple Leaf did or did not follow at this point, or whether their self-reporting followed the law. This will come out in the wrongful death suits and other subsequent investigations no doubt.



EvanPitts said:


> Besides, only a Fiberal would make a bigger mountain out of a Maple Leaf recall - while four times the number of people have been killed because of filth (and filth alone) at Joe Brant...


Hey Evan, a Fiberal? That's really so hilarious. Do you think calling me inaccurate names makes your frothing and illogical arguments stronger?

You could call me a lot of things, but accusing me of being a Liberal partisan is actually rather insulting. Well it would be, except considering your history of drive-by ranting here on ehMac, I just have to consider the source.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Social Fibertarian?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lo-cal glibutarian?

Bo-tox Convertarian?

No-Doz Populistimist?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> oh I have complete faith in the corporations that they have my best interests at heart particularly those that were frustrated at having to test for listeria.
> 
> What a pain in the ass I know.


Then you should be chomping at the bit for Provincial Propane Inspectors.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I truly despise this man.

TheStar.com - Ordinary folks don't care about arts: Harper

Encouraging and promoting ignorance and division. He plays to the lowest common denominator. Tossing around quips and sound bites desperately sucking up to 'ordinary Canadians' with disinformation.

Let the suckling at the teat comments ensue. But this goes far beyond that. As Governments bail out corps and banks etc. to single out the arts is censorship plain and simple. Smells like book burning to me.

Ordinary folks indeed. What a backwater idiot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> to single out the arts is censorship plain and simple. Smells like book burning to me.


"Not funding" is not censorship, no matter how much you wish it to be. 

On the whole, though, I think Harper is right--the public doesn't much care how much of the arts are federally funded. Sadly, they don't care that much about the arts at all. 

Just be glad he had the courage to say it, so that millions of ordinary Canadian can rise up in anger at that statement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I truly despise this man.
> 
> TheStar.com - Ordinary folks don't care about arts: Harper
> 
> ...


You would be surprised at just how many ordinary Canadians are out there who have no use for the arts in any form.

If I had to guess, I would bet they outnumber the elite who do, by something close to three to one.

The move to curtail funding to so-called "artistes" who scheme to live off the public teat is getting rave reviews by ordinary Canadians who despise such spending.

It's just one more reason why we will likely see a Conservative majority.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Harper just lost the support of the black turtle neck clad, martini sipping elites. Thats gonna hurt. They'll be jumping the conservative ship in droves and voting liberal/socialist this time around. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I can barely see through this thick fog of ignorance.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Neither can I. But I love the edumahcated cliches... they're coming fast and furious now.

Dang, where's my martini? I can't see through this malevolent miasma.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I truly despise this man.
> 
> TheStar.com - Ordinary folks don't care about arts: Harper
> 
> ...


Yes, in the 65 years of my mothers life she attended how many of these publicly funded arts programs? 0, because she simply couldn't afford it, but nothing stopped her tax dollars from going towards "Arts" that only the elite can afford. If the market demands things like The Lord of the Rings musical then they'll create it. No sense throwing money at something for the sake of throwing money at it.

Love how on one hand most complain about the big 3 getting corporate welfare and demand that they should just adjust to the market. But when it comes to the Arts, lets just write a blank check and see what they come up with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I can barely see through this thick fog of ignorance.


Why must you call people who hold different views from you ignorant?

The term more closely describes what you are being when you use the such descriptives.

People who support the Liberal party are far from ignorant and I recognize their right to do so, but I don't resort to calling them ignorant.

The real fact is that fewer Canadians support the arts than do not. End of story.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I can barely see through this thick fog of ignorance.


Please explain. What is ignorant about lowering funding for arts?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Yes, in the 65 years of my mothers life she attended how many of these publicly funded arts programs? 0, because she simply couldn't afford it,


I don't know about where you live, but every Canadian city I've lived in has been rich with free concerts, theaters, studio displays and other cultural activities that are funded by tax dollars.

In contrast, when I lived in the US, every time anything interesting was going on there was a price of admission. Probably many of the performances would've been worth it, but many wouldn't have been, and, as an impoverished postdoc, I just didn't have the spare cash most of the time, so I lived, like most Americans, in complete isolation from the creativity of my fellow humans. It certainly wasn't a catastrophe, but I didn't appreciate how much I missed good live music and and art until I came back to Canada, and found it available for free. It's just one of the many small things that makes Canada a better country.

Now that I'm making more money, I'm happy to have the tiny fraction of my income taken to support culture in Canada. It's certainly a negligible cost to me, especially compared to the bloodletting I am required to undergo on behalf of the Corporate Elite who need billion-dollar handouts and tax exemptions.

It's not the black-turtleneck-wearing-martini-sippers the 'average Canadian' needs to stop subsidizing... it's the pinstripe-suit-wearing-corporate-scumbags.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> It's not the black-turtleneck-wearing-martini-sippers the 'average Canadian' needs to stop subsidizing... it's the pinstripe-suit-wearing-corporate-scumbags.


Yep.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> It's not the black-turtleneck-wearing-martini-sippers the 'average Canadian' needs to stop subsidizing... it's the pinstripe-suit-wearing-corporate-scumbags.
> 
> Cheers


Amen to that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> It's not the black-turtleneck-wearing-martini-sippers the 'average Canadian' needs to stop subsidizing... it's the pinstripe-suit-wearing-corporate-scumbags.
> 
> Cheers


I enjoy country, folk and blues music. Because I do, I attend the Big Valley Jamboree every year an spend $700 to do so. Ditto for the folk fest and the blues fest at about half that cost.

I don't mind the expense because it goes to the performers for the work they do travelling the country performing. I don't mind $50 for a concert either and have spent it on the likes of Ann Murray, Rita McNeil and the Canadian Brass for example.

But I draw the line at some weirdo in a beret and goatee down on White Ave. splashing paint on a plywood board with a roller.

Or the smut that disguises itself as the Fringe Festival on the same street.

Wanna be a potter? A glassblower? Set up a shop and take your chances on making a living like the rest of us and don't expect taking dough outta my pocket.

Wanna be a musician? Practice until you're good enough that some bar will hire you and work your way up from there. I'm tired of paying for your fun.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Please explain. What is ignorant about lowering funding for arts?


It's been explained to death Vandave. Either you get it or you don't. 

It's not the lowering of funding that's ignorant. It's the views expressed by our Prime Minister and some on this board that is. Lowering funding is simply punitive.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> But I draw the line at some weirdo in a beret and goatee down on White Ave. splashing paint on a plywood board with a roller.
> 
> Or the smut that disguises itself as the Fringe Festival on the same street.


:lmao: 

A goatee???

Smut???

Oh my goodness. This is hilarious. Suddenly my ignorant comment stands more proud.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't understand all of the hatred reserved for goatees... and turtlenecks, of all things. These angry denouncements smack of a deep-seated intolerance. As a Unified Hairist, I think we ought to be more tolerant of ALL hair, not just the complacent hair of the status quo.

As for the debasing of turtlenecks: it's mere thread, folks. For shame.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I enjoy country, folk and blues music.


So do I (well, not country). But the point is those are very popular genres that have no trouble supporting themselves commercially.

But what about Opera, Ballet or classical music? There's no question that it takes a lot more time, money and skill to preform in those genres at a professional level, but there's way less commercial interest in the performances.

Should the market be the deciding factor in the value of art?

So Britney Spears is more *valuable* to society than Winton Marsellis?

If that's true then


> the smut that disguises itself as ...


is going to be far more prevalent than anything you or I like (porn is worth *BILLIONS*).



> I'm tired of paying for your fun.


But you're okay with paying for the private jets, "escorts" and other entertainments of Business Executives... 'cause the fact that they don't have to pay taxes on those things basically means you're helping pay for them.

Paying some university student $3/hour to 'splash paint on a board' on Whyte Avenue is probably saving you the $15/hour you'd have to pay a city worker to clean up the graffiti he'd use to express his angst if he didn't get a gig at the Arts Festival. Try to keep some perspective.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> it's the pinstripe-suit-wearing-corporate-scumbags.
> 
> Cheers


We can both agree on that point.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Paying some university student $3/hour to 'splash paint on a board' on Whyte Avenue is probably saving you the $15/hour you'd have to pay a city worker to clean up the graffiti he'd use to express his angst if he didn't get a gig at the Arts Festival. Try to keep some perspective.
> 
> Cheers


It need not cost taxpayers anything to clean it up. 
Get the parents of the little Rembrant that spray painted his "artistic angst" on the wall to pay the cost of paint and equipment so their prodogy can clean up his own mess. Then slap him with a hefty fine for the vandalism which could help cover the costs of his "artistic peers" yet to be apprehended.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So do I (well, not country). But the point is those are very popular genres that have no trouble supporting themselves commercially.
> 
> But what about Opera, Ballet or classical music? There's no question that it takes a lot more time, money and skill to preform in those genres at a professional level, but there's way less commercial interest in the performances.
> 
> ...


Without any question. If the market won't support it let it die. That is my perspective and I'll keep it thanks.

I've never been near an opera, ballet or a classical music performance and I never will. I despise those things like mrjimmy despises Harper.

If they can't make it on their own, forget asking me to prop them up.



MacGuiver said:


> It need not cost taxpayers anything to clean it up.
> Get the parents of the little Rembrant that spray painted his "artistic angst" on the wall to pay the cost of paint and equipment so their prodogy can clean up his own mess. Then slap him with a hefty fine for the vandalism which could help cover the costs of his "artistic peers" yet to be apprehended.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Exactly. :clap: 

That's one of the reasons I will be voting Conservative.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> It's been explained to death Vandave. Either you get it or you don't.


Sounds to me like you don't get it because you are incapable of explaining your position. Is it possible that you do not have a rationale reason for claiming ignorance on the part of the Conservatives?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> I enjoy country, folk and blues music. Because I do, I attend the Big Valley Jamboree every year an spend $700 to do so. Ditto for the folk fest and the blues fest at about half that cost.
> 
> I don't mind the expense because it goes to the performers for the work they do travelling the country performing. I don't mind $50 for a concert either and have spent it on the likes of Ann Murray, Rita McNeil and the Canadian Brass for example.


You do realize SINC that in all probability every example you cite above has benefited from Gov't arts funding - whether directly or indirectly (Ann Murray's early appearances were on the CBC, the Canadian Brass went on gov't sanctioned international tours (China), the related session musicians or songwriters or record labels or festival/concert organizers have all likely gotten a grant or some other gov't assistance at one time or another (or they would if the gov't is as generous as some seem to think it is to the arts).

It would be cheap and hypocritical for me to take a stand like this given both the relatively small amounts of money involved and the future generations of artists (both the kinds that I might like, or might hate) who may not be able produce as much art without this aid.

The arguments around this remind me of the Monty Python line:

"I've suffered for my music... now its your turn." 

A darwinistic unfunded approach to the arts may have some merit - but it will leave us with less variety, and less art in the end. You may prefer less art, if you get to pick the parts that remain. There is no guarantee that only what we as individuals consider "the worthless stuff" will be the only part that is lost. Tastes change with the times and often the value of an artists production is only realized after the fact.

Cutting funding completely will diminish the chances and increase the difficulties for the next Anne Murray, or Celine Dion or Doc Walker or Jessie Farrell... and maybe that is a good thing in the end, I don't know. 

It is the future that will be poorer for it, not the present.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

eggman said:


> Cutting funding completely will diminish the chances and increase the difficulties for the next Anne Murray, or Celine Dion or Doc Walker or Jessie Farrell


I guess Canadian Idol or So you think you can dance is too good for some people.



eggman said:


> It is the future that will be poorer for it, not the present.


Right, Europe is full of arts and culture funded primarily by public funds and commissions. I've never heard of Michelangelo ever complaining to the gov't about arts funding.

Coming from the arts sector I was always told you do what you do because you love it, not because it is going to make you rich. But a few Liberal ad commissions would be nice, but not necessary. :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Sounds to me like you don't get it because you are incapable of explaining your position. Is it possible that you do not have a rationale reason for claiming ignorance on the part of the Conservatives?


Did you read my post you quoted? I asserted that cutting arts funding was PUNITIVE on the part of the Conservatives. The ignorance comes straight from the 'ordinary folks' fearing goatees, smut, berets and champagne receptions. 

Stephen Harper views the arts as either unnecessary (which I believe is his appeal to the 'ordinary voters') or as dissenting voices. 

Pearls before swine.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Did you read my post you quoted? I asserted that cutting arts funding was PUNATIVE on the part of the Conservatives. The ignorance comes straight from the 'ordinary folks' fearing goatees, smut, berets and champagne receptions.
> 
> Stephen Harper views the arts as either unnecessary (which I believe is his appeal to the 'ordinary voters) or as dissenting voices.
> 
> Pearls before swine.


Punitive does not ignorance make. 

I don’t think ordinary folks fear high end receptions. They fear their money being spent on things that are not needed and that they don’t benefit from. 

Again, there are thousands of jobs for artists in all sorts of economic sectors (e.g. advertising, movies, video games). If you want to create your own ‘art’ then do it on your own time and with your own money. Everybody else seems to get by living this way, why should artists be different?

I think you are disconnected from the ‘average’ Canadian. The Conservatives only can gain from these types of issues. When left wing people jump up and down about such funding, it only reinforces the perception of detachment that such funding has from the average person. The cultural ‘elites’ who jump up and down would never vote Conservative anyway. 

Again, you have yet to explain your comment on ignorance. What exactly do you find ignorant? Specifically.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Stephen Harper views the arts as either unnecessary (which I believe is his appeal to the 'ordinary voters) or as dissenting voices.


That's because he like many Canadians, know there is no majority support for the arts.

He also knows he will get more votes downsizing arts funding than he will maintaining or increasing arts funding.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> I've never heard of Michelangelo ever complaining to the gov't about arts funding.


Glad you brought that up. Actually, most of the famous European artists that we know of from the past several centuries owe a significant part of their fame to the patronage supplied by the government of their time - i.e., the church! Have you any idea how many artists the Vatican and wealthy government-affiliated families funded back in the day? A great deal. Many of the artists whose works are installed in the Louvre and the Tate would never otherwise have made it into the history books; they too got a little help along the way.

As for Harper slagging the 'artistes,' it's a very shrewd move on his part, one which will endear him to his power base and to the undecided types whom he would draw into that base. It's a bit like tossing peanuts to the rabble while shoveling billions of dollars at one's big business cronies - you know, the ones who are the real patronage piggies lining greedily up at the government trough.

But hey! Dissing berets, goatees and turtlenecks plays well to the easily distracted masses. This government is happily prepared to sacrifice arts patronage at the public altar. Meanwhile they continue their money-hemhorraging unholy alliance with corporate fatcats. Corporate welfare is good, arts funding is bad - what a ludicrous mantra. Such propping up of entities with public money is neither classic conservatism nor sensible economics - it's simply nothing more than expedient posturing - talking out of both sides of one's mouth.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Making it sound like all this money is pouring into rich undeserving lazy artists is for the gullible.

Period.

Art is a business just like any other and just as deserving of the same treatment of funding as any other business. 

If you believe otherwise, then I suppose there are many other swampland of florida stories you take at face value too. The very fact that the Harper government had to lie and fabricate untrue example of recipients of these funds is a clear red flag this government cannot be believed, but then I see some are ready and willing to believe anything in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.


----------



## boxlight (Mar 20, 2008)

Vandave said:


> The CBC is basically a mouthpiece for the federal Liberal party. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable. This relationship is no different than the one Fox News shares with Republicans.
> 
> I was listening to CBC last week and they interviewed a Liberal MP. I couldn't believe the bull**** the host let him get away with. Simply outright lies.
> 
> At least with Fox, the public isn't footing the bill.


Hear hear!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Government have sponsored the Arts since time immemorial - Rome and China stand as the greatest examples, though civilizations everywhere sponsored the Arts.

I think that Canada does need to sponsor the Arts, in order to keep those with talent from fleeing to the USA on a moment's notice. But i also think that a large bopdy of glad handlers intruded into the scheme of things and leeches off of the system. Thus, the Government ends up paying a large amount of cash, much of which never makes it down to the Artists. This is something that needs to be fixed, so that a better utilization of funds are applied.

The CBC is a scam, and is a prime example of the corruption that can entirely corrode an organization. The free luncheon crowd, the executives that make huge money sitting in chairs and frittering the time away are certainly afraid of the Tories because they could (and probably will) be axed. And so they should, since they do not make any contribution to the scheme of things.

The CBC has long been a festering problem since they have never had a well defined position. Every nation in the world (with the partial exception of the USA) has a national broadcaster. We need the CBC simply because there are no commercial concerns that would bother providing service to the vast majority of the area of the country. But we need a CBC that is much less partisan. Not only do they have an image of pandering to the Fiberals - they do pander to the Fiberals. They also pander to the Separatists and have an unholy attachment to the carpetbaggers of the PQ and Bloc. They do not provide any balance - they hate the Tories altogether, and are equally reviled at the socialism of the NDP.

It's too bad, because in the scheme of things, national broadcasters like the BBC, ABC, NHK, etc. have very good reputations.

I gave up watching the CBC once Barbara Frum passed on, since she was the end of the line of the journalists who really knew how to grill the politicals at the CBC. I still remember when she destroyed the political career of Flora MacDonald - simply because Flora deserved every ounce of retribution for the racism and hatred she doled out.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> Glad you brought that up. Actually, most of the famous European artists that we know of from the past several centuries owe a significant part of their fame to the patronage supplied by the government of their time - i.e., the church! Have you any idea how many artists the Vatican and wealthy government-affiliated families funded back in the day? A great deal. Many of the artists whose works are installed in the Louvre and the Tate would never otherwise have made it into the history books; they too got a little help along the way.


Not the same at all. They were commissioned to do a job because they were talented and could provide the work the church, King or wealthy noble wanted. Paint the last supper, do a portrait of the queen, the family etc. etc. They certainly were not indiscriminately handing out cash to any guy with a paint brush and a chisel to do whatever the heck he felt like. They were just doing there job like any other craftsman. If you were talented and your work was appreciated you got paid, just like any other job.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> I think that Canada does need to sponsor the Arts, in order to keep those with talent from fleeing to the USA on a moment's notice. But i also think that a large bopdy of glad handlers intruded into the scheme of things and leeches off of the system. Thus, the Government ends up paying a large amount of cash, much of which never makes it down to the Artists. This is something that needs to be fixed, so that a better utilization of funds are applied.


I don't see Evan Pitts nailing things too often but that paragraph does!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver: not quite true. Artisans of many levels of attainment/expertise were supported by the powers that be - you only heard of the big guns because, well, they were the very best. But not every diocese or parish was a wealthy one that could afford a Michaelangelo, so each made do with whomever/whatever they could afford. That goes right down the line, from stonecutters and stained glass workers to muralists and sculptors... those most in demand were funded the most handsomely by the most prestigious churches and their related power families. But that's not to say that all sorts of lesser individuals failed to make a livelihood in the arts, supported in significant measure by public tithing and other religious fiats.

The larger point being that patronage of the arts is not a new game. Nor is it a particularly socialist one. Governments of all sorts of ideological stripes have harnessed the arts to suit their needs throughout history. That said, I would agree with Evan Pitts' contention that the mechanism of dispensation for the arts in this country at this time is well and truly rotten... even if one agrees in principle with the concept of state funding of its best and brightest artists (and yes, I gather that many of my fellow Canadians find this notion utterly repellent), the fact is that too little money makes it to the artists themselves... the bureaucracy of arts patronage is an obstacle. Government likes to create more of itself... this is almost a rule of thumb.

Again, the issue of arts patronage is a clever subterfuge meant to distract the public from far more obscene write-offs and handouts to corporate cronyism. It's an easy dodge. HarperCo would have a much harder time keeping a straight face, were it to suddenly start railing on against government largesse to failing and inefficient corporate interests.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Max said:


> ... miasma.


Say... isn't that a Mazda model??? 

Thanks for another cool vocabulary lesson, Max!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree that the arts deserve the same treatment that businesses deserve--that is, they deserve no public funding whatsoever.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Nawt a prawblem, my friend! I always wanted to drive a Miasma but I found the handling too muddy.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> MacGuiver: not quite true. Artisans of many levels of attainment/expertise were supported by the powers that be - you only heard of the big guns because, well, they were the very best. But not every diocese or parish was a wealthy one that could afford a Michaelangelo, so each made do with whomever/whatever they could afford. That goes right down the line, from stonecutters and stained glass workers to muralists and sculptors... those most in demand were funded the most handsomely by the most prestigious churches and their related power families. But that's not to say that all sorts of lesser individuals failed to make a livelihood in the arts, supported in significant measure by public tithing and other religious fiats.
> 
> The larger point being that patronage of the arts is not a new game. Nor is it a particularly socialist one. Governments of all sorts of ideological stripes have harnessed the arts to suit their needs throughout history. That said, I would agree with Evan Pitts' contention that the mechanism of dispensation for the arts in this country at this time is well and truly rotten... even if one agrees in principle with the concept of state funding of its best and brightest artists (and yes, I gather that many of my fellow Canadians find this notion utterly repellent), the fact is that too little money makes it to the artists themselves... the bureaucracy of arts patronage is an obstacle. Government likes to create more of itself... this is almost a rule of thumb.
> 
> Again, the issue of arts patronage is a clever subterfuge meant to distract the public from far more obscene write-offs and handouts to corporate cronyism. It's an easy dodge. HarperCo would have a much harder time keeping a straight face, were it to suddenly start railing on against government largesse to failing and inefficient corporate interests.



Yes but my point is that the artists were working for the churches, kings, etc. giving them what THEY wanted. They simply weren't sitting in a studio somewhere getting payed to concoct whatever artwork they could dream up. They were producing a product that the market of the time actually wanted. I have no problem with that and its how I think it should be. Many artist do the same thing to this very day. No arts welfare payments required.

I also share your disdain for corporate welfare. I'd like to see that axed as well.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

OK, I concede your point. The thing about the arts back then is that you had to satisfy a smaller subset of people who made up 'the market' - the king and his court, perhaps, or the head of the diocese and his council. Whereas most Canadians tend to not give a hoot about the arts in general and who does what - until they hear of an abuse of public funding, at which time it's an excuse to damn all artists. It's a strange cycle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In many cases, the public can tolerate a certain amount of "artist welfare" but public outrage on the part of the turtleneck brigade over minor cuts or changes in policy usually solidifies public support--against the milk-fed veal and their colourful canvases.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I think the majority of the people DO care about the arts. What most folks find offensive is their tax money going to some talentless schmuck shooting paint balls at a canvas or some such nonsense. 

I don't have a problem with the government funding of the arts in general.

As for corporate handouts... they are a disgrace! What about my money that McGuinty threw at GM? Geez, I'm pissed about that one. Both the Feds and Provincials right across the country are guilty of corporate handouts. 

BTW, I don't think I'm voting. I had intended to vote Green. My Green candidate is an unemployed twit from the sounds of things. Maybe I'll pencil in "None of the Above".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

adagio said:


> I think the majority of the people DO care about the arts. What most folks find offensive is their tax money going to some talentless schmuck shooting paint balls at a canvas or some such nonsense.


This is the result of skewing funds to the unfundable, and judging the merits of artistic expression on its likelihood to offend, perplex or defy rational critique.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree that the arts deserve the same treatment that businesses deserve--that is, they deserve no public funding whatsoever.


This is again where we disagree. 

I think I've asked this before. Have you ever gotten a business off the ground and employed people before?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Have you ever gotten a business off the ground...


Yes.



groovetube said:


> ...and employed people before?


Yes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


then you must understand the need for assistance in some cases, where none could be found through family or private.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> then you must understand the need for assistance in some cases, where none could be found through family or private.


Never asked for it. It's just anathema to me. I don't see where my perceived need intersects with other people's salaries.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Never asked for it. It's just anathema to me. I don't see where my perceived need intersects with other people's salaries.


So because you never asked for it, nor needed it, you automatically think across the board it's a useless counter productive resource that doesn't benefit small business and/or employment.

I've not asked for it, in the almost 10 years of hard work, yet I can see how it would be a beneficial resource.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So because you never asked for it, nor needed it, you automatically think across the board it's a useless counter productive resource that doesn't benefit small business and/or employment.
> 
> I've not asked for it, in the almost 10 years of hard work, yet I can see how it would be a beneficial resource.


I agree that free money would be beneficial to any businesses (even interest-free loans are free money to a degree). I don't see why a business of any size should be able to access public money to further its ambitions. As we agreed in the other thread, in the long run, businesses only do what benefits themselves.

My neighbour could benefit by plugging his appliances into my outlet, but he doesn't have the right to do that. If he asked me, I would say no. I want the same right to say that to businesses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree that free money would be beneficial to any businesses (even interest-free loans are free money to a degree). I don't see why a business of any size should be able to access public money to further its ambitions. As we agreed in the other thread, in the long run, businesses only do what benefits themselves.
> 
> My neighbour could benefit by plugging his appliances into my outlet, but he doesn't have the right to do that. If he asked me, I would say no. I want the same right to say that to businesses.


That's a very, very, stupid analogy.

Businesses that can show by developing business plans and having people scrutinize their operations to see if a certain amount of money can benefit both the business and create employment to me is a good thing.

And has absolutely nothing to do with your talking around in circles. You seem to have a real fondness for that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Businesses that can show by developing business plans and having people scrutinize their operations to see if a certain amount of money can benefit both the business and create employment to me is a good thing.


Yes, they should take these plans to investors.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think we already went over this. 

Must we continue in circles?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Groove, fergit it. MF is nothing if not a classic ideologue. As such, there is a certain purity to his viewpoints, one not to be sullied by real-world critiques or applications.

_______________________________________

Methinks part of the problem with public disgruntlement over arts funding is the huge gap between what the masses consider art and what the would-be cutting edge of the artistic elites consider art. Conceptual art has been ruling for a long time now in Canadian academic circles and it's the odd emphasis on the supremacy of ideas over technical application which has a great many people scratching their heads and fuming.

In my book, if you need a densely verbose artist's statement heavily laden with opaque jargon in order to explain your installation/show/controversial stunt-cum-performance piece, you are clearly catering to the arts elite. It is, when you get down to it, a very small and arid society. Sometimes I feel it's no wonder that many Canadians are tempted by the urge to tar all artists with the same brush.

That said, I'm with Groovetube. I support public funding of the arts (alas, the devil is in the details). Should the anti-arts Spartans win, I despair for this countrys future cultural legacy. I have no wish to partake of a good grey Canadian culture... the very notion sickens me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think we already went over this.
> 
> Must we continue in circles?


Since you haven't said anything that's remotely convincing to me, you may go back in circles if you so choose--or forget it. It's all the same to me. 

If you think government money has better taste--or is less filling--than the private brand, I'm sure you'll be Jonesing for government loot. I'll try to make sure you don't get any.



> Should the anti-arts Spartans win, I despair for this countrys future cultural legacy. I have no wish to partake of a good grey Canadian culture... the very notion sickens me.


Max, you seem to feel that no marginal art of any importance or interest will be created unless the government purchases it. That's quite and/or of you. Half the people I know are in the arts and the work they produce sucking on the government teat is no more or less brilliant than the work they produce on their own dime.

If a man wants to walk around with a pizz-pot overturned on his head, why does it matter how such a conceptual arts installation is funded? Do you despair of the day when a man will have to buy his own over-turned pizz-pot if he wants to parade around a public square with it?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, I'm all agog here, trying to reconcile your love of precision linguistics with a phrase like "pizz-pot." I do believe you have been reading too many precious artistic screeds. Please tell me you are taking steps to remedy this!

Anyhoo, you know very well that I do not subscribe to your ludicrous allegation that "no marginal art of any importance or interest will be created unless the government purchases it." Why you bother taking such an anemic stab at the argument is beyond me. When you are ready to again take up this discourse in earnest, I assure you I will do my best to be ready for your convoluted shenanigans. In the meantime, I bid you goodnight. As a good little worker bee in the arts industry, I too need my rest.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Since you haven't said anything that's remotely convincing to me, you may go back in circles if you so choose--or forget it. It's all the same to me.
> 
> If you think government money has better taste--or is less filling--than the private brand, I'm sure you'll be Jonesing for government loot. I'll try to make sure you don't get any.
> 
> ...


you sir are the master of circles. I believe we've already moved past the scenario of a very small business that does not have access to family or private investors. You however seem to need to return to it, hence your usual circular never ending silliness.

Now if you'd like to return to where we were, which appeared to be talking about the benefit of helping a small business who -again- has no access to private funds, great. Until then, you have a tail to chase.

And I do wish you would quit insinuating that I might have a bias and want government money. I realize it's the sort of low skulldudgery people need to resort to when their outed chasing their tails, but again, I have not even applied for any government money in my business, I have no personal stake in it other than to see a healthy small business community. I have worked harder than most people do on a daily basis to make my business run for 10 years and have done very well. So you are being a jerk.

And you're going to make sure I don't get any?

Well that explains the delusions, somewhat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will attempt to make sure no business gets money. Only a business that can't make a good business case for itself will need to go the government for cash. Again, it doesn't matter to me if a business succeeds or fails. If one fails, another will take its place. If the difference between success and failure depends on a wee government hand-out then that business is pretty shaky to begin with.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I will attempt to make sure no business gets money. Only a business that can't make a good business case for itself will need to go the government for cash. Again, it doesn't matter to me if a business succeeds or fails. If one fails, another will take its place. If the difference between success and failure depends on a wee government hand-out then that business is pretty shaky to begin with.


Thankfully, you're whittling in the wind. One word. CNN. er, turn it on.

Secondly, I never talked about a scenario where the very existence of a business depended on a small loan/grant. I know that makes for a better looking retort. But you're being such a drama queen.

And to me, creating a healthier small business community in a responsible, accountable way makes very good sense rather than limiting access to only those with access to private funds. Especially since small business, has such a major effect on our economy and employment.

Which makes your position, ludicrous.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I turned on CNN, and I'm disgusted by it. If you see a whole world of small businessses who just need a wee helping hand from the government to be really sucessful, I won't try to argue you out of your worldview. Clearly it's hard-wired.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I don't believe in taxpayers money being doled out to businesses. Having said that, I'm not opposed to the idea of tax holidays on start up companies.

I'd rather see something more constructive than Dion's hocus pocus voodo economics come into play. Instead of making polluters pay, which they will and pass on those costs to all of us, how about putting them out of business? If folks were serious about cleaning up the environment that's what they would be aiming for. It would be far better to encourage green companies to do business here. I'd love to see a business climate where we could become leaders in green technology. I believe a 5 - 10 year tax holiday would encourage it. 

If you build green tech and sell it at a modest price, folks will come. I believe most people, given equal choices, will pick the one that's best for our future. 

I suppose tax holidays could be looked upon as a government handout. I don't see it that way. We're not actually handing out tax money already collected. No revenue is lost on a company that may or may not have built a business here otherwise. 

The biggest hangup with a new business is the start up time frame. Let's make it easy for good tech to get a foothold without killing the taxpayer. It can be done if there's a will.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

A good read!

TheStar.com - Harper's goal a right-wing Canada



> For years, Harper has talked about the death of the Left.
> 
> Such talk is conventional wisdom in the conservative movement, especially in the United States, where Harper gets his political inspiration. He particularly likes the anti-government, socially conservative agenda espoused by the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan.





> And as much as he would like to ignore it, most Canadians don't share his views. That's reflected in polls that show that, while the Tories are ahead, some 65 per cent of us support the centrist Liberals and the left-leaning NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois.
> 
> In fact, small-l liberalism remains strong in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Nice read. One problem. The Liberals are no longer centrist. Under Dion we now have the choice between NDP A and NDP B.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mr. Jimmy: that's like a little poem written by a left-winger,not a serious article. Governance by the Liberals hasn't come close to that sweet little ode. That Dion has attempted to take his party left is one of the reason it's staggering so badly. Some of the support for the Liberals is really of the sort you dream of. For others, it's simply: "I've always voted Liberal."

Neither liberalism or conservatism is ever truly dead. It's just an ebb and flow that will be a footnote in history.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> mr. Jimmy: that's like a little poem written by a left-winger,not a serious article.


I think I simply stated that is was a good read, non? Please stand down from your attempted condescension.

I enjoyed the tone of the piece. Also, the opinions and facts leveled at Steve ring true to his 'agenda'.

Also, if you truly believe that Canada *wants to* move toward the values of Ronnie Ray-gun's Republicans you don't know your Country very well, do you?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I've been talking with some colleagues this morning, and found that many are thinking very much like I am about the parties:

The conservatives are better about keeping their promises (although still pretty damn prone to breaking them when politically expedient), but nobody I know _wants_ what they promise.

The Liberals are saying the right things, but they have no credibility.

The Greens are also saying the right things, and, because they've never been in power we have no evidence that they lack integrity, but it's also obvious that they aren't going to form a government.

The NDP are even less viable as an option, because they're not even consistent about saying the right things, and they have demonstrated their lack of integrity.

So we're probably going to vote Liberal, not because we think the Liberals will keep their promises, but because we're afraid that the Conservatives might.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I've been talking with some colleagues this morning, and found that many are thinking very much like I am about the parties:
> 
> The conservatives are better about keeping their promises (although still pretty damn prone to breaking them when politically expedient), but nobody I know _wants_ what they promise.
> 
> ...


That too is the sense I get. Well stated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I think I simply stated that is was a good read, non? Please stand down from your attempted condescension.


You put up the piece for comment, no? I read it and that's my reaction. I don't believe "Canada" has any unified will. As I stated, it simply moves back and forth across the centre, and 50 years from now, nobody will care. 

If anything, the trend I see is toward a harder pragmatism that merely asks politicians to do what works, rather than what fills some ideological dance card. So Canadians may want the government to pay for health care, but if they see an option for more private sector involvement that will cut wait time, they might go for it--if it works. Thirty years ago, you couldn't sell the public on a pubic-private construction partnership, but because it's resulting in buildings coming in on time and on-budget, it's considered acceptable.

Not conservative or liberal, but what makes fiscal sense and gets the most done for a dollar.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I turned on CNN, and I'm disgusted by it. If you see a whole world of small businessses who just need a wee helping hand from the government to be really sucessful, I won't try to argue you out of your worldview. Clearly it's hard-wired.


Well 2 can play your game. So in your 'worldview' only those privileged with money and influence with investment possibilities should have the opportunity to grow should that be required?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I know plenty of people without pull, infliuence or rich parents who built their own businesses. Some marginal businesses may survive using a government loan/grant. Some will defult, or go out of business regardless. In the aggregate I don't think we'd have any shortage of businesses if we stopped doling out or lending money to them from the public coffers. Different ones perhaps.

I think those looking for government money have essentially said, "No private investor believes in me or my idea. I can't make a business case for the money I need, so I'm coming to you." I don't blame them for doing it, but I see no reason to bankroll them either.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I know plenty of people without pull, infliuence or rich parents who built their own businesses. Some marginal businesses may survive using a government loan/grant. Some will defult, or go out of business regardless. In the aggregate I don't think we'd have any shortage of businesses if we stopped doling out or lending money to them from the public coffers. Different ones perhaps.
> 
> I think those looking for government money have essentially said, "No private investor believes in me or my idea. I can't make a business case for the money I need, so I'm coming to you." I don't blame them for doing it, but I see no reason to bankroll them either.


So? Just because I've done it too, is not proof you are right. 

You keep making the scenario of a business that would not survive and has a terrible business plan and doesn't believe in themselves either as the candidates for money 'doling'.

It's been quite clear that's not what we're talking about but it seems you must cling to this to maintain your position.

You're very transparent.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You keep making the scenario of a business that would not survive and has a terrible business plan and doesn't believe in themselves either as the candidates for money 'doling'.


No, I said "No private investor believes in me or my idea. I can't make a business case for the money I need, so I'm coming to you." Or do you think that government should be their first-stop lender?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you are indeed squirming here.

you said "Some marginal businesses may survive using a government loan/grant. Some will defult, or go out of business regardless."

Now I realize it's necessary to word things this way to suit yourself. But that's NOT what we're talking about. Will you quit trying to twist things into discussing businesses that have unrealistic business plans and will fail as a bad investment. How many circles must you try to run around? It's becoming clearer to me as we go your position requires framing things this way to even hold ground.

I have not implied the government 'dole out' money without a stringent application process, so let's not waste time over your circles.

Your method of arguing reminds me of how the conservatives needed to flat out lie to the public about the promart recipients that later were found to totally fabircated scenarios by the Harper government as a reason why it should be cut.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

With their positions on research and the arts a Harpo Canada would be an intellectual wasteland - perfect for their fundamentalist constituency but a disaster for anyone with a brain....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

rgray said:


> With their positions on research and the arts a Harpo Canada would be an intellectual wasteland - perfect for their fundamentalist constituency but a disaster for anyone with a brain....


Remember the Straw Man singing 'If I only had a brain'?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't care how stringent the process is for the government to dole out money to a business. Every time the government hands money to the business of its choice, it takes money out of a consumer's pocket which would have gone to bolster another business. If you have faith that government knows how to spend your money better than you do--that it can pick winners because it has some sort of special ability--then by all means participate and encourage that comfy, squishy dream. I'm not buying.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't care how stringent the process is for the government to dole out money to a business. Every time the government hands money to the business of its choice, it takes money out of a consumer's pocket which would have gone to bolster another business. If you have faith that government knows how to spend your money better than you do--that it can pick winners because it has some sort of special ability--then by all means participate and encourage that comfy, squishy dream. I'm not buying.


That's a very simplistic view. You think that by simply giving a tax cut, likely to the rich since they get the bulk, that that will somehow trickle down to the small business owner. I say stop giving so much tax breaks to the rich corporations that don't need it, and spread that to the lower to middle income tax breaks, and help really small businesses with proven track records and solid business plans.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, I don't think the rich should get a special tax break, and I'm not really sold that trickling down works in the same way as its proponents believe. But I am not really worried about the small business owner who probably isn't counting on a government loan/grant anyway. Both large and small businesses should get no government money. 

You know the separation of church and state? The separation of government and business sounds good to me as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

In fact, then perhaps the government should get out of any of the affairs it regulates or runs. Privatize the police services, and education. So what if 911 works differently for some. You do get what you pay for. We definitely should end any financial involvement in students, be it university funding, and certainly end any and all loans or grants for students. God knows how many pot smoking art history types are sucking up my possible gst cut.

In fact, why do I trust my government to make decisions for me as to how to fund the military? Why the hell should I pay for that too? Billions and billions of dollars into some lobbyist (oops defense minister?) and used hardware from some country happy to take my tax dollars so some sob in some country I don't give 2 craps about can blow a hole in it?

This could be quite the journey this theory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It will be quite the journey, yes .I don't mind government paying businesses to perform services on its behallf, provided tendering is fair and transparent. It should get out of the business of investing in and running businesses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why should the government pay them for those services?

We could vote with our dollars for better police services, and which universities and school perform the best.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

What would Canada look like with a Harper majority?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> why should the government pay them for those services?
> 
> We could vote with our dollars for better police services, and which universities and school perform the best.


I think your idea has merit, but I would need to see some more analysis on your part before I considered it further.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mississauga said:


> What would Canada look like with a Harper majority?


What I'm getting from this is that under a Harper majority, we would see a shift to older style fashions and doughnuts and coffee would become free. I think you could find some support for that.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> What I'm getting from this is that under a Harper majority, we would see a shift to older style fashions and doughnuts and coffee would become free. I think you could find some support for that.


As long as it's not from TH, that sh!t isn't suitable for consumption. I dig the digs though.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But of course you would... leaves you wiggle room, doesn't it though!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> As long as it's not from TH, that sh!t isn't suitable for consumption. I dig the digs though.


I think there's a lot to be said for overcoats and stetsons to add stature to a man.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Let's not forget brownshirts, armbands and travelling in packs.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You know the separation of church and state?


What ever happened to this anyway, you may want to ask Mr.Dion, you lefties wouldn't want your tax dollars going towards religious groups now would you?  



> The Liberals announced a $75-million program to help fund security measures for religious and cultural groups during a campaign stop at the Asper Jewish Community Centre in Winnipeg.
> 
> "We in the Liberal party know that in the past decade, many ethnic and religious institutions, synagogues, mosques, temples, community centres and schools like this one, have faced an increase in the risk they face," said Mr. Dion.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Macfury said:


> What I'm getting from this is that under a Harper majority, we would see a shift to older style fashions and doughnuts and coffee would become free. I think you could find some support for that.


I'd appreciate the shiny sidewalks!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The Government has inflicted a great deal of damage in the realm of research over the years. They tried to make things more "efficient" by setting up "Centers Of Excellence". All this did was stifle competition, and what we really ended up with were a number of principalities that were more like "Centers Of Mediocrity".

One just needs to think of the money wasted on such boondogles as the KAON Factory, which sucked the life out of other facilities and lead us no where. We would have just been better off giving all of that cash to CERN because, in the end, we end up having topay to use CERN as well as the cash we wasted on a facility that never went anywhere.

Same with business... There are times when the Government really needs to partner up with business to get something done, like building important railways or roads or telecommunication links or something high technology (and high risk of failure).

But routinely putting business or science on the dole just ends up backfiring. Bad ideas continue as long as there is a sufficient empire composed of the appropriate number of carpetbaggers and glad handlers.

Good ideas never get funding, and end up elsewhere, usually in the US, where those ideas end up making filthy lucre. Our Government is not conversant enough in either business, investment or technology to make these decisions, unless they are somewhat clear cut.

Just like the fact that our health care system is one of the best funded systems in the world, jam packed with qualifications and equipment - but is not able to do the simple tasks, like handle a patient in Emergency in under 38 hours - nor can they get a handle on the basics like cleaning feces and vomit off of the equipment.

And that's like out Government, that doles out advice and regulations like crazy to business and industry while not able to abide by any of the laws themselves.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mississauga said:


> What would Canada look like with a Harper majority?


That pic could have been taken in Downtown Eastside Vancouver today. We already have lots of food line-ups. A Harper majority would only help to make them more prevalent everywhere. Well anywhere other than in Shaughnessy BC or Rosedale ON anyway.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That pic could have been taken in Downtown Eastside Vancouver today. We already have lots of food line-ups. A Harper majority would only help to make them more prevalent everywhere. Well anywhere other than in Shaughnessy BC or Rosedale ON anyway.


From what I heard BC's unemployment rate is at its lowest in 40 years, I guess anyone will line up for free food. Especially at Costco, like you've never had frozen pizza before, keep your a$$ moving please.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Off topic, I know, but I'd like to find out the answer to a similar situation here, JJ. My mom volunteers at the soup kitchen in Lethbridge alternating Fridays. She says that there are anywhere from 125 to 150 people lined up every time she's there. Many of them look like regular folk, not indigent. 

Is it as simple as free food? I hope not, not when there are people out there who could actually use a hot meal.

Yet, you drive around the city & there are "Help Wanted" signs everywhere. 

Nearly every time we go to Save-On Foods, there is this guy walking around the parking lot asking for money. His wife (or who he calls his wife) is never far behind. They are dressed in clean, decent clothing, wear newer footwear, they've bathed recently and look for all the world, again, like regular folk. Yet he's continuously looking for a handout. With all the time he's spends begging, why not just get a job? He doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon, a simple labourer can get $14/hour or more around here.

More things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

If you hang up a sign saying "Free Food" you will run out of food before you run out of folks that will line up for it.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Canada post-Harpo*


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, nuclear winter! My kinda season.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

adagio said:


> If you hang up a sign saying "Free Food" you will run out of food before you run out of folks that will line up for it.


My landlady in university used to run an office near a restaurant during the Great Depression. They had so many people begging for money for food that they worked out a meal ticket exchange program with the restaurant--any vouchers could be exchanged for a square meal. Over several years of offering hte vouchers he paid for a total of...three meals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Canada Post-Harpo


I guess he built Big Ben before bringing nuclear annihilation down on our heads.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


>


I knew the Canadian movie industry would survive without handouts, looks like their special effects got better too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> I knew the Canadian movie industry would survive without handouts, looks like their special effects got better too.


You're right, Jumbo. Look at this screen cap from Defcon 4, made during the heady days of generous government support for Canadian films.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I knew the Canadian movie industry would survive without handouts, looks like their special effects got better too.


I would much rather tax dollars went to the arts than to the likes of Ford!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Many of them look like regular folk, not indigent.
> 
> More things that make you go hmmm...


There is a guy on Robson in Vancouver who is in a wheelchair and APPEARS to have cerebral palsy and tries to put on a puppet show for kids. I swear I saw him walking around Vancouver one day without the wheelchair or cerebral palsy.

Here in Victoria, one of the regular beggars likes to spend his money at a high end coffee shop buying pastries and nice steamed coffee. Meanwhile I am too thrifty and just stick with a regular brewed coffee. That makes it pretty hard for me to consider giving him money. 

Things that make me go hmmmm.....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

rgray said:


> I would much rather tax dollars went to the arts than to the likes of Ford!!!


Yes because Ford doesn't employee anyone with artistic abilities just lazy union workers, car designs, brochures, catalogues and web sites all must come from Cracker Jack boxes. :lmao:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> There is a guy on Robson in Vancouver who is in a wheelchair and APPEARS to have cerebral palsy and tries to put on a puppet show for kids. I swear I saw him walking around Vancouver one day without the wheelchair or cerebral palsy.
> 
> Here in Victoria, one of the regular beggars likes to spend his money at a high end coffee shop buying pastries and nice steamed coffee. Meanwhile I am too thrifty and just stick with a regular brewed coffee. That makes it pretty hard for me to consider giving him money.
> 
> Things that make me go hmmmm.....


I like to offer them things they don't want, like food, clothing and jobs, I've been turned down every time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> I would much rather tax dollars went to the arts than to the likes of Ford!!!


I would much rather my tax dollars remain with me so I could buy the arts and Fords of my own choosing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> There is a guy on Robson in Vancouver who is in a wheelchair and APPEARS to have cerebral palsy and tries to put on a puppet show for kids. I swear I saw him walking around Vancouver one day without the wheelchair or cerebral palsy.


In my innocent days I recall putting together a nice lunch I had bought for a guy who claimed to be hungry. When I got back to his corner he was sipping a Diet Coke. I ate the lunch myself.

There used to be a regular at the Eatons' Centre in Toronto who claimed to be deaf as well. A friend of mine saw him talking on a payphone. 

My wife tried to give a guy some spare change a few weeks ago, and he told her that unless she was offering Loonies or Toonies, not to bother.

It's possible that some beggars are needy, but I don't have the time or resources to figure it out. My general rule is that if they're picky about what they'll take, eating better than me, or wearing more expensive shoes, they don't make it past the post.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes because Ford doesn't employee anyone with artistic abilities just lazy union workers, car designs, brochures, catalogues and web sites all must come from Cracker Jack boxes. :lmao:


You do understand the difference between fine artists and 'those working for the man' don't you? 

Probably not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy, in the New Canada, it will be up to you to search out these fine artists and become their patron! Exciting times ahead!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> mrjimmy, in the New Canada, it will be up to you to search out these fine artists and become their patron! Exciting times ahead!


Dream a little dream.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> You do understand the difference between fine artists and 'those working for the man' don't you?
> 
> Probably not.


I do indeed. The good ones earn their own keep. The rest leach off the system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think you nailed it SINC. "Fine" = "financially unstable."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I do indeed. The good ones earn their own keep. The rest leach off the system.


There's that fog rolling in again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think it's fair to say that some good artists are bad at business or promoting themselves, as are some engineers, electricians, daycare workers and truck drivers. 

Maybe we should set up a fund to get unemployed truck drivers to sit behind the wheel of parked transport trucks and have them shift gears and turn the sterring wheel while the truck remains motionless--I wouldn't want to deny them their right to self-expression just because thay can't find a patron in the trucking industry,


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Your comparative analogies are meaningless. Amusing, but meaningless.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> You do understand the difference between fine artists and 'those working for the man' don't you?


Wow, just wow! I wish I could be picky enough not to work for the "Man." But I guess begging for money from the gov't isn't the same and/or worse than working for the "Man." 

How many artists before this time practiced "Fine Art" while holding down a full time job? But I guess the culture of entitlement is now at its peak. If your "Fine Art" is worth something, someone will buy it, if it is not, then it is time for a new career choice, not time to start begging for money from the gov't.



mrjimmy said:


> Probably not.


No 6 years of art and design school, 5 years practicing graphic design and a member of the Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario, I know nothing about the arts. But I guess that is because I choose to work for the "Man" because it puts food on my table. Being a starving artist never appealed to me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there seems to be an important thing to know here that's missed. Often an artist grant is applied for with supporting business plans, and very stringent justify process afterwards in order to receive the funds, by a management company or agent that has it in their best interest to make a success of a project.

And respectfully, I don't think school, or even 10 years of being 'registered' with the RGD of ON makes you anymore informed on being a self employed artist than anyone else.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Wow, just wow! I wish I could be picky enough not to work for the "Man." But I guess begging for money from the gov't isn't the same and/or worse than working for the "Man."
> 
> How many artists before this time practiced "Fine Art" while holding down a full time job? But I guess the culture of entitlement is now at its peak. If your "Fine Art" is worth something, someone will buy it, if it is not, then it is time for a new career choice, not time to start begging for money from the gov't.
> 
> No 6 years of art and design school, 5 years practicing graphic design and a member of the Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario, I know nothing about the arts. But I guess that is because I choose to work for the "Man" because it puts food on my table. Being a starving artist never appealed to me.


Like I thought.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Bloodsuckers leech. Liquids leach.



SINC said:


> I do indeed. The good ones earn their own keep. The rest *leach* off the system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Bloodsuckers leech. Liquids leach.


Merriam Webster-

2leach 
Pronunciation:
\ˈlēch\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
leach vessel through which water is passed to extract lye
Date:
1796
transitive verb
1: to dissolve out by the action of a percolating liquid <leach out alkali from ashes>
2: to subject to the action of percolating liquid (as water) in order to separate the soluble components
3 a: to remove (nutritive or harmful elements) from soil by percolation b: *to draw out or remove* as if by percolation *<all meaning has been leached from my life>*
intransitive verb
: to pass out or through by percolation

Seems to me they've been drawing from the public trough for too long. Leeching too maybe, although it is not as polite a term.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> Merriam Webster-
> 
> 2leach
> Pronunciation:
> ...


Good one SINC  

I guess a few decades ago an arts grant to work with language or rhetoric might have helped, the "on the job training" does not appear to have taken. 

Or are you doing the same thing a housecat does when it loses its footing on top of the fridge, bounces off a cabinet then ricocheting off the faucet and landing on the floor with a thump in a most undignified manner it looks up at you as if to say;

"I meant to do that"

or is this your curmudgeonly way of admitting However was right and you had one of those typos that passes a spell check? 

I can't imagine most of the posters here, yourself (and myself) included hesitating to use "leech" out of a sense of politeness, especially in this context. 

Heck, if that were true we'd have had dozens of threads "debating" osmosis...  

Or perhaps I just re-emphasized your humour.

It is so hard to tell sometimes on the web and smilies can't always help. 

It is most interesting that you've reached for an American dictionary for your definition - in a discussion of what Canada will look like with a Harper majority. 

Cheers,


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rgray said:


>


It just looks like they cleaned up Barton Street in Hamilton.

Looks like Harper is going to bring some very real progress, because that picture looks a lot better than they plywood slums on that street...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

There were some excellent public art projects, theatre projects, music projects, writing projects undertaken, all funded by the US government under FDR's Works Projects Administration. So, let us not be too quick to claim that government funding of the arts and cultural initiatives of various individuals does not bring back something of value in return.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> And respectfully, I don't think school, or even 10 years of being 'registered' with the RGD of ON makes you anymore informed on being a self employed artist than anyone else.


If belonging to professional associations, working in the field full time while building a business (without gov't handouts) in my spare time doesn't make make me "informed" on the state of the arts in this country, I don't what does. There is more to the arts then just sitting in a studio and painting. And you guys were criticizing SINC for pigeon-holing artists.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Like I thought.


You got me mrjimmy, please enlighten us with how you're more tied to the industry than the rest of us.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This whole debate on arts funding is very tiresome and divorced from reality. People are throwing vague stereotypes around about lazy hipster artists depending on the government for their entire income.

Harper's comments on the arts are really only about playing on stereotypes about so-called elitists and trying to create a wedge issue for political reasons, while he works on serving the interests of the real, already heavily privileged elites in Canada. This type of politics is lifted right out of the US Republican playbook.

The arts are a major industry in Canada generating 3.8% of GDP and account for 600,000 jobs, according to the Conference Board of Canada. Like many other sectors the cultural industries create a lot of jobs and pay a lot of taxes. I doubt if there are many artists at all who could say that they depend on government funding for a major portion of their finances if at all, just like there are few people in other sectors that receive government subsidies, preferential tax breaks or grants, that rely solely on government.

The only people who could unhypocritically be opposing funding for the arts are those who take the extreme libertarian view that the government should fund nothing and privatize every single thing. Possibly Macfury is the only one being consistent here because he seems to take that view.

If you don't like art, music, dance, theatre, film etc and don't think it's valuable fine, that's your opinion. If you don't think it should be funded to the degree that any other sectors gets funded, then please also state that you are against any government funding, subsidizing or giving of tax breaks to anything else in society.

Just to be clear you would be against:

• Any government funding for education. Why should the taxpayers help children and young adults get prepared to a part of society or learn a vocation? If they can't do that on their own, tough.

• Any government funding for health care. Why should the taxpayers help people who get sick? If they can't pay for doctors and hospitals on their own, tough.

• Any government funding for farming or agriculture. Why should the taxpayers help farmer's produce food to sell? If their businesses don't make a profit, tough.

• Any government funding or programs for business development or trade. Why should the taxpayers, have foreign trade offices or work to help new business get going? If industries can't figure out how to make it on their own, tough.

• Any funding for CPP or EI. Why should the taxpayers help people retire or have a department helping them out if they lose their job or want maternity leave? If they can't figure this out on their own, tough.

• Any funding for science or research. Why should the taxpayers help out scientists or researchers? If they can't find a company to pay them to do what they do then tough.

• Any funding for museums to historical agencies. Why should taxpayers pay for people who get their kicks looking at old stuff? If there's no commercial market for that, tough.

• Any funding for tourism. Why should taxpayers pay to help the tourist industries in different regions. If places aren't interesting enough to attract tourists on their own, tough.

• Any funding for libraries. Why should taxpayers pay for these collections of books. If someone can't afford to buy the books they want at a bookstore, tough.

• Any funding for parks. Why should taxpayers spend money keeping natural areas for public recreation? If people can't buy themselves a wilderness refuge to play in, tough.

I could go on all day, but you get the idea.

The arts are only another industry in society, that in many cases are a sound business investment and that also add many intangible benefits to making our society richer. If you want to cut that, well great, but be consistent and be willing to cut all these other "frills" also.

This article in the National Post (of all places) sums it up pretty well.

BTW. who is going to support all the unemployed beret makers, sushi makers and fancy latte makers once you cut all those "lazy hipster artists" off their dole?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Excellent post GA.

Jumbo, your concerns seem more focused on the marketplace than on freedom of artistic expression. If you truly understood the differences between commercial and fine art, you wouldn't make assertions like:



> Yes because Ford doesn't employee anyone with artistic abilities just lazy union workers, car designs, brochures, catalogues and web sites all must come from Cracker Jack boxes.


Here is a good essay I dug up while looking for sources of arts funding abroad. It's a fairly clear comparison of American and European models. You might find it interesting:

Arts Funding: A comparison of American and European Models


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> BTW. who is going to support all the unemployed beret makers, sushi makers and fancy latte makers once you cut all those "lazy hipster artists" off their dole?


Don't forget martinis and black turtlenecks! 

Scoo-badee-doo-wow-wow


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> If belonging to professional associations, working in the field full time while building a business (without gov't handouts) in my spare time doesn't make make me "informed" on the state of the arts in this country, I don't what does. There is more to the arts then just sitting in a studio and painting. And you guys were criticizing SINC for pigeon-holing artists.


I'm sorry. But until you've put your money where your mouth is, simply working as a graphic designer for 'the man' does not make you an expert on the 'arts'.

Before starting my business, I spent nearly 20 years making my living as an 'artist' without a full time job so yes please tell us all about how it's more than just sitting in a studio and painting.

Oh really. Sorry being sarcastic but that's just a ridiculous bit of rubbish.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry. But until you've put your money where your mouth is, simply working as a graphic designer for 'the man' does not make you an expert on the 'arts'.


I never said I was an expert, I'm simply stating where I'm coming from. mrjimmy was doubting my background as an artist, I think my vredentials say otherwise. 



groovetube said:


> Before starting my business, I spent nearly 20 years making my living as an 'artist' without a full time job so yes please tell us all about how it's more than just sitting in a studio and painting.


If you spent 20 years living as an "artist" you would know there is more to fine arts than just painting.



mrjimmy said:


> Jumbo, your concerns seem more focused on the marketplace than on freedom of artistic expression. If you truly understood the differences between commercial and fine art, you wouldn't make assertions like:


Yes because one can't truly express themselves in the auto industry or in a corporate atmosphere.

Chip Foose worked for the Asha Corporation, Stehrenberger Design and Baker Sportronics before starting his own company. But I guess now he is so big, he is the man now, better stop working for himself because he may lose his "artistic expression."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I never said I was an expert, I'm simply stating where I'm coming from. mrjimmy was doubting my background as an artist, I think my vredentials say otherwise.


That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was questioning your ability to see the distinction between fine and commercial art. I still do. A bit defensive are we? 



> Chip Foose worked for the Asha Corporation, Stehrenberger Design and Baker Sportronics before starting his own company. But I guess now he is so big, he is the man now, better stop working for himself because he may lose his "artistic expression."


Are you holding up this person as being representative of a 'fine artist' or a commercial one? You seem a bit confused.

Between GA's thoughtfully penned post and the link to the National Post column there is great pause for thought out there. Why don't you give it a read and gain a bit of insight into what arts funding is and does.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I never said I was an expert, I'm simply stating where I'm coming from. mrjimmy was doubting my background as an artist, I think my vredentials say otherwise.
> 
> If you spent 20 years living as an "artist" you would know there is more to fine arts than just painting.
> 
> ...


Your credentials do say otherwise. I think that's clear. There's certainly nothing wrong with your path, but do not try to compare to an artist that makes a go of it on their own. I'm sick to death of hearing pompous arses talk like they know, and insinuate that artists sit on their duffs puffing dubes and wondering what they will create today. Until you have really really walked the talk, you have no, no idea. Trust me. I spent many years on very little sleep busting my tail far more than any worker drone could hope to without the cushy knowledge of a relatively guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week. Pardon me if I'm a little sarcastic listening to someone who thinks that because they're part of some organization they now well the 'state of the arts'.

Get real.

And I was being sarcastic at your 'there's more to fine arts than painting' comment. But I did think even by the silly nature of your glorious revelation that would be blatantly obvious.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was questioning your ability to see the distinction between fine and commercial art. I still do. A bit defensive are we?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thx for the link. And yes GA's post was well done.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was questioning your ability to see the distinction between fine and commercial art. I still do. A bit defensive are we?
> 
> Are you holding up this person as being representative of a 'fine artist' or a commercial one? You seem a bit confused.


No not confused, I think you are because there really should be no distinction between the two. To say you cannot have artistic expression as a "commercial artist" is asinine. Your creating a very thin line, by your definition no "fine artist" would create art for financial gain, be it a painter, dancer or musician. 

Look at posters by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, they were not only artistic but also "commercial" and grace the pages of art history books and museums. Have a look at recent works done by Stephan Sagmeister or Milton Glaser, artistic expression through what you define as "commercial art."

I suggest having a look at what "fine art" is:
Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> To say you cannot have artistic expression as a "commercial artist" is asinine.


Oops, you missed that pesky little word _freedom._

You know, as in _freedom of artistic expression._

Did you read those articles yet?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting part of the National Post article.

"Picasso said, "Art washes away from us the dust of everyday life." Mischievous political minds twist that sentiment to suggest that art presumes itself to be superior to labour. Not at all. In fact, there's a reason why Stephen Harper has refused to repeat his grandly dismissive remarks about the arts in French. That's because Quebec maintains a European attitude about the arts. They are for everyone. An operatic aria can move a factory worker to tears just as easily as it does a socialite.

Arts funding isn't elitist. But denigrating the arts as the preserve of the upper crust -- that's about the most patronizing cliche there is."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Your credentials do say otherwise. I think that's clear. There's certainly nothing wrong with your path, but do not try to compare to an artist that makes a go of it on their own.


Why because my work is primarily on a computer and not on a canvas?



groovetube said:


> I'm sick to death of hearing pompous arses talk like they know, and insinuate that artists sit on their duffs puffing dubes and wondering what they will create today. Until you have really really walked the talk, you have no, no idea. Trust me. I spent many years on very little sleep busting my tail far more than any worker drone could hope to without the cushy knowledge of a relatively guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week.


I know they don't, but they also shouldn't expect hand outs from the gov't for doing this, this is a choice, and not an easy one at that.



groovetube said:


> Pardon me if I'm a little sarcastic listening to someone who thinks that because they're part of some organization they now well the 'state of the arts'.


No because they do nothing for the arts.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Arts funding isn't elitist. But denigrating the arts as the preserve of the upper crust -- that's about the most patronizing cliche there is."


Ain't that the truth Dr.G.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> An interesting part of the National Post article.
> 
> "Picasso said, "Art washes away from us the dust of everyday life." Mischievous political minds twist that sentiment to suggest that art presumes itself to be superior to labour. Not at all. In fact, there's a reason why Stephen Harper has refused to repeat his grandly dismissive remarks about the arts in French. That's because Quebec maintains a European attitude about the arts. They are for everyone. An operatic aria can move a factory worker to tears just as easily as it does a socialite.
> 
> Arts funding isn't elitist. But denigrating the arts as the preserve of the upper crust -- that's about the most patronizing cliche there is."


thanks G.

Yes a small detail. 'Freedom'. I cannot believe Jumbo, that you could state that there is no distinction. There's a HUGE difference! Unbelievable!

Now I'm not going to denigrate anyone for taking the path of working commercially being paid to create for a company according to their requirements.

But that cannot be in any compared to someone brave enough (or foolhardy but that's another story...) to go it alone. If you think for one second a couple of government grants is going to equal 'living the high life' for any resonable amount of time I think there needs to be some education on reality right quick...

I think, personally, after one 'surfs some couches' for a few years and goes without one might figure out something is amiss in this definition that says there's no distinction.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oops, you missed that pesky little word _freedom._
> 
> You know, as in _freedom of artistic expression._


Yes because every artist has freedom. So the Sistine Chapel isn't a work of art because it was commissioned by the Pope?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

True, mrj. I feel that art, in the broadest sense of the word (i.e., visual, musical, movement, etc), uplifts my spirits and soul. I would be a deminished person had I never experienced classical music played by musicians in a concert hall, or had the chance to see art in an art gallery, or see ballet, or theater, or the other forms of art that are, in part, funded by our tax dollars. I would rather it go there than not go there, even if it means no tax break for me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes because every artist has freedom. So the Sistine Chapel isn't a work of art because it was commissioned by the Pope?


commercial art definition |Dictionary.com

fine art definition |Dictionary.com

But it goes so far beyond that. How are those articles coming?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Why because my work is primarily on a computer and not on a canvas?
> *no that's not what I meant and I'm sure that's obvious. Really now...*
> 
> I know they don't, but they also shouldn't expect hand outs from the gov't for doing this, this is a choice, and not an easy one at that.
> ...


..


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> thanks G.
> 
> Yes a small detail. 'Freedom'. I cannot believe Jumbo, that you could state that there is no distinction. There's a HUGE difference! Unbelievable!
> 
> ...


Is that it, are you just upset because you had to take some lumps being an artist with freedom? That was your choice, live with it. There are smarter ways of going about this as a lifestyle. Taking a chance and "going it alone" in any business is risky but can be done without the help of the gov't. 

I don't have a problem with the gov't helping in certain situations but it's this entitlement issue I have a problem with. Like they have to help you just because you are doing this. Why should they help you over someone that is opening a convenience store?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Is that it, are you just upset because you had to take some lumps being an artist with freedom? That was your choice, live with it. There are smarter ways of going about this as a lifestyle. Taking a chance and "going it alone" in any business is risky but can be done without the help of the gov't.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the gov't helping in certain situations but it's this entitlement issue I have a problem with. Like they have to help you just because you are doing this. Why should they help you over someone that is opening a convenience store?


Again you show your lack of insight Jumbo. And you still want to lecture on how hard or risky it is to go it alone. Do tell my friend!

No I'm quite content my friend. Just don't try to lecture someone about a path that I'm assuming you have not lived. I don't dismiss your path nor think it any less respectable.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> commercial art definition |Dictionary.com
> 
> fine art definition |Dictionary.com
> 
> But it goes so far beyond that. How are those articles coming?


Fine art [fahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, *graphics, and architecture*.

Yes because most architecture I know is created purely for "aesthetic purposes" and not function. :lmao: 

And I guess graphics can't be "created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness" because it serves two purposes.

Sh!t we should rewrite history books because most paintings in renaissance churches main purpose was to teach the scriptures in the bible because people couldn't read. How's that for graphic design.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Again you show your lack of insight Jumbo. And you still want to lecture on how hard or risky it is to go it alone. Do tell my friend!
> 
> No I'm quite content my friend. Just don't try to lecture someone about a path that I'm assuming you have not lived. I don't dismiss your path nor think it any less respectable.


I'm not lecturing, I totally respect your path, and hounestly I'd love to hear about it more someday outside a computer screen, it is just not the one for me as of yet. Maybe if things change in life it will be, but I wouldn't want it any other way than the one you took.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Until you have really really walked the talk, you have no, no idea. Trust me. I spent many years on very little sleep busting my tail far more than any worker drone could hope to without the cushy knowledge of a relatively guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week. Pardon me if I'm a little sarcastic listening to someone who thinks that because they're part of some organization they now well the 'state of the arts'.


You did this because you chose to. Do you feel it's something to admire, or is it just your credentials you're listing?



groovetube said:


> Yes a small detail. 'Freedom'. ...


Financially successful artists have freedom. 

But if you take someone else's tax money to buy "freedom," then you're limiting their freedom just a little bit as well. Only money freely offered can buy freedom.


Dr. G: Some public arts money creates beautiful art, there's no doubt. It just doesn't happen to have any qualities beyond art produced without government funding.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You did this because you chose to. Do you feel it's something to admire, or is it just your credentials you're listing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh really MF. I chose to?

My you are just full of revelations aren't you.

No tax money never bought me anything, certainly not freedom. I paid for that all by myself.

Now go read the posts agin.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Oh really MF. I chose to?


I asked you if you felt that your choice of slogging for 20 years as an artist was something you felt was admirable, or was merely a presentation of your experience.

I never said that you took tax money. You have already said you've never taken a government handout and I believe you. I said that nobody can have true artistic freedom through money that is taken from others--it trades one person's freedom for another. Only money freely given bestows freedom on the artist.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I asked you if you felt that your choice of slogging for 20 years as an artist was something you felt was admirable, or was merely a presentation of your experience.
> 
> I never said that you took tax money. You have already said you've never taken a government handout and I believe you. I said that nobody can have true artistic freedom through money that is taken from others--it trades one person's freedom for another. Only money freely given bestows freedom on the artist.


I already expressed that MF, read.

A government loan, or a grant, does not impede your freedom. Unless they specify how you do your art, or what they deem acceptable as art. The grant or loan, is given 'freely'.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Fine art [fahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, *graphics, and architecture*.
> 
> ...


I'd throw you a life ring but it appears you would rather thrash around in the water. 

Perhaps it will simply be one of those things that will dawn on you someday. I understand that you as a self professed person who worked their way up would feel disdain to those 'slackers' who you feel get off easy but it's not about that at all. It's so much larger than you and your experiences. Spewing phrases like culture of entitlement just make you sound bitter and jealous.

Until then, please do us a favour and spare us the venom spewing rhetoric surrounding arts funding. Read GA's post, The National Post article and even the link I provided comparing American (read Canadian) and European models. 

There is more to this than your disdain for all things Liberal and lefty.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Fine art [fahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, *graphics, and architecture*.





> fine art [fahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> *a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes* and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.





> commercial art
> –noun
> *graphic art created specifically for commercial uses*, esp. for advertising, illustrations in magazines or books, or the like.


Get it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I already expressed that MF, read.


You said:



> I spent many years on very little sleep busting my tail far more than any worker drone could hope to without the cushy knowledge of a relatively guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week. Pardon me if I'm a little sarcastic listening to someone who thinks that because they're part of some organization they now well the 'state of the arts'.


You do not state how you feel about your decision.



> A government loan, or a grant, does not impede your freedom. Unless they specify how you do your art, or what they deem acceptable as art. The grant or loan, is given 'freely'.


If money buys "freedom" for the artist, then removing that money from someone else's pockets through taxation takes away some of the freedom of those who now have less. Their range of choices and options have been diminished. The choice to fund the arts essentially says that one person's freedom is more important than another person's freedom.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: I agree with the definitions of commercial art vs. fine art. The other deifference is that commercial art is held at greater value in society.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also said, "No I'm quite content my friend."

I believe that says it all. Anymore circles you so fond of to run around? Did ya find your tail yet?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is merely artists (or their management companies if you will) deserve the same consideration as do other businesses, be it small or corporate.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> . The choice to fund the arts essentially says that one person's freedom is more important than another person's freedom.


So conversely, the choice not to fund the arts essentially says that one person's freedom is more important than another person's freedom. According to your logic.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Get it?


Whatever mrjimmy, I get it your definitions and your articles make you one with the arts. But if you can't see where the line can blur between your precious definitions I'll quit pointing them out to you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> So conversely, the choice not to fund the arts essentially says that one person's freedom is more important than another person's freedom. According to your logic.


The person who earned the money has the right to the freedom that money buys them. The government states that the freedom of the artist is more important than the freedom of the person who created the wealth by taking it from the earner. Before the money is taken, your supposition has no framework.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I also said, "No I'm quite content my friend."


I know you're content now, but that has nothing to do with the question. If it's too painful to answer, I respect that.



groovetube said:


> Did ya find your tail yet?


Nope, I found yours, and I bit it off!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it would be interesting to see how much 'wealth' the arts create in jobs, revenue for other industries, and tax.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Jumbo: I agree with the definitions of commercial art vs. fine art. The other deifference is that commercial art is held at greater value in society.


History will remember art according to its merit, not its commercial appeal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I know you're content now, but that has nothing to do with the question. If it's too painful to answer, I respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I found yours, and I bit it off!


For the love of pete MF. What the hell is your whining now?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> History will remember art according to its merit, not its commercial appeal.


now you've done it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it would be interesting to see how much 'wealth' the arts create in jobs, revenue for other industries, and tax.


That wouldn't really show you very much. You would need to show how much of the same things were generated through government-supported art as opposed to private. 

Generally, however, such figures are difficult to verify and the information is rarely put to good use.

The 1976 Montreal Olympics looked like they would be a great investment for government dollars, when the research was heavily skewed and the benefits were double-counted. 

But if it could be proved that government grants to car manufacturing plants created more wealth than grants to the arts, should we throw it all into car manufacturing?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it would be interesting to see how much 'wealth' the arts create in jobs, revenue for other industries, and tax.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The arts are a major industry in Canada generating 3.8% of GDP and account for 600,000 jobs, according to the Conference Board of Canada. Like many other sectors the cultural industries create a lot of jobs and pay a lot of taxes.


Lots.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> History will remember art according to its merit, not its commercial appeal.


History will decide what deserves merit. We may not agree with its judgement but there you go. Most 20th century "Art" is pop culture, largely commercial. I think much fine art has more to offer than commercial pop culture, but that's just my opinion. In the public arena Jackson Pollack is being buried by Bob Kane and Siegel & Schuster.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That wouldn't really show you very much. You would need to show how much of the same things were generated through government-supported art as opposed to private.
> 
> Generally, however, such figures are difficult to verify and the information is rarely put to good use.
> 
> ...


oh I'm sure it would show plenty. And I mean, plenty. Your response made me laugh.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> oh I'm sure it would show plenty. And I mean, plenty.


Well, with such solid methodology who would doubt you? I assume by "plenty" you mean more than "a lot."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Lots.


Did you have a look at the report, pretty broad in what they consider arts and culture.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/Misc/Picture2.png

Seems interactive media is a big one of those included in the study as well:



> Estimates from this study suggest that in 2005 total revenue generated from interactive media was $5 billion, with total employment exceeding 50,000 jobs.


I guess giving money to Ford who then spends the money on advertising and design doesn't affect the arts industry at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you do have the gift of figurin don't you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In fact, Jumbo, most of the figures include _all_ creative industries, not just those supported by government. I'll help groovetube out by pointing to Conference Board study that shows that:



> Arts and culture contributed $46 billion to Canada's economy in 2007, but the overall impact of the sector was a much broader $84.6 billion, according to a report from the Conference Board of Canada.
> 
> That amounts to 7.4 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, according to the report.
> 
> It attributes 1.1 million jobs to arts and culture or to spinoff industries, such as tourism."


But the definition of "arts and culture" is very broad and doesn't limit itself to just the tiny sector that requires government money to preserve its "freedom."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

They would like you to believe that it's only the "fine arts" when they quote that study, but the commercial art workhorses are at the top of the earnings. Here is what they consider arts and culture:



> The framework follows a set of criteria established for the Culture Statistics Program. To be included in this definition of culture, a good or service must meet at least one of these criteria. It must be:
> 
> a creative good that warrants intellectual property rights;
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly, Jumbo! This includes newspaper publishing, Cineplex Odeon and all the popcorn they sell, revenue for commercial television advertisements, Apple iTune earnings, and ticket sales to Riverdance and Canada's Wonderland.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ya so much for the "freedom of artistic expression" driving our national GDP. 

I see it's the driving factors in our big cities as well:

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/Picture1.png


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In fact, Jumbo, most of the figures include _all_ creative industries, not just those supported by government. I'll help groovetube out by pointing to Conference Board study that shows that:
> 
> 
> 
> But the definition of "arts and culture" is very broad and doesn't limit itself to just the tiny sector that requires government money to preserve its "freedom."


Absolute nincompoopness.

Sorry MF, but you cannot limit things to just what you feel fit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Absolute nincompoopness.
> 
> Sorry MF, but you cannot limit things to just what you feel fit.


Why don't you explain to us what fits, then?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you cannot single out the handful of artists or artist's management companies that receive a grant to measure the arts and culture's contribution.

I think that is about as clear as it needs to be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you cannot single out the handful of artists or artist's management companies that receive a grant to measure the arts and culture's contribution.


That's correct. There's no way to determine the economic impact of arts grants. You can just look at the creative sector as a whole.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's correct. There's no way to determine the economic impact of arts grants.


That's not what I said.

Anyways I know you're fond of twisting words and chasing another merry go round. When you're done, who knows maybe a discussion will break out. nite.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Get some sleep and try again.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Ya so much for the "freedom of artistic expression" driving our national GDP.
> 
> I see it's the driving factors in our big cities as well:
> 
> http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/Picture1.png


Some of those interactive companies etc are among some of the ones also getting the axe for some funding. That's the nature of my business, although I haven't applied or planned to on any of those programs, I am very well aware of the jobs that get created. An interactive compnay behind me I believe benefited by a small grant and now employs 13 well paid designers in a new location and doing very well. As far as I understand it, it isn't just the pot smoking lazy ass throwing paint on a canvas that is being affected...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure some interactive company got a grant and now employs 13. The grant gave them a leg up over another interactive company which might have hired those people, or which is now going out of business because the government favoured their competitor.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sure some interactive company got a grant and now employs 13. The grant gave them a leg up over another interactive company which might have hired those people, or which is now going out of business because the government favoured their competitor.


perhaps they had a very well done business plan, and a solid track record that showed them to be a good investment.

Imagine that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> perhaps they had a very well done business plan, and a solid track record that showed them to be a good investment.
> 
> Imagine that.


If they did, they probably didn't need that grant in the first place.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If they did, they probably didn't need that grant in the first place.


How presumptuous of you MF. As a business owner I would have assumed you can surmise a little seed money can help hire talent right away and enable expansion.
Surely you know this, don't you?


Good example of a good investment. An all you can do is desperately look for a way to **** on it because it doesn't play well with your, oh right, 'consistent' position.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> How presumptuous of you MF. As a business owner I would have assumed you can surmise a little seed money can help hire talent right away and enable expansion.
> Surely you know this, don't you?
> 
> 
> Good example of a good investment. An all you can do is desperately look for a way to **** on it because it doesn't play well with your, oh right, 'consistent' position.


groovetube,

As far as we know, MF is a self professed Libertarian of indeterminate stripe who finds government grants of any kind to be anathema. Discussions of a nature contrary to his vague beliefs are impossible as he will religiously take a contrary position. It is fruitless and time wasting but occasionally amusing. But I'm sure you know all of this already. 

It is an education to debate someone with his views to see how misanthropic a Libertarian viewpoint can be. Again, GA's post illustrates it in a clear fashion. Can't do it on your own? Tough. I have a feeling that once our Libertarian friends no longer have the means their ideology slackens a little.

Liberty won't house you and change your diaper when you have nothing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes I see that. The cracks appear in MF's consistency when he complained a business (or artist) that shows a good investment opportunity and receives a grant and does well. Then, it becomes 'they got a leg up'. Well the opportunities, are there for everyone. Anyone has the choice to go bust their ass for years to build a track record, and a business plan. And a small budget to help the business and arts community that is responsible for so much job creation is absolutely a sound decision.

I don't see MF's position as consistent at all.

And you're right, once you're a little less comfortable, your stance changes a little. But I have maintained my position even though I've done it on my own.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, I'm glad to see you're both agreed. i think the Alberata Tar Sands have a good business plan and will probably form a good investment for the government. Will employ a lot of people and a lot of tax revenue. They busted their ass and created a track record. They have a sound business plan. And sure they could work the Tar Sands project without government help, but the amount of job creation makes this "an absolutely sound decision."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Liberty won't house you and change your diaper when you have nothing.


I love this quote! It should go on a little grave marker. The stuff of inspiration! If only our forefathers had seen this, imagine how far we could have come today!

Let me give it a proper presentation:

*“LIBERTY WON'T HOUSE YOU AND CHANGE YOUR DIAPER WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING.”*

I hope that free diaper bill passes the house soon!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I love this quote! It should go on a little grave marker. The stuff of inspiration! If only our forefathers had seen this, imagine how far we could have come today!


I'm proud to live in a society whose ideology is inclusive and wants to care for it's most vulnerable as best it can. 

I'm happy to spend my tax dollars on this pursuit. If some take advantage so be it. Some will always take advantage. But the needy will still receive, as you put it, their handout.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, I'm glad to see you're both agreed. i think the Alberata Tar Sands have a good business plan and will probably form a good investment for the government. Will employ a lot of people and a lot of tax revenue. They busted their ass and created a track record. They have a sound business plan. And sure they could work the Tar Sands project without government help, but the amount of job creation makes this "an absolutely sound decision."


I bet you thought this clever.

Given that they've received a massive amount of financial consideration, -and continue to- even after they're successful, it can't be used as an analogy.

Continuing to lavish taxpayer dollars on companies that are raking it and you're trying to use this?

The cracks get deeper...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> *“LIBERTY WON'T HOUSE YOU AND CHANGE YOUR DIAPER WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING.”*


That's some sad layout MF. Surely you can do better than that!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Liberty won't house you and change your diaper when you have nothing.


Apparently neither will health care workers in the nursing homes:

Ontario nursing homes poorly staffed, more likely to restrain residents: experts

But according to George Smitherman you should be able to last 8 hrs in your own stink anyways. :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Ya so much for the "freedom of artistic expression" driving our national GDP.


Did I ever state that grants to the arts 'drives' our GDP? Do you read what others post or simply start and stop your tirades?

My contention is simply this: untangle arts and cultural revenues and job creation and show how much of it was generated through grants and tax cuts. I would bet 'lots'. I'll leave the graphs up to you.

Now as far as the distinction between fine and commercial art, if you think that the lines are so blurred between them that there is no difference then I feel sorry for you. And if they were actually blurred together, as I'm sure most corporations would want then I feel sorry for us!

The fine artist is beholden to no one. They are free to create and comment with (hopefully) impunity. Sorry, but that doesn't happen creating brochures for Ford.

Their contributions are the stuff that is essential to the health of a society. A mirror to which we can gaze at ourselves. Not some viral marketing passing itself off as art or films that are created to simply showcase the chosen product placement. Commercial art trying to pass itself off as legitimate art is insidious, and much more prevalent. Perhaps this is why you have difficulty seeing a distinction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> My contention is simply this: untangle arts and cultural revenues and job creation and show how much of it was generated through grants and tax cuts. I would bet 'lots'. I'll leave the graphs up to you.


Sweet. "It's up to you" to prove mrjimmy's contention, but he bets "lots."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I bet you thought this clever.
> 
> Given that they've received a massive amount of financial consideration, -and continue to- even after they're successful, it can't be used as an analogy.
> 
> ...


Your own criteria. That interactive media company was doing fine on its own, you said. Had a sound business plan, worked hard and wanted to employ more people.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Apparently neither will health care workers in the nursing homes:
> 
> Ontario nursing homes poorly staffed, more likely to restrain residents: experts
> 
> But according to George Smitherman you should be able to last 8 hrs in your own stink anyways. :lmao:


Then fix the system. See how ugly it gets if you do away with it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sweet. "It's up to you" to prove mrjimmy's contention, but he bets "lots."


If you won't, your ideology will. If your ideology won't, your ego will.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Commercial art trying to pass itself off as legitimate art is insidious, and much more prevalent.


Tell that to Andy Warhol.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Their contributions are the stuff that is essential to the health of a society. A mirror to which we can gaze at ourselves.


Your contention, certainly. You may prefer there to be _more_ fine artists, but they do exist outside of the welfare sphere, you know. You're heading for that feeble point of argument that groovetube is treading--that only the few measly dollars handed out by the government--only the government, mind you--can make the difference between success and failure.



> I'm happy to spend my tax dollars on this pursuit. If some take advantage so be it. Some will always take advantage. But the needy will still receive, as you put it, their handout.


This is just the problem. YOU are happy to see your dollars taken and spent on what others see fit for you. You're even content to see people taking advantage of it to maintain the status quo. As you say "So be it." But you're not happy if anyone else doesn't agree they want to see their tax dollars squandered in this way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Tell that to Andy Warhol.


Dirty commercial artist. Even worse, he was both rich and famous. Anathema to the little man artist struggling on government grants. Poseur! Philistine!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Your own criteria. That interactive media company was doing fine on its own, you said. Had a sound business plan, worked hard and wanted to employ more people.


what are you babbling about now.

that company needed seed money to hire more people. Could they have done it on their own? Perhaps in a few more years. But they ended up hiring more people creating more jobs much more quickly. And it snowballed. More well paying jobs paying lots of tax, not to mention the tax revenues from the business.

And now you're babbling about the continuously massively funded tar sands. As if that has some relevance.

You aren't trying to compare the massive corporate welfare to a tiny fund for one of the most significant employment creators now are you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Tell that to Andy Warhol.


I wasn't aware Warhol worked in a cubicle at a car company churning out pamphlets.

Your venom for an artist becoming a huge commercial success is showing.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Apparently, Brillo boxes in a grocery store = commercial art. Brillo boxes on a museum shelf = fine art.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Your contention, certainly. You may prefer there to be _more_ fine artists, but they do exist outside of the welfare sphere, you know. You're heading for that feeble point of argument that groovetube is treading--that only the few measly dollars handed out by the government--only the government, mind you--can make the difference between success and failure.


Of course they do, I never said they didn't. I'm sure in some cases, the government was the difference between success and failure. In some cases, not. I'm happy to gamble my dollars for the risk. Oh and BTW, just in case you may be curious, I have never received a penny of government assistance for my personal artistic endeavours. I am not arguing for something that might be taken away from myself.



> This is just the problem. YOU are happy to see your dollars taken and spent on what others see fit for you. You're even content to see people taking advantage of it to maintain the status quo. As you say "So be it." But you're not happy if anyone else doesn't agree they want to see their tax dollars squandered in this way.


So your contention is to give nothing. What happens to the most vulnerable in your society MF?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: They're clearly confused at this point.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Apparently, Brillo boxes in a grocery store = commercial art. Brillo boxes on a museum shelf = fine art.


You do understand the ironic commentary he was making don't you?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I wasn't aware Warhol worked in a cubicle at a car company churning out pamphlets.


No but he did work in "The Factory."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Canada's three-tier medical system. Interesting article. It considers the U.S. system where rich patients get immediate care to be the third tier.

TheStar.com - Medicare takes a back seat


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jumbo: They're clearly confused at this point.


We're confused because you can't see the distinction.

Good one!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Dirty commercial artist. Even worse, he was both rich and famous. Anathema to the little man artist struggling on government grants. Poseur! Philistine!!


Fine artist _that became_ a commercial success. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It fact, if you can achieve it in your lifetime, bravo!

Keep trying.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Seems this thread has been devolving into a snipefest for a handful of posters quibbling over some mighty picayune talking points. Perhaps it's time to broaden the discussion from culture (and what is or isn't fine art and who has or lacks the credentials to speak of same) and move on to the OT of this thread.

Pretty please?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max, as one of the guilty parties I would agree. I felt that clarifying the definition of fine versus commercial art was important as those who worship at the altar of Harper seem to think grants to arts and arts organizations are meaningless and unnecessary as there are plenty o' good arts jobs laying out brochures or designing video game characters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How about those Libs? I think they're going to lose the election. With a Harper majority, Canada will be pretty much the same, except with fewer Liberals.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Yes, we could be in the strange position of having more NDP members than Liberals in the house!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Max, as one of the guilty parties I would agree. I felt that clarifying the definition of fine versus commercial art was important as those who worship at the altar of Harper seem to think grants to arts and arts organizations are meaningless and unnecessary as there are plenty o' good arts jobs laying out brochures or designing video game characters.


Mrjimmy, I am inclined to agree on much of what you say. But as a life-long creative soul I have discovered that, time and time again, to quote that hoary cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, some people's ideas about art are broader than others. There are are arguments featuring clearer-cut defining points; ones focussing on culture are rarely in that category. I can't make you like the stuff I like, period. I can only try to persuade you. Getting into funding what I like is another order of difficulty entirely. That's when the knives come out and the egos flail at one another. Entertaining for awhile but then it grows tiresome. This election is about bigger things.

So... the NDP's numbers are rising while the Liberals fall. Can't say as I'm thrilled by that prospect. Jack Layton strikes me as something of a grandstander.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect that will be the case, bgw. The Liberals have essentially tried to move themselves left of the NDP on bizarre proposals like the Green Shift so the NDP is fast becoming the safe, squishy centre.

It may take the Liberals years to clean up the mess left by Dion's disastrous turn as leader and to re-build the party's finances. I expect a leadership review for the Liberals a few months into the term of Canada's "New New Government." 

I also believe that the next few years will see a realignment between the Liberals, NDPs and Greens as to what, exactly, they offer.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> Mrjimmy, I am inclined to agree on much of what you say. But as a life-long creative soul I have discovered that, time and time again, to quote that hoary cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, some people's ideas about art are broader than others. There are are arguments featuring clearer-cut defining points; ones focussing on culture are rarely in that category. I can't make you like the stuff I like, period. I can only try to persuade you. Getting into funding what I like is another order of difficulty entirely. That's when the knives come out and the egos flail at one another. Entertaining for awhile but then it grows tiresome. This election is about bigger things.
> 
> So... the NDP's numbers are rising while the Liberals fall. Can't say as I'm thrilled by that prospect. Jack Layton strikes me as something of a grandstander.


I agree and I agree. Although arts and culture hold their own amidst the large issues. 

I for one would welcome a NDP kick at the can federally. I agree with your view on Layton but this Liberal/ Conservative is getting tiring. Let's see what direction the NDP will lean when given the chance.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

A Harper minority already means that the civil service and all government-appointed bodies are slowly being replaced with party hacks and right of centre hacks.

A Harper minority would not only speed this up, but lower the bar for every high level political appointment--especially federal judicial appointments across Canada.

Things will change quite a bit. It isn't just a few arts dollars that will disappear, as has already been seen, every women's group except the right to lifers will be cut off. You'd have to be self-hating to be female or creative and vote for the Conservatives.

Or believe that a Harper majority means only fewer Liberals.




Macfury said:


> How about those Libs? I think they're going to lose the election. With a Harper majority, Canada will be pretty much the same, except with fewer Liberals.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Dion is a intelligent man, he has a vision and has survived the rough and tumble of Canadian politics (most recent American Presidents wouldn't last 10 minutes here!). I respect him and some of his ideas. But he is the John Major of Canadian politics! The Liberals will have to try again, or Dion will have to show some real fire during the debates.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> There are are arguments featuring clearer-cut defining points; ones focussing on culture are rarely in that category. I can't make you like the stuff I like, period. I can only try to persuade you. Getting into funding what I like is another order of difficulty entirely.


I would like to see more government funding for clowns, who make the children laugh. The world would be a sadder place without government clowns. Less funding for mimes, who are a scourge, more likely to frighten than to enlighten or entertain. For funding purposes, I would like to see separate categories for clowns who choose to remain silent, but do not perform pantomimes as such, merely going about their business silently. I would like to see a special fund put aside for those interested in clowning, but who must become mimes because they are physically incapable of speaking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They must, of course, provide solid business plans to qualify.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> But as a life-long creative soul I have discovered that, time and time again, to quote that hoary cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, some people's ideas about art are broader than others. There are are arguments featuring clearer-cut defining points; ones focussing on culture are rarely in that category. I can't make you like the stuff I like, period. I can only try to persuade you. Getting into funding what I like is another order of difficulty entirely. That's when the knives come out and the egos flail at one another.


Good points all, Max.

I do in fact appreciate some types of art. I am a big fan of the clown paintings of Red Skelton.

I love native artist's turquoise and silver jewellry and some of the rock polishing I have seen is to die for.

Folk art is among my chief areas of interest, particularly wood carvings in caricature form of oddball people and creatures. Western bronze work is another favourite.

The one thing common to all of these is the people that create them set up small booths at arts and crafts shows and sell their wares to an adoring public. They are no burden on taxpayers to fund their efforts.

You can even find such offerings in thousands of campgrounds across North America as retired folks who now live in and travel with their RVs, supplement their fixed incomes.

My point being there is no bad art as someone somewhere will have an appreciation for it, but I draw the line at funding it.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions on my position regarding the arts in general.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would like to see more government funding for clowns, who make the children laugh. The world would be a sadder place without government clowns. Less funding for mimes, who are a scourge, more likely to frighten than to enlighten or entertain. For funding purposes, I would like to see separate categories for clowns who choose to remain silent, but do not perform pantomimes as such, merely going about their business silently. I would like to see a special fund put aside for those interested in clowning, but who must become mimes because they are physically incapable of speaking.


Well that quite succinctly sums up what you've been saying all along.


It would be interesting to watch if the ndp did surpass the liberals and formed the opposition. If they go for a coalition, prime minister Layton?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It would be interestingto see Layton form the opposition, because he would have to act on his principles rather than squawking about them from the fringes. It's always a trial by fire.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I think government should support the creation of a strong guild of avant garde photographers, without which there would be no true Confederation from Sea to Shining Sea and little understanding and appreciation of...each other...or something.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Max: I think government should support the creation of a strong guild of avant garde photographers, without which there would be no true Confederation from Sea to Shining Sea and little understanding and appreciation of...each other...or something.


Your posts are beginning to smack of being desperate for attention. Keep going though. Someone may be listening.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope Max listened to that one. And you I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Here's an article by someone addressing Harper's "hidden agenda." Granted, it's the view of just one man but I believe it's thoughtfully written:



> My point is simple: If we want to vote against Harper, we can find reasons by examining his policies. But don't vote against him because he is a mean-spirited man with a hidden agenda. That's false. He is just a private man who happens to be Prime Minister.


TheStar.com - Harper may be many things but he's not 'mean-spirited'


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> The one thing common to all of these is the people that create them set up small booths at arts and crafts shows and sell their wares to an adoring public. They are no burden on taxpayers to fund their efforts.


Not always true, SINC. I'm quite familiar with the area of crafts and craft shows and there are often big chunks of government money from various levels, both in Canada and on the US craft circuit, that help fund them. If you look at the brochure for most craft shows you will often see the line "thanks to the generous support of (insert name of federal, provincial, national government agency here)". 

Another way that taxpayer money goes into these shows, both large and small is they are often held at public facilities, community centres, schools, public art galleries, sports facilities, and conventions centres at reduced or no rent to the show organizers. Without that funding, many of these craft shows would not be held at all and the craftspeople who depend on these venues would be out of luck.

I'm quite familiar with Granville Island in Vancouver. The Island is a mecca for small artisans and artists as well as several theatres. CMHC, a federal crown corporation, originally developed and manages the island and subsidizes the rent of many of these studios and well as contributing to the funding of most of the art events and festivals there and most of the theatrical productions. Granville Island is the most popular tourist attraction in Vancouver and is rated as one of the most popular in North America. This is precisely because it is a unique place, rather than the demographically driven, lowest common denominator typical tourist trap.

That uniqueness comes, in part, through direct subsidy from the federal government. But sales there are also great. Many artisans, arts groups and theatre companies have done well there over the years and have paid lots of taxes. The tourism landscape and draw in Vancouver is enhanced by having a place like that.

There was a cynical move by a few business types a few years back, that convinced the CMHC management to allow a new area there where the traditionally big chain stores could set up, like you can find in every tourist shopping area around the world. When news of this idea came out the local citizenry in the area as well as the many of us in the arts and tourism industries rose up and went to City Hall to prevent them from getting the necessary zoning changes to do this. The idea went down in flames and prevented the corporate world from getting their claws into Granville Island and turning it into another big money, more-of-the-same, tourist trap. 

They won't even let Starbucks locate there, they had to buy up a lot, just off the entrance to the island to try and get a little piece of the business.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, I don't know what's up with you today. You shouldn't try so hard... it belittles you. You can prattle on about avante garde photographers and mime artists all you like, of course, but I personally don't find it very clever of you. Come on now, my good man - let's pull those socks up!

Sinc: Red's paintings are fine and I stand by his work. I find it much more accessible than a great many of my contemporaries whose work requires a jargon-laden pseudo-manifesto to explain it. _Bah._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF, I don't know what's up with you today. You shouldn't try so hard... it belittles you. You can prattle on about avante garde photographers and mime artists all you like, of course, but I personally don't find it very clever of you. Come on now, my good man - let's pull those socks up!


I was enjoying myself, but I eventually became bored. No good thing lasts forever I'm afraid. 



Max said:


> Red's paintings are fine and I stand by his work. I find it much more accessible than a great many of my contemporaries whose work requires a jargon-laden pseudo-manifesto to explain it. _Bah._


I went to a fine art show recently and read an explanation for some of the pieces that insisted that "love is the opposite of evolution" and this was reflected in the show. The premise was so badly written I had to hold in my laughter. It's a shame because the pieces were very nice abstracts that would have stood on their own without attempting to justify their meanings.

I think Red Skelton would have liked to pet this cat:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

That's better.

I'm sure we could compare notes on shows we've been to where artists tremulously declaimed on art and the world in their earnest, cryptic blatherings set on paper. I've read some doozys over the years.

Once, maybe close to twenty years ago now, I wrote a jokey treatise of my own for a friend of a friend, a young woman who had just returned from Paris armed with dozens of canvasses and works on paper. My supplemental statement for the show was riddled with all the contemporary semiotic neurotic sign and signifier jargon I could lard it with. It was deliberately over the top and poked fun at the whole pretentious, pompous art crowd that plagues Toronto. Some people got it; others simply looked at me strangely. I think it backfired. It was, nonetheless, awful fun to pen. I'd like to think it helped the painter for whom it was originally written, but I have to say it very likely did not. Come to think of it, I never did write for her again. Funny, that. I blame it on my friend who urged me to seize the moment. Certainly it couldn't have been my fault!

We could probably start a whole new thread on ridiculous pricing artists assign to their works; no relation to the market at all.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

How dare you mock that sad cat! It is social commentary at it's purest. Shameful.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The cat is sad because it has not eaten in weeks and there are pools of bile trapped in its eyes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I gave my siamese cat a bath not long ago and it looked at me just like that.

Right before it opened my arm in 3 places.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Harper offers arts tax credit to woo Que. voters*



> Harper offers arts tax credit to woo Que. voters
> Updated Mon. Sep. 29 2008 12:02 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News
> ...


Harper offers arts tax credit to woo Que. voters


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> I gave my siamese cat a bath not long ago and it looked at me just like that.
> 
> Right before it opened my arm in 3 places.


I'm going to be giggling all day now... 

Thx, groove...


----------



## troppo facile (Feb 22, 2008)

Does the $500 culture tax grant to parents include purchase
of new computer hardware or training ?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This is fun:

YouTube - The Harper government: here for a good time?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

The feeding frenzy is going to be wonderful... I'm going to sit back and watch.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> YouTube - The Harper government: here for a good time?


(Let's hope) Not a long time.

I'm doing my bit in Saanich Gulf-Islands.

Anyone but Harper - Vote for Climate


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> (Let's hope) Not a long time.
> 
> I'm doing my bit in Saanich Gulf-Islands.
> 
> Anyone but Harper - Vote for Climate


Good, because Mr. Lunn deserves to be unemployed after his stunts and mismanagement of the situation at CRNL. I could care less what party he happens to be with, he is just such a loser, playing his little games just so he can loot his ministry and operate his little political pork barrel projects while risking the lives of millions of citizens...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Blistered...



> CFIA inspectors interviewed by the Star and the CBC say *the agency's recent move toward self-regulation of meat safety has compromised public safety. They say policy changes imposed earlier this year have shifted the responsibility for inspection to profit-driven companies while inspectors are left to review paperwork.*
> 
> "We shouldn't be called inspectors any more. We should be called auditors," said one veteran CFIA inspector who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The amount of time my butt is glued to a chair has increased ..*. it's a travesty to the Canadian public that your grandmother could eat a sandwich and die.*"


HealthZone.ca - News & Features - Tests stun listeria experts

...damn deregulation happy NeoCon asses deserved to be turfed.....

Lettng Flaherty Harper and Clements loose on the national stage with food safety at stake is a recipe for disaster - exactly what too many paid for.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

The CBC just called it as another minority for The Reformers.

Whoopee!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"More of the same."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Champagne back in storage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sweet. That exercise will have emptied the Liberal coffers.. Time to dump Dion, too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Canadians strengthened the Conservatives and MD says store the champagne?

No way, I'm having a glass right now!

By the way MacDoc, how'd the Liberals do this time around?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> By the way MacDoc, how'd the Liberals do this time around?


Why else do you think he put the champagne back in storage??

Don't worry, though...after a night of bitter, salty tears, he'll be back tomorrow reporting on whatever the _Toronto Star_ says.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Canadians strengthened the Conservatives and MD says store the champagne?
> 
> No way, I'm having a glass right now!
> 
> By the way MacDoc, how'd the Liberals do this time around?


I would definitely say this is a champagne night. Harper has a much stronger mandate to govern than last time around. The Liberals got the worst percentage in recent history. 

It looks like a major rethink of the Liberal Party is needed. Obviously a left shift didn't serve them well this time around. I predict that Iggy or Manley will be the next leader to move them back to centre-right.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I would definitely say this is a champagne night. Harper has a much stronger mandate to govern than last time around. The Liberals got the worst percentage in recent history.
> 
> It looks like a major rethink of the Liberal Party is needed. Obviously a left shift didn't serve them well this time around. I predict that Iggy or Manley will be the next leader to move them back to centre-right.


Are we drinking the same water? This was a TERRIBLE outcome for the president Harper party; he wanted nothing less than absolute power in the form of a majority, not four more years of a minority (according to his own law). Now the parties must work together if they want to accomplish anything. Don't forget: Mr. Harper essentially called a non-confidence vote _on his own government_. He would have been better off waiting a year to get his majority, methinks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If Dear Leader Harpo could not defeat a Lame Duck Liberal party AGAIN to get their champagne reward..lap puppies should slink away in shame.
He had the chance - he blew it in Quebec with the social dinosaur crap that keeps leaking out of him.

I said straight up - none of the above - we have a dysfuntional Federal Gov that needs rethinking. You're the dyed blue Dear Leader can do no wrong ideologue - don't imput your blinkered views on others.

My ONLY satisfaction is Harpo and lap pupplies are denied their champagne breakfast as they do not represent the great majority of Canadians on many many issues.- I could are less which party did it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Are we drinking the same water? This was a TERRIBLE outcome for the president Harper party; he wanted nothing less than absolute power in the form of a majority, not four more years of a minority (according to his own law). Now the parties must work together if they want to accomplish anything. Don't forget: Mr. Harper essentially called a non-confidence vote _on his own government_. He would have been better off waiting a year to get his majority, methinks.


I never expected a majority. I predicted a few years ago that Canada would have a series of minority governments for at least a decade. The vote is relatively entrenched across the country and it takes a lot to shift it. 

The Conservative support base is probably around 30 to 33%. They scored between 5 and 8% higher than that (swing voters). The Liberal support base is in the same range, but they lost a big portion of it, which is extremely difficult to do. It's a major statement against their current policies and/or leader. This wasn't a protest vote like that against Martin. Martin scored 3% higher, which in theory should have been bottom.

The NDP only got a small percent more as did the Bloc. No big deal. 

The big winner is clearly the Conservatives. Not only did they take swing voters, they took a chunk of the Liberal base. Getting above 40% would require decimation of not only the Liberals, but the Bloc. Pretty unlikely now or in the near future.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I can't disagree more. Whether you have a big minority government or a small one, it's still a minority government. You can't accomplish anything without the cooperation of the other parties. It's all about compromise. The real winners in an election such as this are the opposition parties, as their power increases. I guess we won't see any evolution science books taken off the shelves for a while.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Vandave said:


> I never expected a majority. I predicted a few years ago that Canada would have a series of minority governments for at least a decade. The vote is relatively entrenched across the country and it takes a lot to shift it.
> 
> The Conservative support base is probably around 30 to 33%. They scored between 5 and 8% higher than that (swing voters). The Liberal support base is in the same range, but they lost a big portion of it, which is extremely difficult to do. It's a major statement against their current policies and/or leader. This wasn't a protest vote like that against Martin. Martin scored 3% higher, which in theory should have been bottom.
> 
> ...


Actually I disagree with your comment about "Getting above 40% would require decimation of not only the Liberals, but the Bloc." Had they made inroads only against the Bloc they could have and would have had their majority this time around.

Harper has no one to blame but himself for losing his majority, in not for the arts and young offenders issues he would have had the seats he needed in Quebec.

There is a good chance Duceppe will be gone for the next election and without his skill and savvy in Quebec it could be a different story next time. Obviously it is way too early to tell. As Dr. G. says, we shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I can't disagree more. Whether you have a big minority government or a small one, it's still a minority government. You can't accomplish anything without the cooperation of the other parties. It's all about compromise. The real winners in an election such as this are the opposition parties, as their power increases. I guess we won't see any evolution science books taken off the shelves for a while.


Harper can run this country with a majority for at least a year if he wanted. Nobody would dare vote a bill down. When is the last time the Liberals showed up to vote anyways?

I guarantee you that Harper will come out very strong for the next year to year and a half.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> If Dear Leader Harpo could not defeat a Lame Duck Liberal party AGAIN to get their champagne reward..lap puppies should slink away in shame.


Defeat them? They damn near destroyed them!! 



MacDoc said:


> My ONLY satisfaction is Harpo and lap pupplies are denied their champagne breakfast...


That's a pretty weak brew for you to celebrate on MaccyD--but if it's your only satisfaction, you may as well make the best of a bad deal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I can't disagree more. Whether you have a big minority government or a small one, it's still a minority government. You can't accomplish anything without the cooperation of the other parties. It's all about compromise. The real winners in an election such as this are the opposition parties, as their power increases. I guess we won't see any evolution science books taken off the shelves for a while.


It's also about timing and how the Government schedules it's Bills. For the next 12 month's the Conservatives will pretty much be able to act as though they have a majority as the Liberals are in no financial position to run another campaign and they will undoubtedly be electing a new leader.

You can expect the Conservatives to be very aggressive with the Bills that they put forward for the next year.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I don't think _any_ party can afford another election politically for the forseeable future, especially the Conservatives.I kind of like the checks-and-balances system myself. Greater accountability.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You're the dyed blue Dear Leader can do no wrong ideologue - don't imput your blinkered views on others.
> 
> My ONLY satisfaction is Harpo and lap pupplies are denied their champagne breakfast as they do not represent the great majority of Canadians on many many issues.- I could are less which party did it.


I think the word you seek is "your" and perhaps "input" as well, but that aside that's quite a statement from one who insists on inputting his view on the board more than any other with long rants and torrents and referrals to pets in the process. 

I will enjoy my champagne breakfast thanks, grateful for a big gain in seats for the Conservatives.

By the way, how did your Liberals fare tonight?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> If Dear Leader Harpo could not defeat a Lame Duck Liberal party AGAIN to get their champagne reward..lap puppies should slink away in shame.


exactly. That's a huge point that none of the cons can face. They will rail constantly how horrible a leader Dion is, but then their fav can't even get a slim majority against him!

It's no surprise the liberals did badly.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

so my question is:
How much did it cost us to provide Harper's Conservatives with an additional 10 or so seats? What a phenomenal waste of time and money. I don't care what party called this election, it is obscene at a time when we have no housing strategy, homeless people all over the place, and just generally lots more useful ways to spend the money.
I'm gagging on this...
michael


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I think the money spent is very worthwhile. It speeds up Dion's demise.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

mc3251 said:


> so my question is:
> How much did it cost us to provide Harper's Conservatives with an additional 10 or so seats? What a phenomenal waste of time and money. I don't care what party called this election, it is obscene at a time when we have no housing strategy, homeless people all over the place, and just generally lots more useful ways to spend the money.
> I'm gagging on this...
> michael


I figure it was roughly $25 million per seat. I'm sure they think it was a bargain, given that it was our money.

But it could've been worse. Thank $DEITY for Quebec.

I predict Harper will have a major change of heart with respect to federal funding for the Arts... Supporting Quebec Culture will become one of the defining characters of this Parliament.

As for the Liberals, one of two things is going to happen: they're either going to 'stay the course,' trying to become a party of integrity and ideas, in which case they'll be completely irrelevant in the next election, or they'll oust Dion, install a savvy politician as leader, return to their roots as the 'any-way-the-wind-blows' 'campaign as liberals, govern as crooked conservatives' party, and sweep to a majority next election. Sort of a Loose-Loose scenario from my POV. I don't expect I'll be voting Liberal again.

I'm disappointed but only slightly surprised at how well the Cons conned the electorate this time. But thankfully it's over, so I don't have to listen to the bastards lying to me every morning on the radio.

Cheers


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So it turns out that insulting Canadian artists, in Quebec, cost Stephen Harper a majority.

Hilarious.

As those artistic writers say, "poetic justice."

And back on topic, "Harper majority" is still an oxymoron.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

*We are all winners!! *

What a weird election!!
All but one are LOSERS!!! The only party that did not lose happens to be the only party that did not win a seat, the Greens.

Conservatives: LOSERS. strengthen mandate my arse! Of course they did not get what they wanted, but you can't really blame them for the awful timing, and they did get Canadians to say "we want you " and ashamed the liberals a little at it. But, they just ousted Dion for the next election, and that can only help the liberals.

Liberals: LOSERS. Wasted a great opportunity for them with Dion and the Green shift. A shame, because this forward thinking would make me proud to be Canadian. I guess it was all bad timing too. At least they will get rid of poor Dion for future election.

Bloc: well, not really losers.
Ndp: not really losers, but they had the opportunity to win bigger, didn't

Green: a little moral victory, despite not winning a thing.


WINNERS: The Canadians, a minority government is always a good thing.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I predict Harper will have a major change of heart with respect to federal funding for the Arts... Supporting Quebec Culture will become one of the defining characters of this Parliament.


They are all such whores, really. And this is a totally non partisan comment.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't see how anyone can think the election was a waste of money seeing it all goes back into our economy.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> I don't see how anyone can think the election was a waste of money seeing it all goes back into our economy.


Well, I don't even know how to respond without sounding snarky or sarcastic. By this logic, it's basically impossible for government to waste taxpayers money as long as it is spent in Canada. This is fundamentally absurd.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

We should have an election every month to help the economy!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

omg. con logic at it's finest


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think the cost of the election is a non-issue. Firstly, this was the longest minority government in recent history. Secondly, the election would not have been free one year from now. Thirdly, democracy is worth paying for. I think the Conservatives needed a new mandate for a number of reasons. The Liberals had a new leader, were not showing up for votes and were making motions to bring the government down in the Fall. 

The election served to provide the Conservatives with a clear mandate to govern.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think the cost of the election is a non-issue. Firstly, this was the longest minority government in recent history. Secondly, the election would not have been free one year from now. Thirdly, democracy is worth paying for. I think the Conservatives needed a new mandate for a number of reasons. The Liberals had a new leader, were not showing up for votes and were making motions to bring the government down in the Fall.
> 
> The election served to provide the Conservatives with a clear mandate to govern.


So you can predict that a party that "doesn't show up for votes" (name a vote they didn't show up for btw) will "bring down the government in the fall?"

Oh, and there will likely be an election in a year anyways, once the Liberals have a new leader.

Next!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Oh, and there will likely be an election in a year anyways, once the Liberals have a new leader.


Don't bet the farm on that happening. What party would support the Liberals in sending Canadians back to the polls in one year? That's ludicrous to even think about. But I hope they are stupid enough to try such a tactic. It would all but guarantee a Conservative majority.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Don't bet the farm on that happening. What party would support the Liberals in sending Canadians back to the polls in one year? That's ludicrous to even think about. But I hope they are stupid enough to try such a tactic. It would all but guarantee a Conservative majority.


Ah yes, those ol' majority predictions again.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> So you can predict that a party that "doesn't show up for votes" (name a vote they didn't show up for btw) will "bring down the government in the fall?"
> 
> Oh, and there will likely be an election in a year anyways, once the Liberals have a new leader.
> 
> Next!


The big one was the last budget. Pretty cowardly to speak so strongly against it but not have the guts to actually show up to vote.

Dion went around all summer hinting he was going to force an election. The purpose of not voting was to distance themselves from the Conservatives. That approach is completely expected and only makes political sense. You can't on one day support the budget and the next go to the electorate and claim the government was terrible. I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise.

The Liberals will not call an election a year from now. The party appears to be very divided and no longer has a clear agenda or policy platform. The green shift was soundly voted down. The Liberal party has played the polls for so long that the public no longer has a clear understanding of what they actually stand for. This very forum is a good example of that. Many here would claim the Liberals to be a left wing party, while others would claim their they are centre-right. In contrast, who here would argue that the Conservatives are right of centre and the NDP left of centre? None. The Liberals have sat on the fence and used public opinion to guide policy for too long that they have diluted themselves. It's time to rethink the entire party. Nominating a new leader isn't going to solve anything. They will just get handed another defeat. The next leader needs to spend time unifying the party, coming up with a platform and showing Canadians why the Liberal Party can be a valid choice once again. 

Don't underestimate this defeat. It is huge. The Liberals had their worst showing ever. They did worse than after AdScam. They lost a big chunk of their support base. Pushing for another election would be lunacy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> It would all but guarantee a Conservative majority.


That said, the Liberals might actually want such an outcome. It's tough to build opposition during a minority government. It's much easier to talk tough and put all the blame on the government when they have a majority. Short term pain, long term gain.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Ah yes, those ol' majority predictions again.


Ah yes, but in this case, only if the Liberals enable it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Harper will continue calling elections whenever he feels there is an opportunity to get a majority.

The Liberals will force an election whenever they feel there is an opportunity to change the party in power.

If it was ever any different, the sky would fall. It won't.




Vandave said:


> The big one was the last budget. Pretty cowardly to speak so strongly against it but not have the guts to actually show up to vote.
> 
> Dion went around all summer hinting he was going to force an election. The purpose of not voting was to distance themselves from the Conservatives. That approach is completely expected and only makes political sense. You can't on one day support the budget and the next go to the electorate and claim the government was terrible. I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"What would Canada look like with a Harper majority? 

As the polls are now favouring Harper and the Conservatives, my mind wanders to what Canada would look like after a four year term...."

mrjimmy, we are seeing the first signs of this possibility here today in NL. I have been assigned to "Re-education Camp #97", which was once Memorial University. All over the province of NL, which did not elect a single Conservative, there are such camps being set up. Public Schools are now under the Curriculum of the New New Government of Canada. The 3 R's are now "Reform, Religion and Retribution". 

Luckily, we are getting Radio Free Canada, an underground radio station being broadcast somewhere in the wilds of central Newfoundland and Labrador. This is where we are able to get the real news of the day. Our local paper had a change of management overnight, and the headlines read "Harper wins a majority". Under this headline was an article about how George Bush sent his well wishes to Harper, and that he had declared the upcoming election "null and void", saying that he was going to stay on as president "for the good of America". 

So, be forewarned the rest of you in Canada. Vote in at least one Conservative ........................... or else. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Luckily, we are getting Radio Free Canada, an underground radio station being broadcast somewhere in the wilds of central Newfoundland and Labrador.


Run by the former staff of CFUN, no doubt!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think there will be any "retribution". Danny Williams has been shown to be an overgrown child, and when the Electors in NL decide they want to have some real government run by actual adults - Danny Williams will be ex-Premier.

Harper has never pursued any "religious" policies - and it is silly to think that he would. We have had many Prime Ministers that were Roman Catholic - but we are not run by the Vatican; we have had Anglicans - we are not run by the Archbishop of Canterbury; we have had Baptists - we are not forced into dancing and singing Gospel tunes on Sundays. It's a big crock, and people should just give up such silly notions. If a person hates Harper - just say "I hate Harper". Don't make the phony excuses, just live with the hatred. Harper is not turning the nation into a xenophobic theocracy - just like no other Prime Minister has done such things. 

As for the Minority - it is great because it is EXACTLY what the people of this nation want. We have had too many Majorities that ram rod all kinds of spiteful legislation through Parliament, without allowing people to have a say, and without people realising the damage done to our society by all of the acts of class warfare that have happened over the years. With a Minority, we are getting just those things that we do need; without the programs of corruption that drink out of the public trough, devoid of the notions of apartheid and inequality, etc...

We need a Minority - this nation needs more time to heal itself, to recover from the years of hope and anger, the years of disappointments, the years of rip offs, the years of hatred and animosity...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> As for the Minority - it is great because it is EXACTLY what the people of this nation want


 Really? I'm not so sure.

IMO it is amazing that even given: 
1. Dion was successfully made to look ridiculous, and frankly seems pretty disconnected and academic, and
2. the Libs are still in devastated mode and can't figure out how to position themselves to recover to their former glory, and
3. the NDP and Greens just aren't going to be elected to govern, at least not at this point, 
Harper STILL can't manage to close the deal on a majority. I think many people don't like him and don't trust him. I forget which Globe columnist called him the "mean eyed guy with all the charm of a ball peen hammer". She also said Dionne was little more than a cartoon character, and was bemoaning the lack of real and viable political alternatives in the Canadian landscape.

I don't think that Harper would ever be able to create a far right "reformist" type society in Canada because Canadians are fundamentally far too tolerant to stand for it. Call me superficial, but I just don't like the way he looks, I don't like his energy, and I don't trust the people he hangs around with.
michael


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I think it's human nature to be sucked in by "charisma". 

Having charisma does not make one a good leader. Look what happened in Toronto. Folks got sucked in by Miller who in my mind is the worst mayor this city has ever had. He looks good and ran a great campaign. Electing him was a mistake.

I've read many times that Harper "looks" cold or they don't like his eyes. Likewise there were derogatory remarks against the other party leaders. I don't vote for someone who can pour on the tears on cue. I don't care what a person wears or how their hair is coifed.

I listen to what a candidate has to say. I weigh that against what I'd like to see the government do. I don't even mind if they change their mind part way through a campaign. Being able to lead means being able to listen to others and change direction if the situation warrants it. A good leader is fluid.

Dion really turned me off. He was intractable. The man was determined to go forward with the Green Shift no matter what. Now is not the time. Even economists that were all for the idea admit with the global economic turmoil happening right now it would be economic suicide to go forward with the plan at the moment. We live in a global world now and we have to realize Canada is not a separate entity anymore.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Here is an interesting article on Harper's future from the Globe....

globeandmail.com: The forecast: Dion out by year's end, Harper before the next vote


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Scary read, mc: Justin Trudeau and Bob Rae vs. Whoever?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Scary read, mc: Justin Trudeau and Bob Rae vs. Whoever?


 LOL MF....I thought it was an interesting and balanced analysis though.
michael


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the article is correct that the current crop of personalities have been spent. I also believe that Ignatieff's time to shine has already come and gone. To replace Harper? I have no clue. Any time a replacement is suggested, it's someone who seems to have an appeal in one region or another, but rarely on a national level.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

next we'll hear Ignatieff crossed the floor, and will go for the conservative leadership.


----------

