# Are you for or against the Coalition?



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

*.*

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm for it. 

Consider that any party in the coalition is not going to get far with aspects of their agenda that do not coincide with the agendas of the other members of the coalition. So what you're left with is the overlap between the NDP and the Liberal agendas that is tolerable to the Bloc.

What that represents is an economic policy that is acceptable to about 2/3 of Canadians, and essentially no social policy changes at all.

What more could you ask for?

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> What that represents is an economic policy that is acceptable to about 2/3 of Canadians, and essentially no social policy changes at all.
> 
> What more could you ask for?
> 
> Cheers


You could ask for a more honest statement. For example the fact that 74% of Canadians rejected Dion and his party in the last election and now you think that over 90% of them have miraculously changed their minds somehow and want him to be the PM? 

Dream on.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

I'm against for the simple fact that no one voted for a coalition. Every vote was for their individual party to win because they believed in the parties principles and leader. Not one person voted for a coalition.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I voted for my member of Parliament. I support the Parliamentary process of majority government more than my own partisan feelings regardless of who I voted for this time.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Against it, for one main reason.

I'm scared to death that a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition will try to spend us out of a recession and that is not the answer to the problem.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

rhrechka said:


> I'm against for the simple fact that no one voted for a coalition. Every vote was for their individual party to win because they believed in the parties principles and leader. Not one person voted for a coalition.


Good Lord. The whole point of a coalition is that you don't vote for it. It's an emergency step that can be taken when the opposition parties no longer have confidence in a minority government. By your way of reasoning, a coalition government could never exist since it wouldn't be voted in.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

Ya, the "coalition" is an epic fail...

There whole "strategy" seems half baked... Part of what makes minority governments work is compromise...

The Conservatives put forth their proposal, the opposition said parts of it were unacceptable (cutting out their funding and changing the labour laws for government workers), so the Conservatives took that out, and then the "coalition" said they were bringing down the government anyways? during the worst financial crisis we've seen in a long time... idiots..


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

What coalition? :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Ya, the "coalition" is an epic fail...
> 
> There whole "strategy" seems half baked... Part of what makes minority governments work is compromise...
> 
> The Conservatives put forth their proposal, the opposition said parts of it were unacceptable (cutting out their funding and changing the labour laws for government workers), so the Conservatives took that out, and then the "coalition" said they were bringing down the government anyways? during the worst financial crisis we've seen in a long time... idiots..


Are you sure you're calling the right party idiots? How about the idiots who put in those controversial measures in the first place?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Are you sure you're calling the right party idiots? How about the idiots who put in those controversial measures in the first place?


well that's a good point, Harper should have known better...it seems being childish is a common trait among all members on the hill these days

The market doesn't seem to like it either...in fact today as soon as they announced they were postponing Parliament the dollar went up (slightly)...

An unstable government is one of the last things this country needs right now...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Against it, for one main reason.
> 
> I'm scared to death that a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition will try to spend us out of a recession and that is not the answer to the problem.


I see - I guess you know more than Bill Gross??
and the G20.....such hubris.. 

PIMCO - Investment Outlook - July 2008 "Dear President Obama:"

CHINAwatch: Can the world's stimulus packages and the G20 countries revive the global economy any time soon?

Considering that Paul Martin will head the economic team there is simply no one in Canada and no one better respected internationally to craft a stimulus program without over reacting.

Given that Harper has grown government despite good times - and Flaherty has a history of mismanagment you sure got your fears in the wrong place.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Good Lord. The whole point of a coalition is that you don't vote for it. It's an emergency step that can be taken when the opposition parties no longer have confidence in a minority government. By your way of reasoning, a coalition government could never exist since it wouldn't be voted in.


Good Lord yourself....there was no emergency...if they didn't have confidence then they should have voted down the government and put us back at the polls. and they can form their Coalition government at the polls and Canadians can decide.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Considering that Paul Martin will head the economic team there is simply no one in Canada and no one better respected internationally to craft a stimulus program without over reacting.


There will be no "economic team." You were dreaming. Now go back to bed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc, the battle is over. The coalition lasted three days. It's done. Try again next year. 

In the meantime, the Liberal party has dug itself an even deeper hole. If you want to get out of the hole, then its probably time to re-establish the Liberal brand. Dion has confused the brand even more than anybody could have believed possible. The Liberals have gone from Adscam to the the green-shaft to a socialist-separatist agenda. Next stop? Who knows... Not 24 Sussex. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I see - I guess you know more than Bill Gross??
> and the G20.....


'Parently. And more than you, too...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> MacDoc, the battle is over. The coalition lasted three days. It's done. Try again next year.
> 
> In the meantime, the Liberal party has dug itself an even deeper hole. If you want to get out of the hole, then its probably time to re-establish the Liberal brand. Dion has confused the brand even more than anybody could have believed possible. The Liberals have gone from Adscam to the the green-shaft to a socialist-separatist agenda. Next stop? Who knows... Not 24 Sussex. :lmao:


Rebranding, huh? Why do you suppose it was OK to unite-the-right through blatant political manipulation but it's not OK to unite-the-left using a perfectly legal and legitimate tool such as a coalition government? One could also accuse the PC party of siding with "separatists" when they joined forces with the Reform-Alliance party which had its roots in western separatism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A stay of execution is hardly reason to sniff champagne corks.  ...you've certainly turned out as suspected.

•••



> *Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts*
> Updated Thu. Dec. 4 2008 5:59 PM ET
> 
> By Jim Brown, The Canadian Press
> ...


CTV.ca | Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts

sounds familiar - some similar yapping from the lap puppies here.


----------



## corey111 (Jul 9, 2007)

Other:

I support both the NDP and Liberals, however the reason this is all happening is because the Conservatives didn't want to do a Auto/Forestry Bailout. 
The auto companies should fail, they screwed up, and some new more eco friendly car companies now have a chance to rise and become big names in the auto industry.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

corey111 said:


> Other:
> 
> I support both the NDP and Liberals, however the reason this is all happening is because the Conservatives didn't want to do a Auto/Forestry Bailout.
> The auto companies should fail, they screwed up, and some new more eco friendly car companies now have a chance to rise and become big names in the auto industry.


I agree, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, Hyundai...etc...
Are better equipped to make economical cars than the big three.

Let the big three eat crow.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

Macfury said:


> There will be no "economic team." You were dreaming. Now go back to bed.


That's a good point, they were talking to one of the members of the "team" on the radio the other day, and he had no idea what his role would be, responsibilities, etc... at this point it sounds half baked...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

corey111 said:


> Other:
> 
> I support both the NDP and Liberals, however the reason this is all happening is because the Conservatives didn't want to do a Auto/Forestry Bailout.
> The auto companies should fail, they screwed up, and some new more eco friendly car companies now have a chance to rise and become big names in the auto industry.


I generally agree, the big three have been mismanaged for years and they should pay the penalty for that...

At the same time, now is probably not the right time for that to happen, and not all at once...the affect it would have the economy NOW would be pretty devastating, the government IMO has no choice but give them SOME assistance (which I think is going to be in the Conservative budget)...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Rebranding, huh? Why do you suppose it was OK to unite-the-right through blatant political manipulation but it's not OK to unite-the-left using a perfectly legal and legitimate tool such as a coalition government? One could also accuse the PC party of siding with "separatists" when they joined forces with the Reform-Alliance party which had its roots in western separatism.


We weren't in a global economic meltdown when that happened however...

As well, the Conservatives in this country really aren't that right wing and the Liberals in this country aren't that left wing, they are both pretty centre/middle parties...

The Liberals teaming up with the NDP (super left wing) and the bloc (I don't know if separatists are on the scale) really changes their positioning...and contradicts a lot of things they stand for...

Although the most insulting thing IMO to come out of this is the Green party leader saying she'll support the coalition (what ever that's worth) in return for a seat in the senate...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I generally agree, the big three have been mismanaged for years and they should pay the penalty for that...
> 
> At the same time, now is probably not the right time for that to happen, and not all at once...the affect it would have the economy NOW would be pretty devastating, the government IMO has no choice but give them SOME assistance (which I think is going to be in the Conservative budget)...


The point here is that we need to see what the U.S. will do before Canada can offer assistance. If the support for the U.S. head offices doesn't materialize, Canada can't prop up this end alone. The Democrats are now ragging Obama for saying nothing concrete about how he wants to engage the automakers, and Canada can't take any cues until he does.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The point here is that we need to see what the U.S. will do before Canada can offer assistance. If the support for the U.S. head offices doesn't materialize, Canada can't prop up this end alone. The Democrats are now ragging Obama for saying nothing concrete about how he wants to engage the automakers, and Canada can't take any cues until he does.


I agree completely... If the US decides not to do anything, anything Canada can do is somewhat trivial (in the scheme of things)...

My point was more to address those who feel that we should let market forces take their natural course...normally yes, now no..


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...ohn-ivison-dark-days-get-darker-for-dion.aspx

Doesn't sound good...


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

The coalition's motives were entirely suspect - if this was all about saving Canadians from the great meltdown, why on earth did they not wait until the budget was released? Could they not wait a couple of months? 

I'd also like to point out that living in Calgary, we were aware that eastern Canadians always found Harper unpalatable, but the depth of hatred directed towards the guy that is now coming to the surface is truly shocking, he is the devil incarnate, etc. I fear that were pro and anti coalition rallies held in the same vicinity violence would erupt.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

chasMac said:


> The coalition's motives were entirely suspect - if this was all about saving Canadians from the great meltdown, why on earth did they not wait until the budget was released? Could they not wait a couple of months? .


Harper has mishandled the whole thing terribly, and there is no shortage of journalists and others who see this. He has displayed a shocking lack of judgment and what looks to many as cynicism in attempting to push his own political agenda through on the back of an economic crisis.

But the coalition is amateur hour, for God's sake. No one in that gang is capable of being prime minister, or at least no one who has seats outside of Quebec.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...ohn-ivison-dark-days-get-darker-for-dion.aspx
> 
> Doesn't sound good...





> Page Not Found
> 
> Unfortunately, the page you've requested no longer exists. Please use the search form below to locate the information you're interested in.


That's a shame, I wanted to read that,
Did you make a copy of the posting?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

mc3251 said:


> Harper has mishandled the whole thing terribly, and there is no shortage of journalists and others who see this. He has displayed a shocking lack of judgment and what looks to many as cynicism in attempting to push his own political agenda through on the back of an economic crisis.
> 
> But the coalition is amateur hour, for God's sake. No one in that gang is capable of being prime minister, or at least no one who has seats outside of Quebec.


But Dion could have gone down in history when he relinquished the title in May,
As being the Prime Minister with the shortest term ever.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 24, 2007)

dolawren said:


> That's a shame, I wanted to read that,
> Did you make a copy of the posting?


John Ivison: Dark days get darker for unloved Dion - Full Comment

Hmm, try it now...maybe I copied it wrong or something..


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> A stay of execution is hardly reason to sniff champagne corks.  ...you've certainly turned out as suspected.


If 'as expected' means correct on all counts, then I indeed agree with you. :lmao: 

I said Harper would be PM next week. I said the coalition would fail. I said the public would be strongly against it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> But Dion could have gone down in history when he relinquished the title in May,
> As being the Prime Minister with the shortest term ever.


Prime Miniter Tupper would still have won that race.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Opposed, but not to the idea of a Coalition - but that these turkeys couldn't get their act together in the days after the Election.

If they wanted to have a Coalition, they should have campaigned on that premise during the Election, so that people could cast their votes appropriately.

At the bare minimum, if they wanted to have a Coalition, they should have played that card prior to the swearing in of the Government, rather than engaging in useless shenanigans.

If they have a beef with the Government - then they should put it out on the table for all to see. This mumbo-jumbo about "Economic Salvation" is just utter garbage, since nothing at all can be done until Obama and Congress are sworn in and can get down to the job at hand. Otherwise, we will just be tossing our money into stupid white elephant ventures.

Looking at the whole picture, seeing that Mr. Dion is incapable of releasing a video to the Press (curiously, thousands of losers running Windoze can do just that with the greatest of ease onto YouTube everyday!), and that not even the Boeing factory in Washington State can house Mr. Layton's massively dynamic ego - we are better off following Dolt McGuilty's plan of marching into doom in Ontario...

So I am not opposed to the essence of a Coalition, just the curiously bad ways and means that were taken to do such a thing. And I am still convinced that it is a Bob Rae thing, and that Ignatieff really scored the points pushing both losers (Rae and Dion) off the cliff - while not disrupting anything of benefit between himself and the potential of future deals with any of the Parties.


----------



## pollux (May 1, 2000)

I am both for and against the coalition

As I said earlier. Coalition is okay to me as long as it was being mentioned during the election campaign *AND* no seperatist (in any form, be it from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Altanic, etc etc) involved.

With what the Lib/NDP/Bloc have done......I am totally against. Two losers with a seperatist...NO freaking way!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Rebranding, huh? Why do you suppose it was OK to unite-the-right through blatant political manipulation but it's not OK to unite-the-left using a perfectly legal and legitimate tool such as a coalition government? One could also accuse the PC party of siding with "separatists" when they joined forces with the Reform-Alliance party which had its roots in western separatism.


Except that the "Unite the Right" was intended to bring back the dissidents of the Conservative Party and the fractions of the Social Credit movement that had formed the Reform Party - back into the Conservative Party itself.

This stunt was nothing more than a power play, since the NDP is a completely different beast, not derived from the Liberal Party at all. I would think that a "Unite the Left" movement would be an attempt to bring the Green Party into the NDP - since much of the Green Party consists of traditional sources of support for the NDP - youth, the socially minded, and the environmental movement. One could also heap in a merger that includes the Marxist-Leninists, the Communists, and the Libertarians - all representative of the elements of the Left.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Prime Miniter Tupper would still have won that race.


However, Tupper had a real political career, running things in Nova Scotia - having grappled with the likes of Joe Howe, Edward Blake, Alexander MacKenzie - and was a drinking buddy of MacDonald; while Dion had to grapple with accepting a free seat in the Cabinet before running in a byelection in a safe riding - and got to grapple with mental midgets and political dust mites like Belinda Stronach and Gary Lunn - and was allowed to drink the little bar fridge bottles alone in his motel room during his incompetent election campaign...

One month of Tupper was worth thirty years of Dion...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> ...and the Libertarians - all representative of the elements of the Left.


I will point out that there are Libertarians in both spheres. They all want the same freedoms, but each group thinks it will all wind up differently.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

pollux said:


> With what the Lib/NDP/Bloc have done......I am totally against. Two losers with a seperatist...NO freaking way!


I think most Canadians view it that way - except that they are not just losers - but SuperLosers. Could be a new cartoon on TV Funhouse, like the XPresidents and the Ambiguously Gay Duo were...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Prime Miniter Tupper would still have won that race.


Ahh, but Tupper was Prime Miniter, not Prime Minister. There IS a difference. On second thought, maybe that's what Dion is running for.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> One could also heap in a merger that includes the Marxist-Leninists, the Communists, and the Libertarians - all representative of the elements of the Left.


I don't think Libertarians are actually left wing, are they?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some of them are on the left, because they are only "social libertarians" and they don't mind an iron-fisted government doling out cash in even-handed doses. For others, they see libertarianism as leading to a "true communism" by consensus in which no government is required, because everyone agrees that "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" is the natural order of things.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

mc3251 said:


> I don't think Libertarians are actually left wing, are they?


Ghandi was a classic left-wing libertarian. As am I. 

Government should be kept as small as possible, not get involved in people's private lives, and function both to protect citizens and the environment from powerful amoral entities (such as corporations, churches and other groups), and to provide necessary infrastructure (roads, power, etc.) and social (education, healthcare, etc.) support.

Other things being equal, less government is always better, but it is rare that other things are equal.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Ghandi was a classic left-wing libertarian. As am I.


I hate the be the spelling monitor, but...

It's *Gandhi*. The 'h' comes after the d, not after the G.

Sorry--it's a error that crops up again and again on this forum.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For the record from CBC News:



> *On Thursday, a public opinion survey suggested that the Conservatives had won the initial public relations battle surrounding the impasse.
> 
> An EKOS poll for the CBC, conducted over two days this past week, found that 44 per cent of respondents would support the Conservatives "if an election were held tomorrow." That's up from the 37.6 per cent support the Tories received in the federal election held in mid-October.*


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Ghandi was a classic left-wing libertarian. As am I.
> 
> Government should be kept as small as possible, not get involved in people's private lives, and function both to protect citizens and the environment from powerful amoral entities (such as corporations, churches and other groups), and to provide necessary infrastructure (roads, power, etc.) and social (education, healthcare, etc.) support.
> 
> ...


So, bryanc, how do you reconcile your views with the current crop of political parties? Do you find any of them come even remotely close?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I find bryanc's view of libertarianism troublesome in that it doesn't recognize the right of the individul to keep the fruits of his/her labour. Once that's gone, the other freedoms fall quickly.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

Qualifier:
Opinions are like A-holes ......... everyone has one!

Maybe we should have an election?

Oh! Wait a minute we just had one. We elected a minority government, that either through arrogance, or stupidity, made the choice not to behave like one. As a Canadian I want neither an arrogant, or stupid, government, so I welcome a change, in whatever form it may take, because the downside is:

You guessed it ........................

another election!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I predict two things will happen when Parliament reconvenes if Dion hasn't been hung out to dry:

1. Dion and his devil's coalition will defeat the government

and 

2. The GG will grant Harper an election and the Conservatives will win a solid majority.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> I predict two things will happen when Parliament reconvenes if Dion hasn't been hung out to dry:
> 
> 1. Dion and his devil's coalition will defeat the government
> 
> ...


Hapless, misguided, inappropriate, sure...but "the devil's coalition"?!!

holy hyperbola Sinc!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> Hapless, misguided, inappropriate, sure...but "the devil's coalition"?!!
> 
> holy hyperbola Sinc!


The devil's in the details.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Nice


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Reveeen said:


> We elected a minority government, that either through arrogance, or stupidity, made the choice not to behave like one.


We also have an Opposition that decided not to coordinate efforts with the Minority, and instead of pulling the pin and putting forth a Motion of Non-Confidence, they chose to attempt a Putsch. I think Harper was right - in this time of belt tightening and record setting unemployment and job losses, it is high time to disconnect the Party Apparatus from the public trough. The Opposition, instead of opposing this measure and entering negotiations and seeking amendments, ended up just being painted as greedy influence peddlers who were prepared to mount a Putsch in order to preserve their largess.



> As a Canadian I want neither an arrogant, or stupid, government, so I welcome a change, in whatever form it may take...


Using those definitions, that means that you reject every government elected over the past hundred years or more - since "smart" died along with the brilliant Thompson.

We have a hallowed tradition of electing stupid government, which is exacerbated by a system that encourages stupid moves. And arrogance - Harper is nothing, a big zero in this department, when compared to Trudeau - and Trudeau was mamby-pamby minor league material in this department when compared to the colossal arrogance of St. Laurent and his minion C.D. Howe.

The cards were played poorly by the Coalition - and I still think that this whole stunt was put into play as a method by which Ignatieff (who continues to be ambivalent about this scheme) can shove both Dion and Rae off the political cliff...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I still think that this whole stunt was put into play as a method by which Ignatieff (who continues to be ambivalent about this scheme) can shove both Dion and Rae off the political cliff...


I think that you give them way too much credit for hatching conspiracies. To me it looks like an ill planned, knee jerk reaction to abominable behaviour on the PMs part.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> I think that you give them way too much credit for hatching conspiracies. To me it looks like an ill planned, knee jerk reaction to abominable behaviour on the PMs part.


That then begs the question, what about the tapes catching Layton and the NDP plotting the coalition some two months before the election?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> I don't think Libertarians are actually left wing, are they?


The Libertarian Party in Canada is generally left wing.

The size of Government means little in defining these things, since historically, the "Old School" Liberals (who were derived from the Reformers) were all about laissez-faire government that believed in the bare minimum of regulations, not being involved in business or the economy, and believed in scaling back government. The Tories, on the other hand, looked towards government involvement in pretty much anything, because they believed that the government should be composed of the aristocracy, business, and whatever, and were big on having laws and regulations.

It was only the "New School" Liberals of Laurier that overturned the traditional Grit beliefs, beliefs that were turned Populist by King, and that only became Paternalistic under St. Laurent.

How times changed - and those that had supported the Grits a hundred years ago would more identify with the current Conservative Party policies of relaxed regulation and smaller government, while the Tories of that time would now more identify with the current Liberal Party policies of more laws and regulations and bigger, more intrusive government.

The political spectrum goes full circle, and the Anarcho-libertarians of the extreme far left would have much in common with the extreme Nationalist-reactionaries of the far right.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> That then begs the question, what about the tapes catching Layton and the NDP plotting the coalition some two months before the election?


I'm not sure that contingency planning constitutes an Iggy conspiracy. Creating a coalition to overcome a minority government is legitimate-it's hardly "plotting". 

I think that it's very telling that Harper can't land a majority....there are a LOT of Canadians who just don't trust the man. Or like him. Which is pretty much the same thing, perhaps.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> I think that it's very telling that Harper can't land a majority....there are a LOT of Canadians who just don't trust the man. Or like him. Which is pretty much the same thing, perhaps.


You'll get no argument from me on that point. I don't like him either.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I was SO hoping for an argument. Ah well, another day perhaps.
beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

That's why it was a slick conspiracy - because the conspirators were never caught.

I do not see even one shred of evidence that the PM was misbehaved. He tabled his Government's plans, and instead of debating it in the House, or just rejecting the Bill outright (since the Opposition does have enough votes for that) - someone concocted this retarded plan that worked to out Rae, to make Dion look like a chump, and to shove all of these people off the cliff.

Look at the events. Rae was being tight lipped on his leadership race, until some unknown force pushed him into tossing his name into the hat - a move that even Rae expressed regrets about. And why was this? Because Rae is a big, juicy target? Sure, but even more, Rae knew that he was the ringleader of this scheme, and that the only chance he had of taking over the Party was to curry all of the support of Dion. So he promised Dion a picture on the wall of Parliament - in exchange for this plan.

So you have Ignatieff, who really stayed away from this whole plot like the plague. He didn't denounce it, he just stayed away from it. And then the whole sequence of events - that Ignatieff and his supporters within the Caucus were such a time bomb that Dion and Company had to cut a major deal with the Bloc. Then Dion had to get chummy-chummy with Layton.

Then this scheme goes down in flames because Harper derailed it, but derailed it knowing full well that Ignatieff was weakly opposed to this scheme because it would take the Liberals to far away from the fundamental policies of the Liberal Party. Also, Dion does not have much support from within the Party, and I would doubt that even 10% of the Caucus actually supports him for various reasons. And I think that a great number of the Party Causus is also opposed to an outsider like Rae shows that they worry about the Liberals being destroyed in Ontario.

All of this, plus a bungled videotaped speech by Dion, which makes him look even more bumbling. And really, if a video was ruined in the 70's, people would understand completely - but in the age of YouTube, when millions of people make videos everyday using inexpensive consumer grade equipment?

Dion has been the subject of an undercurrent, from airplanes that have engines that have mysteriously failed, to campaign buses that have mysteriously failed, to a Putsch that went down in flames, to a videotape disaster.

You know, it would be far too easy to ignore all of these things and just say that Harper made a big bungle. Conspiracies are far too complex, far to crazy to actually exist. But if Harper bungled - he ended up with at least 57% of the population opposed to the Coalition, and 57% opposed to Dion, and a prorogued Government that was already close to Christmas Break (so paid days off for the MPs!). And not only that, even the CBC is asking for Dion's head - and that's saying something because no one has had so much tossed salad as the CBC has had for Dion.

And who is to benefit from all of this? Harper that may be PM for 8 more weeks before Non-Confidence drags us into a February Election? Or the MP's who opposed belt-tightening? Or the MP's who prayed the mantra of "Economic Salvation"? Or Mr. Layton who showed that he would tango with the Separatists for a cheap seat in Cabinet?

Or is it Mr. Ignatieff: who maintains his relationship with the Conservatives, who was not made to look foolish by the failure of the Putsch of the Coalition, who did not become chummy-chummy and does not bend over for the Separatists, who would benefit with a fat Cabinet post if the Putsch worked (but who could say he was against the Putsch if it failed), and who made Dion look like a loser, while sideswiping and outing Rae.

So I can see your point because it is the easy way of thinking - but this whole fiasco is just too much of a political plum for Ignatieff - who managed to pull this whole scheme off without anyone calling him out, and without being sullied in the public eye. It is he who can claim to have represented the right way of Liberal thinking, he who demonstrated his own patience, to work within the system - rather than some crank who is all too willing to attempt a Putsch over the most flimsy of Parliamentary items.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> I'm not sure that contingency planning constitutes an Iggy conspiracy. Creating a coalition to overcome a minority government is legitimate-it's hardly "plotting".
> 
> I think that it's very telling that Harper can't land a majority....there are a LOT of Canadians who just don't trust the man. Or like him. Which is pretty much the same thing, perhaps.


Just like burning down the Reichstag was an "accident".

Dion was a dark horse candidate with a rather sordid political past, and a curious path to the leadership. He is not liked from within the party, but managed to squeak between the two power centers that existed, that of Ignatieff and that of Kennedy, and a series of smaller splinter groups that supported Dion because they remain afraid of Ignatieff and Kennedy. 

From the moment he got in, the knives were out for Dion. Any relationship between Ignatieff and Dion was nothing more than a handshake in front of the cameras. All it took was for Dion to lose 29 seats in an Election against Harper - a man that so many Canadians view as having ulterior motives, and some even view as harbouring some kind of plot to turn Canada into a fundamentalist theocratic Papal State.

So sure, there is a slim chance that all of this happened randomly - but I would put money on a rather grandious scheme that was well executed - since the failure of the Putsch shoved both Dion (who is now even a lamer duck than before), and Rae (who Liberals can not accept as being a Liberal because he was entirely NDP, and entirely derailed any chance of the NDP in Ontario ever forming a Government until the X Generation is all dead and buried, perhaps as long as it takes to convert Hell from fire and brimstone into a Bose-Einstein Condensate).

If it was random - then it is the most astounding set of circumstances; and if it was a conspiracy - then it will stand as the most brilliant conspiracy ever. Ignatieff learned much from the utter failure of Brutus, Cassius and Metellus Cimber - something Dion, Layton and Duceppe never learned.

if fact, if this Conspiracy had been even more slick - one would have to think it was planned by a Bulgarian thinktank group at the the Kremlin.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> So, bryanc, how do you reconcile your views with the current crop of political parties? Do you find any of them come even remotely close?


Not really. The Greens are closest to my views. But one of the reasons I like the idea of a coalition, is because none of the members of the coalition can push aspects of their agenda that conflict with the agendas of the other members.

So with a coalition of the Bloc, NDP and Liberals, we'd get a government that promotes only the features common to all three. So no separatism, no wild-eyed socalism, no green-shift... just the common sense stuff they all have in common.

I'd be okay with a coalition of the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals, or any three of the parties, for the same reason. They'd serve to mitigate each other's stupid ideologies, and get on with the business of doing the obviously necessary work of government.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I find bryanc's view of libertarianism troublesome in that it doesn't recognize the right of the individul to keep the fruits of his/her labour. Once that's gone, the other freedoms fall quickly.


All rights are inherently connected to responsibilities. Our rights to personal security and the accumulation of wealth are contingent on the personal security and basic needs of our fellow citizens. Any society that does not provide the basic needs for its members will collapse into a Hobbsian anarchy, because any individual will break laws and even kill in order to survive themselves (or provide survival needs for their children).

So I'm all over the right to keep the fruits of you labour, but I understand that this right is dependent on providing the basics for others, wether they've earned them or not.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You'll get an argument from me. I think poll results show that a lot of Canadians have grown relatively comfortable with Harper. Occupying the centre to kick the Liberals out of the centre will be a losing strategy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So I'm all over the right to keep the fruits of you labour, but I understand that this right is dependent on providing the basics for others, wether they've earned them or not.


This is your philosophy, but not a fact.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Apparently many agree with Harper's turncoat and runaway economic stimulus plans, blow another 300 plus million dollars on an election with, the hope of arriving at parliament with a majority.

A majority Parliament exists today, well it existed, with the Coalition until Runaway Steve, ran away from a confidence vote, he porogued Parliament. 

The session ended, Runway Steve can say "no one's against me, never happened, I deny it all."

He can blow another 300 plus million dollars on an undirected stimulus package called an election. Not have any improvements with infrastructure or critical sectors of the economy. Do nothing concrete at all.

He can wait then call an election with the hope of a majority in Parliament next time. 

Or we could have had a sure bet on a stable Majority Government, for 18 months, in the Parliament with the Coalition Government deal. Economic issues could be addressed now, but nooooo.  

Now we have a crisis until February, at the very least, minority Parliaments for the foreseeable future and by some accounts Runaway Steve as the most responsible leader.

Yes Runaway Steve is the leader most responsible for this mess . He is still Prime Minister.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> All rights are inherently connected to responsibilities. Our rights to personal security and the accumulation of wealth are contingent on the personal security and basic needs of our fellow citizens. Any society that does not provide the basic needs for its members will collapse into a Hobbsian anarchy, because any individual will break laws and even kill in order to survive themselves (or provide survival needs for their children).
> 
> So I'm all over the right to keep the fruits of you labour, but I understand that this right is dependent on providing the basics for others, wether they've earned them or not.
> 
> Cheers


I agree with bryanc's views on this matter. 

You can have the government organise an orderly re-distribution of wealth or you can have an adhock re-distribution of wealth as seen on the TV show The Trailer Park Boys. In the episode where Ricky teaches his daughter and her friends to steal BBQ's as a means wealth re-distribution. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Or we could have had a* sure bet* on a *stable *Majority Government, for 18 months, in the Parliament with the Coalition Government deal.


Permit me a smile. Your faith in, and youthful enthusiasm for, the coalition are touching.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Permit me a smile. Your faith in, and youthful enthusiasm for, the coalition are touching.


to your points; 

if being older than dirt is youth in new speak;

the decent and ruckus discussions would have be left in the government's caucus rooms;

passage of government legislation would be assured.

Dare I be pragmatic. Oh! Silly me!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Apparently many agree with Harper's turncoat and runaway economic stimulus plans


No, many agree that this is not the time to start bailing out everyone and their uncle - when things are not settled in the US. People just got scared of "Economic Salvation". It's the same thing as the Environment - I bet you can not find one person on EhMac that is for pollution, or is opposed to energy efficiency, or better public transit - but everyone was afraid of the "Green Shaft Plan". And for all the same reasons - that it was some kind of window dressing for repressive and excessive taxation that would be pumped into who knows what, and in the end, everyone knows that either plan is doomed to utter and catastrophic failure...

Harper never turned face, nor did he ever say he would not work to save the economy - he just said that we need to take it on a week by week basis, support those things that are in imminent failure, and wait until the G20 mount the big push to get the train back on the tracks.

At least wait until the Electoral College casts their votes first - so we actually know who will be President of your largest trading partner, before going in and nationalizing who knows what ventures that will become Crown Corporation failures.



> A majority Parliament exists today, well it existed, with the Coalition until Runaway Steve, ran away from a confidence vote, he porogued Parliament.


There is no such "Majority", and the compound set of Opposition parties may or may not be able to keep things together if in power. All it would take is a dozen disgruntled Liberals to "cross the floor", or simply to not show up for some key vote, and the Government would be dead in the water. This has nothing to do with anything good or needed - it was a Putsch put into play in order to grab some quick power - and it failed because no one can imagine that these three twits can keep their own Caucuses in line for the long haul. Dion can't even keep his Caucus in line for three hours - unless Ignatieff puts out the word.



> He can blow another 300 plus million dollars on an undirected stimulus package called an election. Not have any improvements with infrastructure or critical sectors of the economy. Do nothing concrete at all.


But then again - the taxpayer could have been saved all of that money and more if Shiela Copps and the Liberal Party has chose not to sue the Government of the City of Hamilton over six miles of expressway. And we could have saved ten times that amount if Jean Chretien hadn't blown a wad of cash on his dubious AdScam project that had no Parliamentary support; or the billion and a half Jane Stewart blew on building fancy warehouses for huge multinationals in Brantford, or if they hadn't wasted their money on PetroCanada, Mirabel, and a thousand other white elephant projects.

An Election costs money - and if you want a Democracy - then you had better suck it up because Elections are an integral part of Democracy. If it is a "waste of money", then we just need to install a dictator into power - then we will have a Mugabe-Paradise where Elections are inexpensive because they save on the campaign, because the soldiers tell you how to vote for Mugabe.



> Economic issues could be addressed now, but nooooo.


So tell me - how many economic issues can be addressed now - and I mean now - while Bush is spending the month signing pardons, looking for cushy patronage jobs for his buddies - and Obama is spending the time nominating people for Congress to rake over the coals for various jobs, and waiting for the Electoral College to cast their votes.

And how many economic issues can be addressed now - while experts are still working on the various plans, and the nations of the world have not come to a consensus on what to do about what is a global situation. And I know it sucks, no one wants to be out of work - but Economic Salvation will not help us, only a complete, coordinated plan to put things back on track will do that - and that will not occur until after January 20th - when in all probability, we will be into another Election campaign.



> Now we have a crisis until February...


I do not see a "crisis" at all. No one is at the airport locking things down, no one is throwing grenades, nor are people scouring the countryside for poisoned fruits to eat because life sucks so bad that death is better - like in Zimbabwe. People are just making the Selkirk Mountains out of a small pimple. Parliament was given a choice, to tighten their belts, to do more on less - and the Opposition chose to not do that, but instead, want to grab some fast cash and fast power, and peddle their "Economic Salvation" just like the Evangelists peddle salvation on TV on Sunday mornings.



> Yes Runaway Steve is the leader most responsible for this mess . He is still Prime Minister.


So you are blaming Harper for the Big 3 folding up shop because they build shoddy goods that no one wants? You are also blaming him for a series of bank and investment house failures in the US, and the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the US - even though not one bank or lending institution in Canada has even come close to failure. Well, I guess you could say that the Royal Bank clearing a measily 1.2 Billion is a failure, because they really wanted to rake in 1.6 Billion.

it is a silly thing to say - because you can not blame Harper, or Conservative, or really, anyone in this country at all, because 10 Trillion dollars has evaporated in the world markets in the past year. Next you will be blaming Harper for not providing "Economic Salvation" to Iceland when their banks went tango-uniform a few months ago...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I agree with bryanc's views on this matter.
> 
> You can have the government organise an orderly re-distribution of wealth or you can have an adhock re-distribution of wealth as seen on the TV show The Trailer Park Boys. In the episode where Ricky teaches his daughter and her friends to steal BBQ's as a means wealth re-distribution. :lmao:


TPB is probably the key source for Layton's "Economic Salvation" plans. He's going to convert Saskatchewan into a giant pot farm, then set up this little railroad that crosses the border into North Dakota.

Unfortunately - Layton is no J-Roc...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> convert Saskatchewan into a giant pot farm, then set up this little railroad that crosses the border into North Dakota.


What a great idea!

At the very least, perhaps now is the time to revisit our asinine drug laws at the very least. We could be reducing government expenses by millions/year and increasing tax revenues by even more by simply legalizing marijuana and taxing its cultivation and purchase, something a comfortable majority of Canadians support.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> WWe could be reducing government expenses by millions/year and increasing tax revenues by even more by simply legalizing marijuana and taxing its cultivation and purchase, something a comfortable majority of Canadians support.


I wouldn't be so sure about that majority of which you speak.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> What a great idea!
> 
> At the very least, perhaps now is the time to revisit our asinine drug laws at the very least. We could be reducing government expenses by millions/year and increasing tax revenues by even more by simply legalizing marijuana and taxing its cultivation and purchase, something a comfortable majority of Canadians support.
> 
> ...


Legal pot in Ottawa would hurt the taxpayer because of the expenses of Nachos and other munchies charged on the official accounts of our MP's - but they would also be absorbed by simple things, like chairs, which would keep them away from the pork barrels and the public troughs - so it would be less costly in the long run. However, I could see Mac's Milk and Frito-Lays becoming Crown Corporations...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

The problem with legalization-which is what is needed in order to gain any real benefits related to taxation and revenue-is the problem that it would create in our relationship with the US. Like it or not, many many Americans see pot as an evil gateway drug that inevitably leads to moral corruption and harder drug use. The authorities in the US are still largely invested in the demonstrably failed War on Drugs-but as we have seen failure to win a war doesn't keep the US from persisting in their efforts to do so.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

mc3251 said:


> The problem with legalization-which is what is needed in order to gain any real benefits related to taxation and revenue-is the problem that it would create in our relationship with the US. Like it or not, many many Americans see pot as an evil gateway drug that inevitably leads to moral corruption and harder drug use.


They're welcome to pursue their stupid ideas in their country. They already do regarding this and many other issues. I just see no reason that Canada has to follow the same demonstrably faulty policies, when most civilized countries have already demonstrated that decriminalization and even legalization has far less cost, both in human suffering and money.

In fact, in the short term, if we legalized pot while it remained illegal in the US, we'd get the benefit of a lot of economic activity that is currently being funneled into drug cartels in central america. We'd be heros for simultaneously wiping out a lot of organized crime and providing depressed Americans with a harmless distraction from their economic woes. And we'd make boat loads of money in the process.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also believe that marijuana needs to be legalized, not just to raise tax revenue, but because it is simply wrong to prevent people from using a product no worse than alcohol. Enforce existing laws and penalties for getting caught DUI--both alcohol and pot.

I'd personally go a lot farther in liberalizing drug laws, but legalizing marijuana is a slam dunk.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> The problem with legalization-which is what is needed in order to gain any real benefits related to taxation and revenue-is the problem that it would create in our relationship with the US. Like it or not, many many Americans see pot as an evil gateway drug that inevitably leads to moral corruption and harder drug use. The authorities in the US are still largely invested in the demonstrably failed War on Drugs-but as we have seen failure to win a war doesn't keep the US from persisting in their efforts to do so.


I thought the Americans were pretty much convinced that the Democrats were the source of such moral corruption?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> TI just see no reason that Canada has to follow the same demonstrably faulty policies, when most civilized countries have already demonstrated that decriminalization and even legalization has far less cost, both in human suffering and money.


Yeah, it's working real well over there:



> *"Make it transparent who is dealing, who is delivering it to the coffee shops and take care that there are no criminals entering there, which they are at the moment," she said.*


Amsterdam closes cannabis shops


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that majority of which you speak.


Polls are showing more support of legalized marijuana than for the current Conservative government.... and yet, we have them in place. 

Canadian Majority Would Legalize Marijuana: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Canada Federal Election 2008    Popular Vote Results    Nodice.ca


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree with legalization of pot, but I also recognize the difficulty in shifting policy from one extreme to the other. Firstly, The Americans would not be happy, although Obama might be more open minded about such a change and could prove an ally. Secondly, we have built a massive bureaucracy and infrastructure around our drugs laws (e.g. prisons, lawyers, judges, councilors), which will only resist change.

We need to find a way to transition from one extreme to the other. Decriminalization might be one such route. Another could be setting up prosecution free zones. For example, the mayor of Vancouver is the head of the police force and could unilaterally change their policy to not enforce laws relating to pot possession.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Clinton would be open minded, but he didn't inhale. I'd like to know what kind of whack drugs he was on when he courted Hillary though, because that must have been some very potent blow...

Perhaps Pot could be deregulated in the same manner that we allow Casinos. We could have specific places that pot would be legal - while making it strictly verboten everywhere else. Much like the regulations they have in Denmark.

It would also be good for things like prostitution, because instead of it being a seedy profession entirely linked to drugs, organized crime and violence - it could be like anything else in the entertainment trade. And again, specific areas, regulated, licensed and inspected, with proper benefits for the "workers" - because the reality is, prostitution has always been around and will continue, and it is certainly much more respectable and clean in places like Amsterdam than say, in front of the Barton Stree Jail.

If the Amercans don't like it - tough - I can fly to Cuba for a vacation in the middle of the winter and I couldn't care less if the Americans don't like it...


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Ottowaman hit the nail on the head: "I voted for my member of Parliament. I support the Parliamentary process of majority government more than my own partisan feelings regardless of who I voted for this time."


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Vandave said:


> I agree with legalization of pot, but I also recognize the difficulty in shifting policy from one extreme to the other. Firstly, The Americans would not be happy, although Obama might be more open minded about such a change and could prove an ally. Secondly, we have built a massive bureaucracy and infrastructure around our drugs laws (e.g. prisons, lawyers, judges, councilors), which will only resist change.
> 
> We need to find a way to transition from one extreme to the other. Decriminalization might be one such route. Another could be setting up prosecution free zones. For example, the mayor of Vancouver is the head of the police force and could unilaterally change their policy to not enforce laws relating to pot possession.


I agree, Vandave. We certainly are an independent country, but we have a close and multifaceted relationship with the US, and legalizing pot here would have other effects on cross border travel, commerce, etc. There may be an interesting opportunity emerging with the current economic crisis...the US may be forced to choose some priorities financially...and the war on drugs is hugely expensive. Releasing the war on pot and focusing on other more destructive drugs would save money.

We are moving towards decriminalization-or we were until Harpo and Doris came along in Ottawa. These are pretty much law and order folks, yes?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> the US may be forced to choose some priorities financially...and the war on drugs is hugely expensive. Releasing the war on pot and focusing on other more destructive drugs would save money.


Not only save money - but maybe enough law enforcement people can be freed up to mount a real fight against the most potent hard core drugs, like crack cocaine, rather than having to bust a bunch of penny-ante pot tokers.

Any strategem should include a set of priorities, with the most potent and destructive drugs at the top of the scale, and as they are picked off, a move of resources to less destructive drugs. Of course, it would be far easier if they just picked off the producers and importers with impunity, rather than jailing an endless stream of street corner junkies...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

This is not a simple problem to solve EP. They have been trying to stamp out drugs forever and failing miserably at it. WRT the harder drugs like crack and heroin, these are at least partly a poverty and hopelessness problem, not just a matter of supply.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I like this attitude. 

Barak Obama: "I inhaled... frequently" "That was the point"

YouTube - Barack Obama "I inhaled frequently" "That was the point"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I appreciate Obama's candour on that question.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lot of champagne cork sniffing going on. 

a) Dion is gone and the Libs have a "bring it on" leader in place.

b) if the Coalition is serious here is how it will play out.




> *2008 Election Trivia - Based on the Preliminary Results*
> 
> *Only 25 out of the 308 winning candidates in the 2008 election were elected with a majority of the votes cast in their ridings.* 41 of the winners were elected with less than 40% of the vote.
> 
> 15 candidates were elected with less than 1% difference in votes between 1st and second place in thief ridings. However, none qualified for an automatic recount, which requires less than 0.1% difference.


Now I would guess a good chunk of that 25 were in Alberta.

IF the next election becomes Con versus Coalition.

If Libs and NDP choose not to run against each other in split ridings.....it will be all over for the Cons.

Some few Lib voters will go to the Cons and just about zero NDP voters will.

Greens would be clever to not run candidates nationally this time around and put a stake in Harper's heart for good.

I would not underestimate the anybody but Harper sentiment.

Even the Globe, who supported him last round is fed up - if the NDP and Libs set their minds to it......Harper has not a snowball's chance in hell of a majority.

Once the split vote is gone - only 25 ridings or less did Cons get a majority and we know where those came from.
( I suspect there are other parties got a few majority wins reducing the number even more for the Cons. ) 
The door is now wide open for the Coalition if Harper face plants again and tries brinkmanship.

Every riding will put the stronger of Lib or NDP up against the targetted Cons and I would bet Ms May will refrain from running Greens - preferring to work with the Coalition.

ANY Con with less than 45% of the vote in their riding will be hard pressed to win against strategic candidacy.
Voters KNOWING Lib OR NDP gets into gov have little reason to shift to Con and lots of reason to stay within the Coalition umbrella.

This is long overdue in Canada.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Lot of champagne cork sniffing going on.


Including that entire post. 

The premature joculation from Liberal Lap Puppies is amazing - there is a big difference between uniting against the common enemy and governing effectively. The coalition would almost certainly melt down in six months or less. There are deep divisions within the Liberal party that haven't been addressed, and there are significant differences between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc.

It's also far from a forgone conclusion that the coalition would be able to win. The Liberal brand is pretty much toxic in most of the West (not just Alberta), and the NDP are far to "Scary and Extreme" for mainstream voters.

The good news is that Ignatief might be able to find more common ground with Harper than Dion. It's possible that Harper has been chastened by this constitutional crisis, and since Ignatief commands more respect than Dion he might be less likely to offer "Shut up and take what you are given" and "Kneel down and obey" as the only choices for the opposition when proposing contentious legislation. At the same time, Ignatief will need to play ball, and remember that he leads a regional party with only 77 seats and 26% of the popular vote.

Let's hope these clowns can make parliament work - the last thing we need is an unstable coalition or another election...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

What we do need is to get rid of the First Past the Poll system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah the west amounts to how many seats. How many did the Cons win with a majority??

Harper has written off Quebec entirely - that's a given.

I'll bet the Cons got not one seat in Ontario by a majority.

NL is a complete write off.

The Libs have a very deep base for governing experience to draw on - especially compared to the Cons - in the wilderness most of the time and Harper has ZERO with a majority...so I'd not be talking about experience.

The west does NOT determine who governs this country - not even close and if Ontario urban had the seats it deserves in terms of population that would be 10 more the Cons wouldn't have.

Flaherty et al have shown their usual ineptness and dogmatic ideology and the ex Harris gang are not well loved in Ontario.

I don't think you would really want to know the Ontario results had the Libs and NDP not run candidates in every riding.

He's dug himself a big hole by uniting the opposition - we'll see if he face plants into it. He set the stage...

Here you are by the numbers....

greenpolitics.ca » Canada Needs A Liberal-NDP-Green Coalition


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The Libs have a very deep base for governing experience to draw on - especially compared to the Cons - in the wilderness most of the time and Harper has ZERO with a majority...so I'd not be talking about experience.


Oh yeah? Where the hell has it gone? I think someone has a very deep _well of water_ they're drawing on this afternoon.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'll bet the Cons got not one seat in Ontario by a majority.


Here's one that I'm familiar with:
Leedsâ€”Grenville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are likely others as well.


MacDoc said:


> Yeah the west amounts to how many seats. How many did the Cons win with a majority??
> ...
> The west does NOT determine who governs this country - not even close...


Now you know where Western Alienation comes from!


MacDoc said:


> ...if Ontario urban had the seats it deserves in terms of population that would be 10 more the Cons wouldn't have.


And if the West had the seats it deserves in terms of population the Conservatives would have likely won a majority in October...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

When the Alberta oil rush ends they will lose many of the migrant workers who have puffed up the population count.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oh yeah? Where the hell has it gone? I think someone has a very deep base of Cognac they're drawing on this afternoon.


Wow MacDoc, you've touched quite a nerve! Expletives and insults from the normally cautious Macfury. Must be some truth in what you write. Lets wait to see how he tries to discredit you like in the thread ehMax closed. Bullying tactics our Prime Minister would be proud of!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I firmly believe the results of our little poll better reflect the way Canadians feel about the coalition. It rings true to those I have spoken with also.

The Ass-per poll is a fine example of how to strategically control the message. If they say it, it must be true. If it's true, then we (supporters of) must be wrong, If were wrong, we should get on side with the majority.

I think Canadians are much smarter than that. Harper really isn't fooling anyone anymore. And that must be a big disappointment to his fans.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> Here's one that I'm familiar with:
> Leedsâ€”Grenville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are likely others as well.
> ...


you're kidding right?

Since you're surfing wikipedia, continue, your little education...

Provinces and territories of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah someone needs a big time lesson in Canadian politics.



> Ontario minorities left standing in Tory game of musical chairs TheStar.com - Federal Election - Ontario minorities left standing in Tory game of musical chairs
> October 14, 2008
> Errol Mendes
> 
> ...


The current Cons are an Alberta rump party temporarily exploiting the situation with the Bloc ( which is ridiculous given the seat count versus population ) and the split voting between NDP and Liberal.

One of two things will play out, the Cons will smarten up and get progressives into the party 

or

the coalition will buy them for a generation.

Harper drew the line in the sand.

I've been talking about coalition for a long while -it's only the idiots leading the parties - mostly Layton with visions of sugar plums in his head that prevented it with Martin.

THAT is when it should have happened.

The same dufi wailing about Lib/NDP were crowing about PC/Reform a few short years ago.

So now when the other 2/3's get their act together it's hair tearing and teeth gnashing in the Con camp 

The Libs already set the precedent for strategic candidates by not running against Elisabeth May.

Iggy may indeed decide not to pursue that course but it's in his back pocket.

When the same national paper that can hardly be accused of left wing tendencies is taking shark sized bites out of the politician they supported in the last election...and in very pointed language...Harper is on very thin ice.

Quebec is out of play for Harper and Iggy is a much stronger voice for Ontario.
IF Iggy decides he wants to be PM - he will be.

18-24 months then let the electorate decide.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I find it interesting that the EhMac poll shows evenly-split love/hate for the coalition, whereas the "national" polls taken by the conservative-supporting Ipsos show a much more lopsided view.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Recall how that poll was worded......"compromise"....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> One of two things will play out, the Cons will smarten up and get progressives into the party


Stop with this nonsense already. It's a recipe for disaster. They would destroy themselves by moving centre--it would just make you happy, while you continued to support the Liberals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> IF Iggy decides he wants to be PM - he will be.


That's bullsh!t and you know it.

With sentiment running against the coalition by Canadians of roughly two to one, it ain't gonna happen. The GG will grant an election first.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> you're kidding right?


No I'm not.

The West (not just AB...) has seen rapid population growth over the past few decades. Although there have been seats added, they haven't kept up with population growth - so my vote is not worth as much as some others. Alberta and BC should have 74 seats if they were evenly distributed by population - but we only have 64. The Conservatives were only 12 seats short of a majority, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that with an equitable seat distribution things might have been different...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> IF Iggy decides he wants to be PM - he will be.
> 
> 18-24 *days* then let the electorate decide.


Fixed a typo for you.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Oh yeah? Where the hell has it gone? I think someone has a very deep base of Cognac they're drawing on this afternoon.


Not acceptable.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Chilax a bit people. It's close to the holidays.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> No I'm not.
> 
> The West (not just AB...) has seen rapid population growth over the past few decades. Although there have been seats added, they haven't kept up with population growth - so my vote is not worth as much as some others. Alberta and BC should have 74 seats if they were evenly distributed by population - but we only have 64. The Conservatives were only 12 seats short of a majority, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that with an equitable seat distribution things might have been different...


At the risk of starting some flames, we here in the east have well over 20 million people, and I for one am not interested in some delusional oil lovin lyin SOB from Alberta who's doing jack squat about the biggest population of Canada stay in power. Along with a finance minister who made a mess of the Ontario finances now doing the same to the federal.

And I bet that's gonna be a growing sentiment here, the longer Harper stays n power.

That said I would be all for a leader who can lead all of Canada, and not only address the largest population of Canada, but finally give the west the attention it deserves as well. It's only natural for any region to want to matter. I don't blame the west for feeling alienated.

But Harper, is failing Ontario and Quebec, badly.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> But Harper, is failing Ontario and Quebec, badly.


Problem is so are his Liberal Premier counterparts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Problem is so are his Liberal Premier counterparts.


right on cue.

Every conservative I know, will each, and every time, always respond that it's the liberals.

Never, EVER, will they ever address the failings of their dear leader.

ever.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Not acceptable.


Sorry, I forgot the _MacDoc rule_. I changed it for you.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> right on cue.
> 
> Every conservative I know, will each, and every time, always respond that it's the liberals.
> 
> ...


Yes Ontario has gone down the toilet only under federal conservative rule in two short years, what was I thinking. The back to back Liberal rule in this province has absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can count on Groovetube to pop up like a Whack-a-Mole every time the Liberals are under attack!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Brothers, I am impressed by the depth of freindship and good-naturedness shown in this single, remarkable thread. It is indeed a wonderful country we all live in.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> At the risk of starting some flames, we here in the east have well over 20 million people, and I for one am not interested in some delusional oil lovin lyin SOB from Alberta who's doing jack squat about the biggest population of Canada stay in power. Along with a finance minister who made a mess of the Ontario finances now doing the same to the federal.


I'll ignore the flames.

What you refer to as "The East" is not one block - the Maritimes, Quebec, and Ontario all have significantly different interests and political cultures.

There is even significant variation in the political culture between the different regions within Ontario. For example, Leeds-Grenville which I used as an example of an Ontario riding that elected a Conservative MP with a majority of the popular vote in a previous post has had a Conservative MPP since 1981. This is well different than ridings in Toronto, or Thunder Bay.


groovetube said:


> That said I would be all for a leader who can lead all of Canada...


Agreed!

Unfortunately I don't expect one any time soon. With the possible exception of the NDP and the Greens - which have no chance of forming a government - there really aren't any truly national parties at this point.

The Liberal have essentially no support in the West, the Conservatives are locked out of big chunks of Ontario and the Maritimes, and the Bloc has a lock on Quebec.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps we need a new paradigm, instead of first past the poll and party politics as usual?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Perhaps we need a new paradigm, instead of first past the poll and party politics as usual?


Maybe - but right now we've got a paradigm shifting without a clutch...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I;m prepared to blow a few 'clutches" in order to have a better system than I observe during Question Period.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_I;m prepared to blow a few 'clutches" in order to have a better system than I observe during Question Period._

Same here, Ottawaman. It's getting pretty unworkable. Seems like we require some type of electoral and representational reform. That, or we collectively need to grow much thicker skins and learn to get past all of the sniping and whining we see - lo, even on this single forum. From what I can see, it's broadly indicative of Canadian polarization in regional politics. Quite the miserable malaise.

It's true: there would appear to be no truly national party left in Canada at this stage of the game. How sad that we've come to this pass. On the other hand, it's perhaps an opportunity to try some different approaches. Certainly the system we now suffer under has been thoroughly poisoned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pah! A different system with the same knuckleheads. Gridlock is beautiful from my perspective.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Your perspective is jaundiced. We need not cling to the past if it does us no service.
I'm tired of the status quo, this system from 200 years ago is showing its age.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. If all it amounts to now is jaded entertainment for forum pundits and political hacks of all stripes, we've sunk very low indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Your perspective is jaundiced. We need not cling to the past if it does us no service.


This creeping notion that began 200 years ago of citizenry relying on government for its every need does us no service. It just causes citizens to fight with each other for control of the teat.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> there would appear to be no truly national party left in Canada at this stage of the game.


A truly national party and a leader capable of leading all of Canada aren't necessarily the same thing. I can't think of anyone who as effectively balanced national interests across the country. It's always someone feeling abused and/or abandoned. Are we even governable?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If you believed all of the cheap talk on the net, we most certainly are. That's a big if. Methinks people like to blow off steam and cast aspersions on people they don't like.

On the other hand, if Canada slide into the grim rigors of Balkanization, that at least opens the door for ethnic cleansing... our Darwinian instincts will finish the job. As a bonus, people will be too busy fighting off rapists, looters and roving, self-appointed assassination squads to bother with offering their divisive, fractious opinions on internet forums.

Just like the old days, but in HD.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You can count on Groovetube to pop up like a Whack-a-Mole every time the Liberals are under attack!


you 2 are just unbelievable. You dont even see what you both do each and every time.

EVERY criticism of your dear leader, is ALWAYS met with a deflection o the liberals.

Why don't you both grow up, and perhaps realize, that perhaps we know, that Dullton isn't great either. But it doesn't mean it erases you dear leader's faults by default.

Get it now? Cause man, this kind of robotron automated response is gettin reeeeeal old now.

So when do dear leader stand on his own two feet, and is accountable to his own actions without the "liberals blah blah..."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> It's true: there would appear to be no truly national party left in Canada at this stage of the game.


Exactly. And I think that is starting to dawn on many Canadians.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> Methinks people like to blow off steam and cast aspersions on people they don't like


I love reasoned and passionate discourse, and think that disagreement and the open airing of views is healthy.
In some of the political threads in this community, though, it seems more personal somehow. 
....that's a shame.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What does it matter if there is no "national" party? Just means that no one government is likely to get an overwhelming mandate. Is that so bad?

Does everyone miss the idea of being "governed" by a majority so badly? Do you even have the need to feel "governed"?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

mc3251 said:


> I love reasoned and passionate discourse, and think that disagreement and the open airing of views is healthy.


Agreed.


mc3251 said:


> In some of the political threads in this community, though, it seems more personal somehow.
> ....that's a shame.....


Agreed.

That said, there are some who can avoid ad hominem attacks. For example, GratuitousApplesauce* is *well* to the left of me - yet I always enjoy reading his(?) well reasoned and well presented posts. His posts are consistently civilized, and show a great sense of humour.
___________________________
*I'm using an example that hasn't been posting in this thread to keep things sort of neutral.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You dont even see what you both do each and every time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


>


exactly. Anything to deflect criticism of dear leader. Whenever I see anything critical of Harper or anything tory in my email from ehmac, I can almost guarantee one will show in minutes with your name and response.

Wack a mole indeed.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_What does it matter if there is no "national" party? Just means that no one government is likely to get an overwhelming mandate. Is that so bad?_
Perhaps not. But it's bound to take some getting used to. Wouldn't surprise me if coalition politics becomes the norm.... with allegiances switching on the fly, as time and circumstance dictates, natch.

_Does everyone miss the idea of being "governed" by a majority so badly? Do you even have the need to feel "governed"?_
Not that you really require an explanation - I can see you're being rhetorical here - but most people would rather have at least the appearance of order in their everyday lives and, yes, in their nation's affairs...keeps chaos at bay, don't you know.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube, you have every right not to like everybody's ideas, but you consistently attack people _for _defending their ideas. It becomes tiresome to see posts from you that consist entirely of chortling "I knew it! I knew you would post. LOL!" If you don't like their opinions, debate them. Don't try to belittle them for expressing their opinions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube, you have every right not to like everybody's ideas, but you consistently attack people _for _defending their ideas. It becomes tiresome to see posts from you that consist entirely of chortling "I knew it! I knew you would post. LOL!" If you don't like their opinions, debate them. Don't try to belittle them for expressing their opinions.


macfury, I'm simply making fun of the constant deflections to the liberals for each and every criticism. 

It's almost getting comical if not sad. How do you debate anything as long as the wall of "well the liberals blah blah..." So yes, I have taken to 'chortling' about it, because at this point, it's about all you can do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> ...most people would rather have at least the appearance of order in their everyday lives and, yes, in their nation's affairs...keeps chaos at bay, don't you know.


Is chaos not being kept at bay right now? And do people expect the federal government to provide "the appearance of order in their everyday lives?" The civil service provides that continuity. Even without a government in place, the cheques will keep on coming for quite some time. Within the Canadian political sphere, even a hinted-at change is met with wild-eyed resistance and chaos is predicted at every turn. Very little does change, regardless of who is in power. 

I'm reminded of an old joke about somebody who says he has hired the world's steadiest worker: if he were any steadier, he'd be motionless.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Max said:


> _What does it matter if there is no "national" party? Just means that no one government is likely to get an overwhelming mandate. Is that so bad?_
> Perhaps not. But it's bound to take some getting used to. Wouldn't surprise me if coalition politics becomes the norm.... with allegiances switching on the fly, as time and circumstance dictates, natch.
> 
> _Does everyone miss the idea of being "governed" by a majority so badly? Do you even have the need to feel "governed"?_


These are good questions. 
While many things about the US bother me, their sense of national pride and a sense of what it means to be American I really admire (and yes it's imperfect and inconsistent and messy). I'm not sure that we have this in Canada. 
My question about whether we are "governable" was really thinking about the incredibly disparate interests across the country-and about the wild variances in population density-which creates elections that are basically over before the polls close in BC and Alberta.
As far as coalition (or minority) governments, they have become the norm at least lately. The last election which was supposedly called because parliament was disfunctional was a hoax. Things were getting done-I'm not sure what the all fired emergency was.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Is chaos not being kept at bay right now? And do people expect the federal government to provide "the appearance of order in their everyday lives?" The civil service provides that continuity. Even without a government in place, the cheques will keep on coming for quite some time. Within the Canadian political sphere, even a hinted-at change is met with wild-eyed resistance and chaos is predicted at every turn. Very little does change, regardless of who is in power.


Perhaps that's so... I don't care either way, actually. Perception is what counts in politics. Appearances, however shallow and/or devious they can later turn out to be, are often what initially prompts voters to make the choices they do at the ballot box.

As for the philosophical question of how the populace expects national government to keep chaos at bay, the obvious areas that spring to mind are in national health care and transportation strategies. We can debate the importance of these things until the cows come home but the fact remains that many individuals still at least think they want the government to provide some base line responses to these concerns. There's an entire tradition built around such thinking. Call it the nanny state, call it what you will. Disparage it, as you do - yet, as you yourself have noted, in the end very little changes. In that light, I hope you realize that there will always be individuals who think that that a national government has a role in providing some of those services. You will most certainly have plenty of company with which to discuss (rehash!) these issues... until your dying day, I expect.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

If we don't have shared 'stuff' like roads, healthcare, sewers and education and someone responsible for creating and maintaining it them I'm not sure we have a nation. It's not so much about chaos in my opinion as it's about the shared interests that make us a community.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> macfury, I'm simply making fun of the constant deflections to the liberals for each and every criticism.
> 
> It's almost getting comical if not sad. How do you debate anything as long as the wall of "well the liberals blah blah..." So yes, I have taken to 'chortling' about it, because at this point, it's about all you can do.


Groovetube, I'm going to cut out the whack-a-mole joke. There are certain responses I see all of the time, and I just let them go. I feel like jumping in each and every time, but I just let it die on the vine.

It would be pretty funny to see a board where each of us could program our own automatic responses each time we left the computer for an extended period of time. There'd be quite a vigorous debate going on in our absence.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Some of these threads appear to be already on autopilot!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> If we don't have shared 'stuff' like roads, healthcare, sewers and education and someone responsible for creating and maintaining it them I'm not sure we have a nation. It's not so much about chaos in my opinion as it's about the shared interests that make us a community.


But is that honestly the feeling of most Canadians--that they won't have roads or health care or sewers or education under the Conservatives, or the Liberals, depending on who is in office? 

If I wanted to elect a party who would deliberately destroy and defund these things, I would be pretty despondent at this point.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

duplicate post


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

My Autopilot Thread Responder is set to "Default to state obvious" mode.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

groovetube said:


> macfury, I'm simply making fun of the constant deflections to the liberals for each and every criticism.


MacFury ran out of things to say that were worth reading a LONG time ago IMHO.

Even EP is more ... um, _inventive_ ... in his posts. MF's posts are just disused Republican Talking Points that are unimaginatively repurposed to fit the Conservatives (rather like the party themselves these days, eh wot?) 

Still, at least he's recycling ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas, I'm flattered. Nobody writes as much abut me as you do.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

You know what's interesting? The poll above, using EhMacers as a sample audience (at least as accurate as a national poll given the great diversity of views here) shows a thin margin of SUPPORT for the coalition.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> You know what's interesting? The poll above, using EhMacers as a sample audience (at least as accurate as a national poll given the great diversity of views here) shows a thin margin of SUPPORT for the coalition.


That analysis is simply absurd.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

He's just saying that since two more people are "for" the Coalition - that it should be an institution of some kind.

Besides, he knows he has lost on all of his points - since he is once again resorting to personal attacks instead of rational presentation of facts. The Chas_M zeppelin has rammed once again into the tower of logic and is in flames! But then we all know that his man Obama is all about CHANGE, because Obama has brought exactly zero CHANGE to the White House, and there is no HOPE of ever getting rid of the Washington Insider schemes. It's all about continuing in the ways of Bush, with the only CHANGE being the editing of Republican in favour of the trendy Democrat word, and the HOPE that the Obama zeppelin doesn't end up in flames quite as quickly as when Buish gave the Chinese a high technology spy plane to clone in the hundreds...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> He's just saying that since two more people are "for" the Coalition - that it should be an institution of some kind.
> 
> Besides, he knows he has lost on all of his points - since he is once again resorting to personal attacks instead of rational presentation of facts. The Chas_M zeppelin has rammed once again into the tower of logic and is in flames! But then we all know that his man Obama is all about CHANGE, because Obama has brought exactly zero CHANGE to the White House, and there is no HOPE of ever getting rid of the Washington Insider schemes. It's all about continuing in the ways of Bush, with the only CHANGE being the editing of Republican in favour of the trendy Democrat word, and the HOPE that the Obama zeppelin doesn't end up in flames quite as quickly as when Buish gave the Chinese a high technology spy plane to clone in the hundreds...


Way off topic


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Well, in only two posts the discussion has moved to personal attack. Too bad really, because everyone has something intelligent to say, and nothing intelligent to day, depending on the topic, day and perhaps humidity. I think we need to respect people's right to views that are different from our own, and not vilify them because they see things from a different side of the political spectrum.

Also way off topic, but I felt the need to interject.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> You know what's interesting? The poll above, using EhMacers as a sample audience (at least as accurate as a national poll given the great diversity of views here) shows a thin margin of SUPPORT for the coalition.


That is because the membership of ehMac is not representative of average Canadians. When national polls are running about two to one against the coalition, ehMacers are seriously out of step.

This leads me to believe that a large number of members here are environmentalist, tree hugger types with left wing leanings.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

or maybe just a group of people who tend to be better informed by reading more online and forming opinions based on more information than 'Joe the plumber at the coffee shop'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I know farmers, ranchers, and yes even plumbers who do not even own a computer and have far more political savvy than some on this board.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> This leads me to believe that a large number of members here are environmentalist, tree hugger types with left wing leaning


Ahh, SINC this is very helpful in building community. Congratulations. Disparaging labels is definitely the way to go. 

The problem with the ehMac poll is that it isn't a representative sample, and national polls are. We should go back to our Stats 101 texts and review sampling and confidence levels.

Personally, I've never met a tree I wouldn't hug.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> Ahh, SINC this is very helpful in building community. Congratulations. Disparaging labels is definitely the way to go.


Real environmentalists and tree huggers wear the titles like a badge of honour and find the label in no way "disparaging".


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

True, SINC. While I appreciate the opinions of members here, EhMac does not have the market cornered on political savvy.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> True, SINC. While I appreciate the opinions of members here, EhMac does not have the market cornered on political savvy.


Really? I heard rumours that Harper secretly monitors ehMac to help shape his policies.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> This leads me to believe that a large number of members here are environmentalist, tree hugger types with left wing leanings.


Someone who appreciates the outdoors as much as you do NOT an environmentalist, SINC? Disappointing.

As for hugging, I prefer people to trees. And I'm proud of it!

"Left wing leanings" is so vague as to be meaningless. This whole country has "left wing leanings" in the eyes of Americans -- including you!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> "Left wing leanings" is so vague as to be meaningless. This whole country has "left wing leanings" in the eyes of Americans -- including you!


You're not in Kansas any more, Toto.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Someone who appreciates the outdoors as much as you do NOT an environmentalist, SINC? Disappointing.


One can have an appreciation for nature and the outdoors without being a borderline idiot chaining themselves to trees and such.

I have respected nature and the environment all my life and do so to this day.

"Take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints", has been my style for many years.

But I draw the line at panic and demonstrations and foolish threats of impending doom.

Hell, I don't even keep the fish I catch or use a barbed hook. I just enjoy the competition to get them to shore, then slip the hook and they're gone without ever leaving the water.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I agree. Why do people require such narrow labels?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC: I agree. Why do people require such narrow labels?


Narrow labels like "environmentalist tree-hugger" "socialist" "liberal" etc.?

I've always found it interesting that labels that were initially either positive or neutral are used pejoratively to label groups that often turn out to have reasonable grounds to feel persecuted (e.g. "gay" "black" "feminist" "environmentalist" "atheist" etc.).

Cheers


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> One can have an appreciation for nature and the outdoors without being a borderline idiot chaining themselves to trees and such.


I think you're confusing "environmentalist" with "environmental activist."

Your attitude towards the environment clearly indicates that you ARE an environmentalist. You're just not a "radical environmental activist," as that's something quite different.

You shouldn't let the extremists "own" words like "environmentalist" and "feminist" (which I will bet you are as well -- look it up before taking offense, it may not mean what you think it means!). Such things are qualities to be admired.

As for "labels," you can't avoid them -- one labels oneself as much as others do, by one's occupation or passion or hobby or source of pride. "Doctor Who fan" is a label that applies to me. "Macintosh enthusiast" is a label that applies to most people here. "Graphic Designer," "Conservative voter" and "father of two" are also all labels. There's nothing wrong with them.

It's the labels that are made up from the whole cloth, with no regard for the truth, that are counter-productive to conversation. I find that they are most often employed by people who are losing an argument in an attempt to dismiss otherwise valid points.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> I think you're confusing "environmentalist" with "environmental activist."
> 
> Your attitude towards the environment clearly indicates that you ARE an environmentalist. You're just not a "radical environmental activist," as that's something quite different.


Not so fast.

I certainly do NOT consider my self an environmentalist. An environmentalist to me, is one who dedicates their life to crusading for the environment and are consumed by their actions.

I, on the other hand, could be more properly be called a conservationist, but even then in the mildest of terms. A quiet respect and appreciation for the environment is substantially different from beating the environmentalist drum all your life.

So no, I don't fit your label at all.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Sinc: earlier in this thread I believe you were making the point that tree hugger was not intended to be disparaging, and I ultimately apologized for misjudging you. I see you have amended the label to "borderline idiot". Does this now constitute a disparaging label?

Chas: labels are a form of shorthand, a form of conversational convenience. The danger of course is that we start thinking of the label as the person, so that many different people get corralled into a single, overly simplistic and uni dimensional category. I don't personally like labels because they act like Orwell's shrinking dictionary in 1984-they actually undermine complexity and subtlety of thought.

Now, I need to get coffee and try to wake up.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps you are a coffeementalist?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Exactly. I like to strap myself to a cup in protest against sleepiness.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> An environmentalist to me, is one who dedicates their life to crusading for the environment and are consumed by their actions.


Sinc: perhaps what you are reacting to is the crusading. It sounds like you are trying to be the change we want in the environment, by living it rather than crusading and trying to force others to change.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Sounds like a good scheme to me - live responsibily instead of ranting that others should do all kinds of stuff which isn't going to happen.

And by the looks of things, the CBC is going all out to spread depression, doom and gloom by having Al Gore and Suzuki on their broadcasts on New Year's Day. What a wet diaper broadcaster we have, to feature on what should be a festive day the rants of the dude that couldn't win in Broward County and the rants of a dude that flies around in planes telling people they shouldn't pollute.

Better that we concern ourselves with our own efforts at conservation, than to be all doom and gloom about things we can't do anything about.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> I certainly do NOT consider my self an environmentalist. An environmentalist to me, is one who dedicates their life to crusading for the environment and are consumed by their actions.


That might be your idea of what an environmentalist is, but it's not accurate, any more than saying someone is a "feminist" means they have to be female.

In a text-based medium such as this, accurate terminology is a must.

The dictionary definition of "environmentalist" is "a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment."

That's it. And that sure sounds like you to me. 

(it will probably surprise you to learn that the definition of "feminist" is "The belief in the right of women to have political, social, and economic equality with men." Not exactly what conservative yakmeisters claim it is, is it?)



> I, on the other hand, could be more properly be called a conservationist


Certainly not a bad thing, and if that's your preferred term that's fine too.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Then of course, there is the more realistic point of view:


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

Sinc, this cartoon isn't quite true. The Liberals are so far in debt...their car has been repo'd.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

One thing I can tell you I am definitely AGAINST is the INCREDIBLY cheesy radio ads the Conservatives are running against the bogeyman -- sorry, the coalition.

Have you heard them? I find them INCREDIBLY insulting to people's intelligence -- particularly those people who are Conservative supporters. The whole thing is kind of -- creepy really. Like they think their base all live in the world of _Corner Gas_.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've heard these types of radio ads primarily from Democrats in New York State, but they all sound exactly the same. I can't imagine anyone who would act on them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Like they think their base all live in the world of _Corner Gas_.


Hey, you leave my favourite TV program outta this!


----------



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

What sorts of coalitions are the Democrats in NY State opposing, Macfury?


----------



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

Don, sadly, Corner Gas is coming to the end of its run. A unique Canadian show.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I met Brent briefly at the top of Parliament Hill a couple of summers ago--he was dressed in a suit (I forget why)... I couldn't get over how short he was to me. 

I find I have no sense of scale when it comes to people on screen. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> What sorts of coalitions are the Democrats in NY State opposing, Macfury?


There were a large number of this type of ad running during the last two elections for governor. Mostly stuff like:

Senior #1: "I hear Governor Pataki is going to cut state medical programs even further! He may even close our local hospital!"
Senior #2: What?!! He can't do that!

They were not all produced by the NY State Democrat Party--some of them were from specific pro-Democrat interest groups. No matter where these mini-dramas are produced, they all sound exactly the same though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



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

"Senior #1: "I hear Governor Pataki is going to cut state medical programs even further! He may even close our local hospital!"
Senior #2: What?!! He can't do that!"

I have a friend who is a senior administrator of nursing services in one of the largest hospitals in upstate NY, and she said that this is exactly what Pataki did during his administration. Some were not totally closed, but certain services were no longer provided at some hospitals.


----------



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

An interesting cartoon, MacDoc. I think that a great deal rides on next week's federal budget.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Awesome pictures, Don.

My wife and I love the show and are sorry to see it ending, but they had a great run.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

