Liberal Majority or Minority?

[Toronthab]

My man Malhi, the local lib MP called yesterday to know if he could place a sign on the lawn again.

I was really pissed at the homosexual "marriage" thing, Still am. However: National Unity, the economy (I think) I think a more interventionist scenario in counterbalance to corporate globaliszation is desperately needed). The Gomery thing is a minor historical footnote at best: Ask me who got the 407 for how much? Who else, the Reform party? NDP?

Yup. Not with overwhelming joy, but at the end of the day, yup. Go Malhi go.

[Bobs_HABit]

toronthab said:

My man Malhi, the local lib MP called yesterday to know if he could place a sign on the lawn again.

I was really pissed at the homosexual "marriage" thing, Still am. However: National Unity, the economy (I think) I think a more interventionist scenario in counterbalance to corporate globaliszation is desperately needed). The Gomery thing is a minor historical footnote at best: Ask me who got the 407 for how much? Who else, the Reform party? NDP?

Yup. Not with overwhelming joy, but at the end of the day, yup. Go Malhi go.

Well, I didn't know if I wanted to get into this or not as politics tends to increase my blood pressure and this is a Hab board but thankfully it is off topic and you've started the discussion.

I have to say I'm awfully disappointed in your post. Judging by your other posts around here, especially on the Reading List forum, and the fact you're a Hab fan, you are an intelligent person. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to the Liberals like most of our province (Ontario) you become blind to the facts.

Let's look at your post...
You were mad about their handling of the homosexual marriage issue. An issue that they felt was important enough to fast track and to force through by not allowing any Liberal MPs to vote how they wished. Why the rush? Why couldn't MP's vote their conscience or heaven forbid, how their constituents felt. So, good, the Libs upset you on that one. But, I agree, not really an issue big enough to sway your vote. Although again, an issue they felt had to be dealt with immediately.

It's your Liberal positives that really have me shaking my head. It's like right out of the pages of the Globe or Star. Or perhaps you've watched one too many CBC panels with 2 left wing professors and a Liberal apologist.

National Unity...The Liberals have single handedly brought the Country to a position where National Unity is at an ALL-TIME LOW. Alberta has had enough, hates Ontario and the East and is starting a separatist movement. Quebec we all know too well about but it appears the Sponsorship scandal has handed the Bloc 60-65 seats in this election and quite possibly another referendum in the next 5 years. You really believe that the Conservatives would make things worse? How could things be worse?

The economy...The Liberals have survived purely on luck. How have they spurned economic growth? What one thing have they done in the past 12 years to spur economic growth? The only thing Liberals know regarding money is that they need to take more from us the electorate and spend it on whatever they feel like today. Let's just look at taxes. Mulroney brought in the GST and was vilified for it. The Libs spoke down about it for Years. The PC's of the day knew that this Country needed that to start slaying the deficit. Lo and behold, the Libs get elected and one of their key platforms is 'We will IMMEDIATELY get rid of the GST.' Well you know what they say 'If you don't agree with what a Liberal feels about a subject today, ask them again tomorrow because chances are their answer has changed.' Sure enough, the Libs realize that this GST thing is bringing in bucket loads of cash, we can't dump that.

Let's fast forward to the last election in '04. Harper wants to cut taxes. The Liberal response. Oh, it's the death of health care. The Country can't sustain it. It's a tax cut for the rich. Blah. Blah. Blah. Now 15 months later, the Liberals propose tax cuts. Wheres the outcry? Why aren't the Star and Globe screaming from the rooftops how terrible this would be? What's changed? I could see the Lib thought process ('Let's announce tax cuts, we'll pre-empt Harper's platform.'). But wait, the Conservatives actually have a PLAN. Today Harper announces a 2% reduction in the GST. Brilliant strategy. The Libs are already saying how it won't help the common people. What a load of crap. This is something EACH and EVERY ONE of us will notice, see and appreciate each and every day.

Here is our esteemed former PM
"Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax." - Finance Minister Paul Martin, 28 November 1989
"I don't believe that is the path to follow ... Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story." - PM Paul Martin, 01 December 2005

Gomery is a footnote but the 407 is still on your mind. Well, one is Federal, the other Provincial. One was legally criminal, the other was a sale of a road. I travel the 407 daily. Is it a ripoff? Yes. Did the Provincial Tories screw up by selling it without conditions? Yes. Does it piss me off? Yes. But you know what? At the end of the day I can choose to take the 407 or not. The Liberals gave all their buddies our cash.

The Libs learned so much from Gomery that before they announced their economic platform last week, it appears someone leaked the goods before hand.
'The RCMP have begun a review of reported heavier-than-usual trading in income trusts and dividend-paying stocks ahead of an announcement last week that the federal government was increasing the tax credit on corporate dividends.
A forensic accountant told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live that he thinks the probability there was insider trading is between 75 and 85 per cent.'

The Libs will never learn if you keep turning the other cheek.

Like I said, you seem like an intelligent man. I beg you to at least put some thought into your vote. This Country deserves that.

[Cranky]

Bobs_HABit,

I couldn't agree with you more even if we had the same brain.

I HATE the Liberals. Hate is not something I aspire to or willingly nourish but it has been fed by the arrogance and the sheer ineptitude of the Liberal government. They have done almost everything wrong, meanwhile, they have treated us with CONTEMPT until it comes to voting time and then they treat us like MORONS trying to buy our votes with our own money.

How much have they spent the last few WEEKS to buy votes? TENS OF BILLIONS! Don't worry, it will reach a hundred billion soon enough. What the hell is the difference is they put the money in their own pocket, which they which they have DONE and probably still DO and wasting it on pet issued for the sole purpose of buying MORE votes. What aren't people getting it? Why are people ready and willing to REWARD them with VOTES? Does it not occur to some that if you vote them in now all you are doing is INSTITUTIONALIZING their CORRUPTION? Why would they stop spending OUR money for whatever buys them votes if that action rewards them with votes? It's so painfully logical that it HURTS.

I don't like Harper. I don't like the Conservatives. I don't like the NDP. I hate what the the PQ stands for but I would vote PQ long before I would vote Liberal. And to think that I was once a card carrying Liberal member.

The ONLY thing that will stop this Liberal CONTEMPT, this ARROGANCE, this loathing sense of ENTITLEMENT the Liberals have is to throw them out of power. Then, and ONLY then, will there be a chance for King Martin and company to be ousted from the Liberal party. That and a plane crash full of Liberals. Yes a plane crash. It's a sad state to be in to feel so powerless to stop them that I wish them ill.

[franko]

During the Trudeau years I lived in Alberta, and was a handful of voters that actually voted Liberal. My in-laws couldn't believe it. The fact is, Albertans vote Conservative and Ontarians Liberal. There, Bobs_HABit, is your answer re: THab. .

It doesn't make sense, it just is (reminds me of the [for sake of the discussion we'll say] Liberal who was door-to-door campaigning one day and asked the person who he was voting for. "The Conservatives", was the reply. "The Conservatives? Why?" he was asked.

"Well, my Dad voted Conservative, my Granddad voted Conservative, My Great Granddad voted Conservative . . . I guess I'm just a Conservative."

"What," came the retort, "if your Dad, your Granddad, and your Great Granddad had been morons. How would you vote then?"

"Ah. I see," said the man at the door. "I gues then I'd be voting Liberal".

Let's face it, for the most part logic doesn't enter into the political forum. And people believe it! Already the Liberals are bringing out thier favourite boogyman: Stephen Harper's hidden agenda. Harper says "I don't have a hidden agenda"; the Liberals say "See, he's hiding the truth". No-win.

If I were the Conservative election strategist, I'd keep running the tape of Paul Martin saying that he is proud of what the Liberal Party stands for an proud of their past record -- and in the background have their past record playing: Gomery, HRDC, a 2 million dollar tab for gun registry go to 2 BILLION dollars and counting, cuts to health care on the backs of a balanced budget and huge surplusses . . . oh, ya, and my favourite: the promised tax cuts which netted me 8 cents more on my cheque because of increases elsewhere.

And then that wonderful union man Buzz Hargrove endorses Martin? More years of screwy politics ahead.

[franko]

What kind of political boob are you?

[Cranky]

franko said:

Let's face it, for the most part logic doesn't enter into the political forum. And people believe it! Already the Liberals are bringing out thier favourite boogyman: Stephen Harper's hidden agenda. Harper says "I don't have a hidden agenda"; the Liberals say "See, he's hiding the truth". No-win.

.

Let's face it, people are sheep. Otherwise we would change the system and have a REAL democracy. A democracy where we could ALL participate.

How hard is it to create a biometric card that will allow ALL to vote on issues? It's so simple and yet politicians LOATH that system. Do you know why? How could politicians possibly get money from special interests if those special interest know that all their money would buy them NOTHING! Mind you, if you are the Liberal, YOU JUST STEAL it from the people.

Good God, is there ANYONE out there who is in politics for the good of society? Is there ANYONE out there who only wants to run for office solely on wanting to do what is best for all of us? Show me that person and I will willingly devote my free time and energy to help him/her get in. I am dead serious about it too.

[Bobs_HABit]

franko said:

During the Trudeau years I lived in Alberta, and was a handful of voters that actually voted Liberal. My in-laws couldn't believe it. The fact is, Albertans vote Conservative and Ontarians Liberal. There, Bobs_HABit, is your answer re: THab. .

It doesn't make sense, it just is (reminds me of the [for sake of the discussion we'll say] Liberal who was door-to-door campaigning one day and asked the person who he was voting for. "The Conservatives", was the reply. "The Conservatives? Why?" he was asked.

"Well, my Dad voted Conservative, my Granddad voted Conservative, My Great Granddad voted Conservative . . . I guess I'm just a Conservative."

"What," came the retort, "if your Dad, your Granddad, and your Great Granddad had been morons. How would you vote then?"

"Ah. I see," said the man at the door. "I gues then I'd be voting Liberal".

Let's face it, for the most part logic doesn't enter into the political forum. And people believe it! Already the Liberals are bringing out thier favourite boogyman: Stephen Harper's hidden agenda. Harper says "I don't have a hidden agenda"; the Liberals say "See, he's hiding the truth". No-win.

If I were the Conservative election strategist, I'd keep running the tape of Paul Martin saying that he is proud of what the Liberal Party stands for an proud of their past record -- and in the background have their past record playing: Gomery, HRDC, a 2 million dollar tab for gun registry go to 2 BILLION dollars and counting, cuts to health care on the backs of a balanced budget and huge surplusses . . . oh, ya, and my favourite: the promised tax cuts which netted me 8 cents more on my cheque because of increases elsewhere.

And then that wonderful union man Buzz Hargrove endorses Martin? More years of screwy politics ahead.

Well said, Franko. And yes you are correct. I see it all the time here in Southern Ontario. I work for an engineering firm, oviously with many intelligent people and I have discussions with them all the time on politics and I almost always end up walking away, shaking my head.

My Mother, God Bless Her, is a lifelong Lib. Ask her why? She has no idea. Just always has been. Oh, she knows all the media catchphrases but she can't come with a good reason to vote Lib. I mean she is also a very devout Catholic and very coservative when it comes to social issues...re- she is livid on the same-sex marriage issue but will turn a blind eye to it.

Oh well. The struggle continues. Should be a real interesting Christmas dinner.

[Toronthab]

bobshabit said:

toronthab said:

My man Malhi, the local lib MP called yesterday to know if he could place a sign on the lawn again.

I was really pissed at the homosexual "marriage" thing, Still am. However: National Unity, the economy (I think) I think a more interventionist scenario in counterbalance to corporate globaliszation is desperately needed). The Gomery thing is a minor historical footnote at best: Ask me who got the 407 for how much? Who else, the Reform party? NDP?

Yup. Not with overwhelming joy, but at the end of the day, yup. Go Malhi go.

Well, I didn't know if I wanted to get into this or not as politics tends to increase my blood pressure and this is a Hab board but thankfully it is off topic and you've started the discussion.

I have to say I'm awfully disappointed in your post. Judging by your other posts around here, especially on the Reading List forum, and the fact you're a Hab fan, you are an intelligent person. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to the Liberals like most of our province (Ontario) you become blind to the facts.

Let's look at your post...
You were mad about their handling of the homosexual marriage issue. An issue that they felt was important enough to fast track and to force through by not allowing any Liberal MPs to vote how they wished. Why the rush? Why couldn't MP's vote their conscience or heaven forbid, how their constituents felt. So, good, the Libs upset you on that one. But, I agree, not really an issue big enough to sway your vote. Although again, an issue they felt had to be dealt with immediately.

It's your Liberal positives that really have me shaking my head. It's like right out of the pages of the Globe or Star. Or perhaps you've watched one too many CBC panels with 2 left wing professors and a Liberal apologist.

National Unity...The Liberals have single handedly brought the Country to a position where National Unity is at an ALL-TIME LOW. Alberta has had enough, hates Ontario and the East and is starting a separatist movement. Quebec we all know too well about but it appears the Sponsorship scandal has handed the Bloc 60-65 seats in this election and quite possibly another referendum in the next 5 years. You really believe that the Conservatives would make things worse? How could things be worse?

The economy...The Liberals have survived purely on luck. How have they spurned economic growth? What one thing have they done in the past 12 years to spur economic growth? The only thing Liberals know regarding money is that they need to take more from us the electorate and spend it on whatever they feel like today. Let's just look at taxes. Mulroney brought in the GST and was vilified for it. The Libs spoke down about it for Years. The PC's of the day knew that this Country needed that to start slaying the deficit. Lo and behold, the Libs get elected and one of their key platforms is 'We will IMMEDIATELY get rid of the GST.' Well you know what they say 'If you don't agree with what a Liberal feels about a subject today, ask them again tomorrow because chances are their answer has changed.' Sure enough, the Libs realize that this GST thing is bringing in bucket loads of cash, we can't dump that.

Let's fast forward to the last election in '04. Harper wants to cut taxes. The Liberal response. Oh, it's the death of health care. The Country can't sustain it. It's a tax cut for the rich. Blah. Blah. Blah. Now 15 months later, the Liberals propose tax cuts. Wheres the outcry? Why aren't the Star and Globe screaming from the rooftops how terrible this would be? What's changed? I could see the Lib thought process ('Let's announce tax cuts, we'll pre-empt Harper's platform.'). But wait, the Conservatives actually have a PLAN. Today Harper announces a 2% reduction in the GST. Brilliant strategy. The Libs are already saying how it won't help the common people. What a load of crap. This is something EACH and EVERY ONE of us will notice, see and appreciate each and every day.

Here is our esteemed former PM
"Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax." - Finance Minister Paul Martin, 28 November 1989
"I don't believe that is the path to follow ... Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story." - PM Paul Martin, 01 December 2005

Gomery is a footnote but the 407 is still on your mind. Well, one is Federal, the other Provincial. One was legally criminal, the other was a sale of a road. I travel the 407 daily. Is it a ripoff? Yes. Did the Provincial Tories screw up by selling it without conditions? Yes. Does it piss me off? Yes. But you know what? At the end of the day I can choose to take the 407 or not. The Liberals gave all their buddies our cash.

The Libs learned so much from Gomery that before they announced their economic platform last week, it appears someone leaked the goods before hand.
'The RCMP have begun a review of reported heavier-than-usual trading in income trusts and dividend-paying stocks ahead of an announcement last week that the federal government was increasing the tax credit on corporate dividends.
A forensic accountant told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live that he thinks the probability there was insider trading is between 75 and 85 per cent.'

The Libs will never learn if you keep turning the other cheek.

Like I said, you seem like an intelligent man. I beg you to at least put some thought into your vote. This Country deserves that.

Hi Bobs-habit

Ok. It's time I came clean. I paid a friend to post some items so I wouldn't always look dumber than the south end of a northbound Domi.

I understand or at least suffer the illusion that I understand your disappointment at my ultimate political stance in favour of the Liberals.

It's a little like the Quebec thing. How can a person who can really see what a precious and beautiful thing Quebec is, compared to the hurtin' Albetrans not support separatism. Like I don't. The issue is not independence. We all have that already. It's a matter of how we will live out independence. I have a fundamental bias towards Quebec and Montreal in particular. My bias is founded upon my knowledge of the people, the culture. It is not exhaustive knowledge as is true of almost everyone, but the people of Quebec are beautiful.

I could write a little list, but one stands out: in a MacLeans' annual poll of Canada which they do once a year, which people, which province, do you think came first in simple tolerance of others, a simple willingness to accept and let others be themselves. Quebec of course. Which province stated that "human rights" was the first and primary concern of governments while many other provinces were saying "the economy", "law and order", "national defence"...etc, etc. In Quebec to a higher degree, "others" matter. Chez nous matters a little more than chez moi, sometimes in Quebec. Love of neighbour. I can REALLY feel the appeal of separatism. Would it ultimately be good for the good that is Quebec.....I have doubts about that. Canada has never insisted that Quebecers speak American. and Canada is enough of an entity to at least cause a pause on the international scene and with our southern neighbour. Quebec and a disappearing Canada would I suspect give rise to an acquisitive lust as WalMarters roared in to pluck the spoils.

United we might well stand. But the bigger reason is the bigger reason. It's the high road. There are always great reasons to be hurt and offended and piffed off in one's marriage, but there are seldom good reasons to divorce. I can't bear to think what Canada would be like without the influence of her ruling province of national choice, Quebec. Long may she reign over the rest of us.

And Montrealers? Don't get me started. They're wonderful. Da bess.

In Harper, we have the latest offering from the victorious Reform Party. I have great sympathy for some positions favoured by Reform party types, specifically the "socially conservative" issues for which many deride them. There is a clear suspicion afoot that the "right wing" is moralistic, not moral, moralizes instead of living morally with compassion for their fellow man. The old "kill a Commie for Christ" crowd.

I once supported and advocated abortion. It is a black and monstrous thing I once advocated with nothing whatsoever to justify it's bloddy practice. An unjustifialble hommicide that kills a little boy or girl and yes, I'ver heard every last specious argument enlisted in support of this crime against humnaity. The thin veneer of "civililization" is just that, a thin veneer, one can scratch throught rather easily. No news here.

On the issue of homosexual marriage, another "socially conservative" issue, a nice little phrase, a way of packaging the issue so that people don't have to deal with it, most everyone has been sold on the idea that most who practice these behaviours "are just born that way." There is no evidence to support this position. None. There are physical and psycho-social dimensioins that might make homosexually-oriented behaviours statistically more likely to occur with some, rather than others, just as is so with tendancies toward anger, violence, studiousness, playing for les glorieux and a million other things, but the guy on the street thinks and within this framework, probably is being as loving and accepting as he/she can be in this context. That there is no third gender and that we are totally not designed for such lethal behaviours is not seen as compelling.

I really don't like the behaviour of most people when drunk. They bother most of us. We don't "like" them at many of these times, even when they're being affectionate. Someone on this board quite appropriately once said, when I told him that I don't have a particular problem with homosexuals but rather with homosexual acts an homosexuality that he really doubted that this was true.

This occasionned me to think a little more about me, and not just my thoughts. I really find most things, particularly acts that are homosexual. to be almost unutterably repugnant, particularly of course, male acts. I find them too repugnant and disgusting to imagine or generally discuss. Perversions in the truest meaning of the word.

Beyond the appalling deaths in the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS occasionned by hetero and homosexual behaviours we are not designed for and of course some of which would sometimes appeal to me on a certain level, byond this, homosexuality goes right to the very center of what it is to be human and the very nature of human design and therefore, human value. While I can readily accept that two homosexually-oriented persons can be in some behaviours more respectful of one another than might another natural coupling, sexual acts between them disregard their very nature and are therefore objectively misguided. Overwatering kills most houseplants, but most plants are at least designed to be watered.

I have no strong feelings of affection for any given homosexuals, except a friend or two, or for "smokers" in general (I used to smoke) or greedy "business" men and women or even for "suffering humanity" that theoretical concept derived in the abstract.

We are all bound to love them all however. And to love them is to seek their and our true ultimate good, including holding back on a "legal" check, and refusing to support or advance behaviours in them or others that will hurt them, and most difficultly perhaps. loving and caring for them as they must us as we live out our particular serious faults (like prattleing on about serious issues on a habs board)



At issue then with the reform element in particular, but with conservatives in general is that I think most often that the perception of moralizing without any true concern for the other is emdemic to the right wing.

How can a person ever accept or recommend taking a prisoner out of a cell and killing him. That's the behaviour of the other prisoners and the victim. Capital punishnment is only justified in circumstances where the group cannot reasonably control or restrain the behaviour of individuals who will immediately threaten the lives of innocent others e.g. when there are not prisons to constrain persons.

Reform partiers have way too little appreciation of how beautiful Quebec is and will also consciously and unconsciously help get Doucette his Team Quebec which will be a glorious wonderful team just like Quebec, but it will be much, much less than the forever lost Team Canada, for there is no Canada once the beautiful heart of Quebec is removed.

Dorks dicking around in the petty cash with ad execs is unavoidable on one level or another with all parties. Chretien called for an investigation himself, did he not and Martin formed the inquiry. We have an excellent system of audit and oversight, improved even more since then and a tame but occasionally intereste press who devotes much more ink and camera time to the foibles of those who we choose to represent you and me, than they do those who the corporations send to represent them.

That this nasty scandal has hurt the pary and Canada in Quebec is undeniably true. To blame the Liberal Party of Canada or liberals in general for this is frankly disingenuous. Being disingenuous is another form of dishonesty and leger-de-main. Reformers will have to ally with Doucette and will help him kill Canada which would be the effect though of course not the goal of separatism. It's that serious. Not to see this is very serious. We often choose not just the lesser of two evils but even more consequentially evil choices always involve ignoring the higher good and choosing the lesser good. Liberals to a much, much higher degree, love Quebec, and therefore, by extension love Canada qua Canada, as she is.

I believe that the values of our culture are now, very much the corporate values of north america and I don't think North Americans even know that to a slight degree. Conservatives are in the forefront of this degrade in my opinion.

Canada would be at war in Iraq at this moment if the Reform Party, not called the conservatives had "won" (whatever "won" means) the last election. There is no question about this. Chretien stood up alone.

The GST was and is a great idea. The liberals massaged their position and on a couple of occasions Chetien and Copps did get pushed into actually declaring they would eliminate it. Most Canadians didn't and still don't know it replaced an unfair 12% manufacturers tax on some industries while exempting other industries. It was a good idea. It's good that they didn't elminate it. Forgive me, but big deal. The worst thing that was done was that it became visible thanks to the simplisticly anti-government Reform Partiers who like money a heck of a lot more than they like people, and it has been a major fuel of the underground economy ever since. I can't tell you how much I hate that.

The 407 issue I view as and ideologically driven crime that costs us BILLIONS!! Gomery is less than a speck. Tax leaks too, but rather it is the Conservative thrust that rewards the already over-rewarded, though Liberals, particularly the right side of the Liberals go there too, but less often, less ideologically, and less grieveously. Liberals are a lot more likely to think of the little guy. I do, even when I'm wrong about what to do about it.

This time around Harper and the Reformers now have to take a bitter pill and SAY that they will support in some way the National Health Act. I don''t trust them to do that for a second. They really don't believe in it.

Don't get me wrong. Over the decades and through much of Canadian history, I generally like and approve of much of what my Liberals have done and will do. The NDP had often been described as Liberals in a hurry.

It is not the this or that of any particular act that I support, my MP incidentally opposed the absurdity of of homosexuals "marrying", but rather is it the genreal lifeview and philosophy or attitude that I would seek to advance with my political acts, arguments and opinions.

Many, many liberals have and do buy into the cultural b.s. of libertarianism. Their motive is usually or at least often one of human solidarity, and this view is to much a false view of easy sentimentalism and one that studiously avoids staring the victims honestly in the eye. We all have an inclination to do this. It is within our nature.

The Reform partier or right wing Conservativ or Bush supporter in the US has a more serious flaw I think. Some guy I read, a long while ago pointed out that he wasn't sure if the thief on the cross, saw the guy beside him and really saw God, or whether it wasn't just his own sense of human justice and compassion that made him protest at the sufferings of this innocent man beside him being executed by the state. A quality of mercy.

Many or perhaps wven most are hard-pressed to know why they think like they do in a post-modern world, but think and act they must, one way or another for good or ill according to their general philosophical attitude which is hopefully guided by sound reasoning based upon basic principles. As my personal favourites, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle would aver, "If it is against reason, it is sinful."

Reason demands that I consider the particulars carefully within the context of the general.

While I agree with the right on key social issues, I am not duped by the meda propagandists into labelling these as "socially conservative" positions. A great ,many liberals in Canada and Democrats in the US are constantly opopsosing the nihilistic elements of their constituency, and the US Pro-life movement a few years ago had more Democrats than Republicans srpporting this most fundamental human rights issue.

Conservatives, rhetoric aside, really rally around money. "Their" money. I for one am not surprised to see a bow to the homosexula free vote followed by a firm and solid commitment to reducing the GST by 1 and later 2 %.

This consumption-based tax is geared to favour the big spenders, not the little guy. It is regressive, not progressive, and is typical.

The right wing is not my constituency for these reasons. That's why they are laughed at in Quebec which shows more concern for the other. Manning, Stockwell Day and Harper are seen as strident , wraithlike, moralistic half-humans reflecting their emotionally-constipated, puritan, populist formation. The anti-type to the equally ruptured feminazi from the left whose ultimate sacred cow is abortion.

Interestingly or uninterestingly enough, someone once wrote a book on feminists as something of the counterpart to the righteous right. called "Middle-Aged Victorian Women"
It shows thier common worldview e.g. sex is evil., etc.

Well. On that sexy note will bring my callow diatribe to a wrenching, ranting halt, somewhat resigned to the likelihood that as sure as Bob's my uncle, I will have done little in this to elevate your opinion of my political opinions.

I really do appreciate not only the opportuity for the rant, but also your taking the time to take me to task for expressing the thoughts I did and do express. I think that is an act of true respect and friendship between human beings hopefully in pursuit of what limited goods we can encourage or instantiate in our short live.

[Toronthab]

I have to stop for a pee.

[franko]

toronthab said:

Hi Bobs-habit

Whew! That was just a little bit tooooooo much for one post. Hard to follow, too. You are a person with deeply held conservative views morally and socially, just not politically, is that it? You trust a government that has been in power for 12 years because they say they can be trusted in spite of their record . . . more trustworthy than the party in opposition because . . . because . . . because they say they are, in spite of their record? I guess I just don't get it.

GST only favours the rich because it is a consumption tax? So people (like me) who don't earn the national average don't spend? Wrong! It is a proportional tax -- my Tim Horton's coffee costs me less than my neighbour's Starbucks coffee and my Geo cost me less than my neighbour's BMW but we both pay 7% on it, and that extra 2% in my pocket will go toward something else (maybe even savings) as it will his. Should I begrudge his higher paying job? Should I begrudge the fact that his purchasing power is greater than mine? No. I think the "favours the rich" argument is a poor one (no pun intended).

The health care problem stems from our PM's rape of cuts from equalization payments when he was finance minister. He balance the books on the backs of the sick. For this he should be congratulated? And it boggles my mind that he can demonize Mr. Harper for two-tier health care when his own private doctor has a private clinic. Hypocrisy in the worst degree.

And I chuckle when I read or hear about our wonderful Liberals keeping us out of Iraq. First, we couldn't have gone if we wanted too -- our defense department has been are gutted by the Liberals. NO equipment, no man- (or woman-) power. And lest we forget . . . Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Harper in the fact that we as a country should support our neighbours the US. And don't congratulate Mr. Chretien for being a wonderful man of peace -- he never did make a decision. Mr. Martin followed another non-decision maker who let things play out until he had no choice.

The Conservatives (you have Liberalism ingrained or you have been totally brainwashed) they are not the Reform Party) are led by a man who loves Canada just as much as the current PM (a man who loves Canada so much that his company is registered in another country so that he doesn't have to pay Canadian taxes).

As to the Conservatives being concerned about "their money"? Liberal promises are made with my money. I'd rather have the money in my pocket to spend than have the government take it from me and tell me how it should be spent.

One final thought: Manning, Stockwell Day and Harper are seen as strident , wraithlike, moralistic half-humans reflecting their emotionally-constipated, puritan, populist formation only because the media (and I do not believe there is a conspiracy here, merely a philosophy) portray them that way and because Canadians in general are too lazy to think about policy but believe what they are told on the front page of newspapers. We truly are

[blny]

Ok, without typing as much as above:

It will be another liberal minority. Calling this election was a total waste of time, effort, and money. No one east of Alberta, or west for that matter, really want Harper. He's transparent. Not enough people want an NDP government, although I think Layton is the best thing to happen to the party in a long time. Martin is no "Liberal", but more Canadians want him in office than any other.

By the end of January we'll be in the same position we were before disolution, and it's not entirely bad. With parties having to work together to get things done, and people scratching other's backs, it can benefit Canadians. It can be effective. It can keep them all relatively honest.

[Cranky]

Excuse me......but I think I just had the large one for dinner tonight.

Can anyone attach moral values to the Liberals? MORAL VALUES? Seriously? They STEAL from us REPEATEDLY. They LIE to us REPEATEDLY. They think we are nothing more then a collection of brainless sheep to be used and manipulated to their own ends.

Sigh....if the Liberals are "moral" then Hitler was a misunderstood social activity planner.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Most of my opinions of the Leberals and Conservatives are dated since I've been living in the States for 18 years. Rather than comment on the situation when I lack current news, I'll just sau that when I lived in Canada, I was convinced that our system of government was more democratic and superior to the American two party system. Now i feel that when there are only two parties, it's easier to oust the crooks in power.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

- www.bartleby.com/59/13/powertendsto.html

Honest people are generally hard to find and they tend to shy away from politics because the very system is aligned against them. They will, however, fight heart and soul for just causes, from outside the system (and will quite often be destroyed at some point by those working within the system).

History is full of examples of people who fought to improve the human condition—by and large from outside contemporaneous established political systems.

Fear—of losing one's livelihood, one's civil rights, one's family and/or friends, one's life—keeps people in place.

Vote Liberal, vote Conservative, vote NDP, but don't overstep your bounds.

[Doc Holliday]

...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc.

Why?

Frankly by lack of options.

Unlike TorontoHAB I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. I can't put back on a government that has no opinion on how to reform the federation. I can't put back on a goverment that has no world wide presence or leadership and that is letting industries like textile and furniture suffocate because of their lack of protection against massive dumping from China or India.

The Conservatives continue to completely ignore Quebec up to a point where I wonder if that is not part of their strategy towards ROC.

The NDP, as I've said, have lost every bit of credibility in my book when they forced the government to blow millions in order to sleep with them only to back stab them a few months later.

The Ontario will probably put back on a government that a majority of provinces don't want. While it seems we have problems in Quebec to get a majority of people with enough cojones to clearly send the message that enough is enough, as Bob Habit's hints, my guess is the West will grow tired of this masquerade of Federation and trigger what should have done decades ago: a break up and a new partnership that does not rely on an uncontrolably huge central government.

[Toronthab]

blny said:

Ok, without typing as much as above:

It will be another liberal minority. Calling this election was a total waste of time, effort, and money. No one east of Alberta, or west for that matter, really want Harper. He's transparent. Not enough people want an NDP government, although I think Layton is the best thing to happen to the party in a long time. Martin is no "Liberal", but more Canadians want him in office than any other.

By the end of January we'll be in the same position we were before disolution, and it's not entirely bad. With parties having to work together to get things done, and people scratching other's backs, it can benefit Canadians. It can be effective. It can keep them all relatively honest.

I'm sure it was not an intended irony with this post in mind that made you choose BetterLuckNextYear as your nom de byte.

I think you have nicely encapsulated the situation, a really pointless exercise and colossal waste of energy. Martin and Layton will cut a reasonably ok deal, one reflecting the general Canadian conscience, and we'll all get back to bitching.

[PTH]

docholliday said:

...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc.

Why?

Frankly by lack of options.

Problem for me is that I've never seen the point of voting for a separatist party at the Federal level. They won't form part of any government. If they were merely a de-centralising party with a lef-wing view of things, I'd hope they and the Conservatives could form a coalition and wind up a de-centralising party at Center, but that's not gonna happen...

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

Hi Bobs-habit

Whew! That was just a little bit tooooooo much for one post. Hard to follow, too. You are a person with deeply held conservative views morally and socially, just not politically, is that it?

One. Sorry about the long post...born to rant, but most things are not readily conveyed or perhaps I am condemned to the prosaic unlike M.Bozo who so effortlessly glides to the poetic.

Number two, i re-read your posting tips on using quotes. (Gulp.)

And now to the meat, though you see it as substandard processed stuff, while I see prime rib! Big surprise there, huh?

Stop calling me a "social conservative". This is a dupe word shorthand for conservatives who are not totally concerned with money and individualism. (Most.)

My "cause" such as it is or more accurately, the political implications flowing from my duty (whether I acknowledge it or not) to do and further good and avoid or resist evil, opposes abortion utterly and too opposes homosexual acts as two relevant contemporary issues.

I further hope that I don't just oppose these, but rather advance the good in such a way as to make such choices less likely, insofar as they are choices. The issues are very multidimensional. Teen sex is more a byproduct of marketing goods and making money in our culture. Moral relativism reflects our pleasure principle, corporate quarterly profits ethics.

My opposition is meant to be in support of all authentic human rights and genuine freedoms as befits a creature of God. They obviously start with life itself. I am neither a fundamentalist nor anti-rational. I hope I am exactly the opposite of this.

So I would seek authentic human freedoms. The secondary principles flowing from the first "doing good" which cannot be argued against without self-contradiction, are, as is reasonable when you think about it , are expressed more simply as a list of things to avoid doing. Lying. Stealing. Killing unjustly. Dishonouring...the ten commandments or decalogue.

As St. Paul said "Love and do what you will."

Please don't get the grossly mistaken impression that I live up to the above in thought, word, and deed, for I do not. I won't bore you with a treatise on the deep insght of the idea of Original Sin, but there is more than meets the eye behind the common behaviour of our not liking or believing folks who take credit for their oen goodness as though it were a paersonal posession of their own manufacture. (See "self-made-man" and other fictions)

My point is that I view politics as firstly and against a deep stream of "Conservative" thought, a natural part of what it is to being human. The individual good and common goods are identical rightly understood.

The contemporary anti-government sentiment (Corporate mimicry I would point out) is just stupid. We are creatures of commuunity, not self-made. Your parents and mine sprang from differnt parts of the community, not the masturbation if the self-made-man.

So to oppose abortion and not have a concern that will take on the seductive garbage of our SUV culture is bogus, and cowardly. The love of money really is the root of all evil, and authentic liberalism must respond to the ghetto, not the well-heeled, and the better-heeled of the Republicans.

Death and taxes: We are selfish and stupid enough to embrace neither too wholeheatedly, but death is most likely certainly not what most people think it is , and taxes is where we give of ours to others, to the community, to the sick children, to the tired old guy in a cold and impersonal room downtown, with whiskers and a worn out body who gets his meagre veteran's allownance in a couple of days.

Government is where I have a say. Where YOU have a say. The formation of groups of like-minded people into parties is not a corruption, but an obvious necessity for effective democratic action.

The idea that we should all have a say and vote individually on all issues of law and governance is jsut utter nonsense. We don't you and I know whether $20 million should be spent on the computer infrastructure for CERN or not, or what changes should be made to parliamentary practice. Their is a reason why parliamentary democracies with all their faults are as successful as they are.

I find my typical fellow Canadian holds similar liberal perspectives towards both the nature and purpose of govenment institutions. I am not a "liberal" . I am myself. It has been said and I think well, that a person is defined by what they love. The confusion arises in that the human will can only will what is good.

Evil choices are therefore acts where a lesser good is preferred to a higher good.

I see very little in the only slightly moderated Refrom Party element that isn't about a Rush Lumbaugh variety individualism, me-ism. God knows we all suffer from it potentially and actually, but I for one think that our natural selfishness needs little further constitutional or statuatory enshrinement.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

- www.bartleby.com/59/13/powertendsto.html

Honest people are generally hard to find and they tend to shy away from politics because the very system is aligned against them. They will, however, fight heart and soul for just causes, from outside the system (and will quite often be destroyed at some point by those working within the system).

History is full of examples of people who fought to improve the human condition—by and large from outside contemporaneous established political systems.

Fear—of losing one's livelihood, one's civil rights, one's family and/or friends, one's life—keeps people in place.

Vote Liberal, vote Conservative, vote NDP, but don't overstep your bounds.

Like most sayings including my own, Lord Acton's famous dictum holds not just an admonishment against tyranny, divine right of kings and the US constitutioal system, but a caution towards humility. We are not designed to wield absolute power even if absolute power were available, and not just the passing and feeble political power of WWII Germany and post WWI Russia.

Like our own culture, they had within them the seeds and flowering of thier own end. It is forcasted that Italy by 2050will be a mostly Muslim nation. Is that a bad thing?

In rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's, we are bound to seek the true common good by all means, and the political in that it is the instrument by which all of our world is governed is essential as means to any good end. The cynicism endemic in our land and in the individualistic and bloated west is a spiritual maliaise, not a virtue. The world is not too unholy for us. despite her travaux.

We're not Leaf fans for God's sake!

Pray, consider, study, decide and vote.

[Toronthab]

docholliday said:

...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc.

Why?

Frankly by lack of options.

Unlike TorontoHAB I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. I can't put back on a government that has no opinion on how to reform the federation. I can't put back on a goverment that has no world wide presence or leadership and that is letting industries like textile and furniture suffocate because of their lack of protection against massive dumping from China or India.

The Conservatives continue to completely ignore Quebec up to a point where I wonder if that is not part of their strategy towards ROC.

The NDP, as I've said, have lost every bit of credibility in my book when they forced the government to blow millions in order to sleep with them only to back stab them a few months later.

The Ontario will probably put back on a government that a majority of provinces don't want. While it seems we have problems in Quebec to get a majority of people with enough cojones to clearly send the message that enough is enough, as Bob Habit's hints, my guess is the West will grow tired of this masquerade of Federation and trigger what should have done decades ago: a break up and a new partnership that does not rely on an uncontrolably huge central government.

God. I really like the way all of you guys are stepping up to the plate of this so easily disasterous thread. I haven't read your particlar post with full attenitohn and I hope, respect, but it made me think along with Franko's HabsAddict's Bobs et al ...that wha ta good opportunity not just to mouth off, as I so like to do, but, to consider how we are reflected in others, for ill or good. Balls. Real balls.

[franko]

toronthab said:

As St. Paul said "Love and do what you will."

Full reply later (perhaps). Just a pet peeve: when quoting, get the person and the quote right:

Augustine said Love God and do as you please.

[Toronthab]

docholliday said:

...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc.

Why?

Frankly by lack of options.

Unlike TorontoHAB I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. I can't put back on a government that has no opinion on how to reform the federation. I can't put back on a goverment that has no world wide presence or leadership and that is letting industries like textile and furniture suffocate because of their lack of protection against massive dumping from China or India.

The Conservatives continue to completely ignore Quebec up to a point where I wonder if that is not part of their strategy towards ROC.

The NDP, as I've said, have lost every bit of credibility in my book when they forced the government to blow millions in order to sleep with them only to back stab them a few months later.

The Ontario will probably put back on a government that a majority of provinces don't want. While it seems we have problems in Quebec to get a majority of people with enough cojones to clearly send the message that enough is enough, as Bob Habit's hints, my guess is the West will grow tired of this masquerade of Federation and trigger what should have done decades ago: a break up and a new partnership that does not rely on an uncontrolably huge central government.

There I've read it.

Martin is on the right side of the Liberal spectrum. Stupidly or otherwise (God knows even if I don't) I fancy myself to be likely on the left side of that spectrum. I feel am closer in sprit to democratic socialism than laisez-faire capitalism, hence my revulsion to the term conservatism in its common usages.

Whle many and I number myself among them consider Quebec voters to be (geez I hate to say this) more sophisticated, which can I think also be read as more intelligent than most of their fellow Canadians, I believe the Bloc vote, to be foolhardy in the extreme.

Quebec separatism is a real possiblility in my read of the situation. I believe it to be terrible possibility however. I would consider it, like any true divorce rightly understood, a cataclysmic failure of world-hurting significance. A true and crying shame.

Very little gained, an immensity lost. A tragedy. The end of Canada, and though I am not certain of this, the possible end of Quebec which could end up having to learn not English, but American. Canada, thanks very much to her ruling province Quebec negotiates with the US of B, American business and does so as a somewhat, sometimes respected member of the G-7.

Canada has enough national and perhaps more importantly international presence to at least attempt to negotiate with the USofB. We are not and again thanks largely to the lovely jewel of Quebec at the actual heart of Canada percieived as totally owned by these agressive and acquisative unreflective interests. Reflectiveness is a sign of the spiritual and indeed the spirit of Canada largely resides in the liberal hearts of Quebecers.

Hearts need bodies and a great many Quebecers see the value of pumping life into a bigger body even if part of it goes to rectums. There are also brains and lungs out there.

There will be no reassembled, reassimilated Canada, after a separation of Canada, which we are brainwashed repeatedly into forgetting by the business lobby of media that resents the power of the citizen in public government power, is one of the most loosely held federations on the planet. I wish to god people would read more.

Canada will vanish.

Period.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

As St. Paul said "Love and do what you will."

Full reply later (perhaps). Just a pet peeve: when quoting, get the person and the quote right:

Augustine said Love God and do as you please.

I sit corrected. Thanks Franko. I hope St . Paul at least said something close!!

SO this is what it is like to feel "chagrinned". What a great word. Wonder what its' roots are, a real beauty.

[Skilly]

Not sure how much credibility can be given to a survey done by MacLean's. Is it a phone survey? What was the territorial breakdown of respondents? How many respondents have been to all 10 provinces and 4 territories? Its a survey done for "fluff". Generally, Canadians are great no matter where one goes in this country. Newfoundlanders regard themselves as the friendliest Canadians .... doesn't mean it is true. Quebecers may be the social activists of our country ...doesn't mean other Canadians aren't. If only 10 easterners are suveyed but 100 from Quebec and 100 from west and 100 from Ontario than it isn't a balanced survey.


As to the poll. I'll be voting Conservative. I'd vote Bloc if I could but I can't convince Duceppe to run me here in St. John's East.

The simple fact is that it is time for a change in this country. A change in the way we look at federalism, a change in how we view what is important to all the regions, and a change in how the provinces play a role in self-determination.

We are a vast and diversified nation. Easterners problems are not the same as Westerners. Sure we all care about crime, health care, etc .... but we do to varyiong levels and the solution is different in each region. Why is DFO in Ottawa for instance when the last time I checked only BC, NL, NS, NB, QC, and PEI border an ocean?

The main election topic here in Newfoundland will be development of hydro and costodial management of the fisheries. And after the way Martin lied through his teeth to us the last election (sure we eventually got our way, after fighting tooth and nail) he won't be getting my vote. (he didnt last time either ... voted NDP .... but hey thats my perogative)

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

Not sure how much credibility can be given to a survey done by MacLean's. Is it a phone survey? What was the territorial breakdown of respondents? How many respondents have been to all 10 provinces and 4 territories? Its a survey done for "fluff". Generally, Canadians are great no matter where one goes in this country. Newfoundlanders regard themselves as the friendliest Canadians .... doesn't mean it is true. Quebecers may be the social activists of our country ...doesn't mean other Canadians aren't. If only 10 easterners are suveyed but 100 from Quebec and 100 from west and 100 from Ontario than it isn't a balanced survey.


As to the poll. I'll be voting Conservative. I'd vote Bloc if I could but I can't convince Duceppe to run me here in St. John's East.

The simple fact is that it is time for a change in this country. A change in the way we look at federalism, a change in how we view what is important to all the regions, and a change in how the provinces play a role in self-determination.

We are a vast and diversified nation. Easterners problems are not the same as Westerners. Sure we all care about crime, health care, etc .... but we do to varyiong levels and the solution is different in each region. Why is DFO in Ottawa for instance when the last time I checked only BC, NL, NS, NB, QC, and PEI border an ocean?

The main election topic here in Newfoundland will be development of hydro and costodial management of the fisheries. And after the way Martin lied through his teeth to us the last election (sure we eventually got our way, after fighting tooth and nail) he won't be getting my vote. (he didnt last time either ... voted NDP .... but hey thats my perogative)

The MacLean's poll particulars as I recall are printed. Every year MacLean's does a hallmark and somewhat famous poll of Canadians on many issues. It's rather a national pulse checking. I believe the results are pretty good for a poll.

It showed Quebecers to be the Canadians most tolerant of others and most concerned with the other guy and his of her problems. East coasters came out real well relative to the rest of Canada.

I don't understand what you are saying about voting for the bloc if possible.

I am no expert on federal-provincial constitutions, but, by and large, federal concerns concern all Canadians and I do know that we are one of the most loosely bound and unintruding federations in the world. The US for instance is vastly more federally controlled.

Conservatives generally don't much believe in government outside of so-called "law and order" issues and "national defence". They tend to resent taxation and view government as an alien intruder, rather than the natural way of mankind creating his life and culture, which is a more liberal view.

The conservatives will only have the Bloc to deal with them which you may find an acceptable proposition, but I oppose anything that will tend towards the dissolution of Canada, which I view as quite a good thing.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

The simple fact is that it is time for a change in this country.

A change in the way we look at federalism, a change in how we view what is important to all the regions, and a change in how the provinces play a role in self-determination.

We are a vast and diversified nation. Easterners problems are not the same as Westerners. Sure we all care about crime, health care, etc .... but we do to varyiong levels and the solution is different in each region. Why is DFO in Ottawa for instance when the last time I checked only BC, NL, NS, NB, QC, and PEI border an ocean?

Most Canadians, two thirds or so, did not in fact think it was time for a change, either electorally or as best I can see from what people are actually saying, constutionally. Most of us, my self inlcuded don't have a particularly deep grasp of constitutional details. We care about our national health plan. We are also concerned about national unity, and given, your inclinations, rightly so. I rather think that our countty runs rather well with all its problems. I don't think we have to have an oil country, a fish country, a pulp, paper and hydro country, a mining country, a wheat country etc. See a fallacy in this?

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

Hi Bobs-habit

GST only favours the rich because it is a consumption tax? So people (like me) who don't earn the national average don't spend? Wrong! It is a proportional tax -- my Tim Horton's coffee costs me less than my neighbour's Starbucks coffee and my Geo cost me less than my neighbour's BMW but we both pay 7% on it, and that extra 2% in my pocket will go toward something else (maybe even savings) as it will his. Should I begrudge his higher paying job? Should I begrudge the fact that his purchasing power is greater than mine? No. I think the "favours the rich" argument is a poor one (no pun intended).

The GST is a regressive tax Franko as from the Wikpedia paste below, "the tax as a percentage of income falls as income rises."

They go on to cite income tax as usually progressive.

This is consistent with what I was saying about the Reform Party element that runs the so-called Conservative party.

Wikpedia:

Flat”, “Progressive”, and “Regressive” taxation
An important feature of tax systems is whether they are "flat" (the total tax paid is constant over all income levels), “proportional” (the tax as a percentage of income is constant over all income levels), “regressive” (the tax as a percentage of income falls as income rises), or “progressive” (the tax as a percentage of income rises as income rises). Progressive taxes reduce the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes.

[Toronthab]

Franko wrote

The health care problem stems from our PM's rape of cuts from equalization payments when he was finance minister. He balance the books on the backs of the sick. For this he should be congratulated? And it boggles my mind that he can demonize Mr. Harper for two-tier health care when his own private doctor has a private clinic. Hypocrisy in the worst degree.[quote/]

We have one of the best health care systems in the world. It does have some poroblems and I most certainly agree that Martin's cuts, which the Reform Party critics thought were not nearly enough, did negatively affect the plan. No question.

The last election and this one will be fought over this too, and anyone who can read knows that the Conservatives have never been committed to our one-tiered, and it is one-tiered, publicly funded system. One reason I'm not in the least happy about having a useless election is that it will interrupt the processes undertaken to set treatment / time requirements.

In transfer payments made to Ontario, federal money meant to restore healthcare funding somewhat, was instead diverted to tax cuts to the wealthy, in true conservative fashion.

At the end of the day, most Canadians do not trust the Reform Party element that runs the Conservative party to safeguard what we Canadians through our Liberal governments have built for the benefit of all. We do trust the liberals to do that even if they do skrew it up a bit in the process.

[Toronthab]

habsaddict said:

Excuse me......but I think I just had the large one for dinner tonight.

Can anyone attach moral values to the Liberals? MORAL VALUES? Seriously? They STEAL from us REPEATEDLY. They LIE to us REPEATEDLY. They think we are nothing more then a collection of brainless sheep to be used and manipulated to their own ends.

Sigh....if the Liberals are "moral" then Hitler was a misunderstood social activity planner.

It's a little difficult to take this post seriously, but I'll try.

In politics moral values are instantiated in policies that advance certain objectives. An easy and obvious instance is that of capital punishment, something I find utterly abhorrent that a lot of Conservatives, particularly those in the ascendent Refrom Party contingent don't.

Liberals generally find that kind of thing morally repugnant. They sure fell down on abortion and the absurdities underlying the idea of homosexually oriented people "marrying" . No depth of thought there, but rather a misdirected sentimentalism.

Are you seriously trying to advance the notion that the scandal in Quebec is somehow to be borne by all Liberal cabint ministers, MP's and perhaps party members and voters.
How absurd.

Simply put, political power and money intermingle and sometimes people do bad things. I refer you to Mulroney's "pigs at the trough" remark about his intentions for Conservative patronage. That's a good reason not to like Mulroney , but it is not a good reason for casting a vote with serioius national issues at stake.

Liberals generally advance and care about the things I generally advance and care about and that is why I vote for them. Is there some group that advances them better? If so, whom? Elections, even bogus ones, and their consequences are serious business about serious things. They are too important to be reduced to expressions of pique.

[Cranky]

toronthab said:

habsaddict said:

Excuse me......but I think I just had the large one for dinner tonight.

Can anyone attach moral values to the Liberals? MORAL VALUES? Seriously? They STEAL from us REPEATEDLY. They LIE to us REPEATEDLY. They think we are nothing more then a collection of brainless sheep to be used and manipulated to their own ends.

Sigh....if the Liberals are "moral" then Hitler was a misunderstood social activity planner.

It's a little difficult to take this post seriously, but I'll try.

In politics moral values are instantiated in policies that advance certain objectives. An easy and obvious instance is that of capital punishment, something I find utterly abhorrent that a lot of Conservatives, particularly those in the ascendent Refrom Party contingent don't.

Liberals generally find that kind of thing morally repugnant. They sure fell down on abortion and the absurdities underlying the idea of homosexually oriented people "marrying" . No depth of thought there, but rather a misdirected sentimentalism.

Are you seriously trying to advance the notion that the scandal in Quebec is somehow to be borne by all Liberal cabint ministers, MP's and perhaps party members and voters.
How absurd.

Simply put, political power and money intermingle and sometimes people do bad things. I refer you to Mulroney's "pigs at the trough" remark about his intentions for Conservative patronage. That's a good reason not to like Mulroney , but it is not a good reason for casting a vote with serioius national issues at stake.

Liberals generally advance and care about the things I generally advance and care about and that is why I vote for them. Is there some group that advances them better? If so, whom? Elections, even bogus ones, and their consequences are serious business about serious things. They are too important to be reduced to expressions of pique.

Expressions of pique? Pique? You must be wiser then the rest of us because I, (or shall we say we?) a mere mortal base my judgment on "pique" unlike you who diatribes a "moral" justification. Your choice of words shows an arrogance that I have told you before that I don't care for.

Just for the record, I have contributed a lot of time INSIDE Quebec-Canadian politics in the early 80's. Door to door, convention to convention, I helped get my candidates get elected only to find out how quickly his/his/his head swelled and his/his/his opinions changed to suit the party/popular views. I have also shared a bread basket with Jimmy Carter and many other politicians who my godfather had in his back pocket. Yes, he was a very rich "self made" man, a man that you would love to loathe. Watching my godfather "play" them was very educational. Educational alright and a sad example of what OUR DEMOCRACY is all about.

The above experiences have given me some in-my-face "Truths" in politics....

*In order for a large party to gain or stay in power, it has to thread the populist ground.

That is why we will never see the Green party or the NDP or a NEW independent party.

*NO major party will take on issues or political stands that will alienate the majority of the voters.

At worse, they will take a stand that may "annoy" a small majority but NEVER alienate. Bush Jr. has achieve "alienating" proportions but he has a shelf life.

*ALL major parties are financed/supported by special interests. Special interests are not only the moneyed elite (corporations or individuals) but also groups who work as voting blocks to control a candidate/agenda.

*ANY party in power of ANY political persuasion of ANY nation will be corrupted in time. Be it communits, socialist, or any 'ist of choice.

The was never a saying that is more true then "power corrupts". Don't even bother bringing the word "moral" in politics. There is nothing "moral" about power.


I hate to bring a post to a personal level but here goes. You are against abortion and yet the Liberals support that. You are against gay marriages and yet the Liberals support that. So you are not really true to your FUNDAMENTAL MORAL views. You DISMISS them to justify your decision. And then you say other base their decision on "expressions of pique"?

Since you love quotes.....

"He who lives in houses shaded by moral glass should not throw stones"




P.S. You come across way to arrogant and dismissive. If you can't tone that down don't bother quoting/discussing/debating me.