# Canadian Federal Election



## Mexi (Apr 3, 2011)

Election time! (4th time in 7 years) and it's shaping up to be more of a farce than ever.

Our government was brought down a week ago by a "no-confidence" vote put forth by the Liberal party and supported by the Bloc Quebecois and NDP that passed in the house of commons by a vote of 156 to 145. The Harper government was found in "contempt of Parliament", a first in Canadian history, because of the Conservative Party's refusal to provide Members of Parliament with the exact $$$ numbers for Conservative projects. These include: Justice System Reforms, corporate tax cuts and the purchasing of a new fleet of F-35 stealth fighters





Of course our attack ads can't hold a candle to our American counterparts, but it would certainly seem that we're in for another month of the same bullshit spouting from every party that ultimately screws over its citizenry. Any other fellow Canadians following the election? or we so completely indifferent that we'll have a new record low for voter turn out? (last election was 59.1%)


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 3, 2011)

Attack ads annoy the hell out of me.

How about you try talking about your party's platform instead of making personal attacks at another party's leader. 

We aren't even supposed to vote for leaders in Canada but rather a party. 


What amuses me most about the attack ads:

The conservatives are bagging on everybody else for the Coalition government thing even though the Conservatives tried to do the the exact same thing in 2004/2005. 

There is nobody I really want to vote for though. Never had that problem before.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 3, 2011)

I just turned 18 this year and I'm legally old enough to vote. And I'm not going to. I'm not into the vote for the lesser of two evils crap. I'm not voting because nobody accurately represents what I would like in a government, so I'm not going to vote.



Carlin accurately explains why.


----------



## Philligan (Apr 3, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> I just turned 18 this year and I'm legally old enough to vote. And I'm not going to. I'm not into the vote for the lesser of two evils crap.



Yeah, I'm more or less in the same boat (except I'm not 18 ). I don't complain about the government much, but everyone still gives me shit for not voting because I don't feel strongly enough about a particular party to support them.

I finally thought I'd gotten my shit together, and was gonna vote Green Party, but when I read through their full statement, I found out about them being anti-nuclear power (and trying to raise taxes on tobacco and alcohol ), so I'm back to square one.

As much as I hate to say it, I can't see myself voting in the near future; I'm not really crazy about any of our parties, and don't see how one could be so much more effective than another.

Just my  though. I'm not super up to speed on politics, so take what I say with a grain of salt.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 3, 2011)

I'd vote NDP for the sole reason that they want to legalize recreational drugs, but that's not nearly enough of a reason to vote at all


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 3, 2011)

Seems the biggest problem here was the budget this time around, which I approve of. Conservatives seem to be standing behind their budget, so unless somebody tells me something profound, I can wager my vote will stay where it was. 

This government is taking a lot fo flack, especially from the opposition for not doing enough (or anything) but the way I look at it is they are not spending money and raising taxes in those actions, so I am pleased with it. I am tired of governments throwing money away to try and support the dregs of society, instead of making them learn for themselves. Now all we need is a bit of health care reform, maybe the addition of doctors being allowed to do some private practice instead of the dogmatic way health care is treated (and the horrible backlog and lack of operating at capacity it has created).


We need us some new Military equipment, seriously... We can't expect to hide behind nations like the states forever, someone will turn on us eventually.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 3, 2011)

Maybe Marc Emery wouldn't be such a bad choice after all. At least he would have a good excuse for not gettin anything done. cough cough


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 3, 2011)

Ten reasons to oppose the Harper candidate in your riding | rabble.ca


----------



## Vostre Roy (Apr 8, 2011)

I think it my 5th or 6th elections since I can vote (I'm 23, so in the past 5 years), federal and provincial included. I've cancelled my vote on the past two I had to go, I don't care about politics anymore. Main goal of democracy is to elect someone that you trust or share some ideologies with, and I don't trust or share much ideologies with all the parties available, thus making this "democratic" idea irrevelant. Everybody says that we are lucky to have the possibility to vote, for that I agree. But on paper, communism is a much better and fair way to rule a country, but the human kind is just too greedy to make it realisable, same goes for the democracy. Seems like it only favor the wealthiest and richest, middle-class people pay for them.

Anyway, thats the way I see it. Maybe I'll vote for the NPD, I think its time that our country got lead by a left-wing party. Even as a Quebecois who wished that we split from the Canada, I don't see the goal of the Bloc as a federal party. In fact, I feel that the presence even prevent the split.


----------



## AySay (Apr 8, 2011)

From Wikipedia.

_New Democrats today advocate, among other things:

Gender equality and equal rights for LGBT residents
Improving environmental protection through government regulations
National water safety standards
Increasing corporate taxes[3]
Reducing poverty in Canada[4]
Aggressive human rights protection
Expanding funding for public transportation
Expanding public health care, including dental and prescription drug coverage
Social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assist their re-entry to the work force
Abolishing the unelected Senate of Canada and ensuring more proportional representation[5]
Workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to pace the cost of living
Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rights
A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action
Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
One wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs[6]
_

Who DOESN'T want this?
I'd vote NDP, but we all know it isn't going to make a difference...


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 8, 2011)

AySay said:


> Who DOESN'T want this?
> I'd vote NDP, but we all know it isn't going to make a difference...


*"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -John Steinbeck*

So you have a bunch of poor people who think that the system that has exploited the fuck out of them and kept them at the bottom of the ladder is actually the fairest way to do things. They think they can go up the ladder and eventually get to the top. That's almost never the case in this day and age for the majority of people.

They think that if they vote a different system in, they'll get fucked over when they're millionaires and they have to pay taxes. My dad's like this. He said "son, I'm a capitalist" and I said "dad you're poor as fuck".

Social democracy is a joke. Look at Sweden, those socialistic pigs. Sweden is one of the best countries to live on the planet in many aspects, obviously socialism is a failure. /sarcasm

NDP may or may not change a lot of things for the better if they get elected, but it probably ain't happening any time soon.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 8, 2011)

AySay said:


> From Wikipedia.
> 
> _New Democrats today advocate, among other things:
> 
> ...



I don't know much about Canadian politics, but the way it is in Australia there isn't one party that is good and the other that is evil. I'm guessing that both sides of politics agree on almost all of those points. There are a few Canada specific things that I don't get, but statements like equal rights for women, LGTB and indigenous peoples, foreign policy that emphasises democracy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action, looking after water and public transport, reducing poverty etc... these are all non-statements as surely everyone is for these (and several others, I only mentioned a few).

Like in Australia, both parties had pretty much the same policies, the only difference being different types of internet distribution (and they wonder why the election was so close).

So by saying :Who DOESN'T want this?: are you implying that the alternative is a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, violence loving, water hating, tyrant? (If that is the case, I suggest some of the people saying that they won't vote to reconsider.)


----------



## avenger (Apr 8, 2011)

@ arkane demon - your arguements are invalid because you are a filthy communist 

I probaly wont vote because I dont trust giving money to any government and think they are actually going to do anything constructive with it. I'd gladly pay more taxes if anything actually happened with the money other then starting a new commitee or department of fuck all to waste it on.

Scum...


----------



## Origin (Apr 8, 2011)

Like everyone's saying, every goddamn one of them comes off as a shit-slinging smarmy snake. How the hell could I actually pick one? Why aren't they TELLING ME WHAT THEIR POLICIES ARE? I don't understand anyone interested in politics. Parliament, senates, even municipal government, too often ends up being entirely populated by petty, loud children. The only ones who kiss enough ass to get to the highest points. Depressing.. Just saying this for Canada, I don't know enough about American specific leaders to comment.


----------



## AySay (Apr 8, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> I don't know much about Canadian politics, but the way it is in Australia there isn't one party that is good and the other that is evil. I'm guessing that both sides of politics agree on almost all of those points. There are a few Canada specific things that I don't get, but statements like equal rights for women, LGTB and indigenous peoples, foreign policy that emphasises democracy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action, looking after water and public transport, reducing poverty etc... these are all non-statements as surely everyone is for these (and several others, I only mentioned a few).



I wasn't implying a good vs evil aspect, or at least didn't mean to. However, being "for" something and actively pursuing something is not the same. For example some American Republicans may be "for" equality for LGTB people, but will not actively seek to change/implement policy to make this happen. In the same way, Conservatives here may be for all of these, but they will most likely pursue the "goals" their voter based elected them for far more diligently. 



Waelstrum said:


> So by saying :Who DOESN'T want this?: are you implying that the alternative is a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, violence loving, water hating, tyrant? (If that is the case, I suggest some of the people saying that they won't vote to reconsider.)



I'm not implying something as extreme as that, but when one party's main focus is the list above (NDP), and the others is _The Conservative Party generally favours lower taxes, smaller government, more decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces modeled after the Meech Lake Accord and a tougher stand on "law and order" issues. It is also opposed to the legalization of cannabis._(From wikipedia again) you know what the major focus will be on.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 8, 2011)

avenger said:


> @ arkane demon - your arguements are invalid because you are a filthy communist



That makes me sound like a dirty Marxist-Leninist, which I'm not, because it's not djent.


----------



## -42- (Apr 8, 2011)

After watching those ads, I have just one thing to contribute:


----------



## AySay (Apr 8, 2011)

^


Ironic that you're American...
Land of fucked up political ads.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 8, 2011)

Stephen Harper is a fucking weasel and Michael Ignatieff has the charisma of a cardboard box.

I'll be voting NDP yet again...


----------



## -42- (Apr 8, 2011)

AySay said:


> ^
> 
> Ironic that you're American...
> Land of fucked up political ads.



We mastered the art.


----------



## AySay (Apr 8, 2011)

This one is the best. THE FUCKING BEST.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 8, 2011)

^  epic.


----------



## -42- (Apr 8, 2011)

This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 8, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'd vote NDP, but we all know it isn't going to make a difference...



You know, that that attitude is exactly why there never will be a difference?

Maybe (Ha, certainly) they won't get elected this time around. But how many people do you know who say that line?

Maybe if everybody who said that line voted for the NDP they'd do better than they do. Maybe if they start to do better people will realise we have another choice instead of being state with the Reformers and a just right of centre "Left wing" party.

You don't have to win every time to make a difference, but if you don't even try...well then it's a self fulfilling prophesy 

If you want a difference you have to get out there and vote. And you have to galvanism those around you. 

Vote for the NDP like a Leafs' fan think they're going to win the cup every year and a difference will eventually be made. Probably around the next time the Leafs do win the cup but that's better than never.



I'm a Leafs fan so no outrage.


----------



## AySay (Apr 8, 2011)

^
I don't like orange.


Was going to respond properly, but im a lazy dumbass....


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 8, 2011)

I wonder who'll be a legitimate contender first... The NDP or the Leafs? 

.....Even though the Leafs already have 44 years on the NDP


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 8, 2011)

AySay said:


> I wasn't implying a good vs evil aspect, or at least didn't mean to. However, being "for" something and actively pursuing something is not the same. For example some American Republicans may be "for" equality for LGTB people, but will not actively seek to change/implement policy to make this happen. In the same way, Conservatives here may be for all of these, but they will most likely pursue the "goals" their voter based elected them for far more diligently.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not implying something as extreme as that, but when one party's main focus is the list above (NDP), and the others is _The Conservative Party generally favours lower taxes, smaller government, more decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces modeled after the Meech Lake Accord and a tougher stand on "law and order" issues. It is also opposed to the legalization of cannabis._(From wikipedia again) you know what the major focus will be on.



First, sorry for the hyperbole, it was a bit silly.

I get what you're saying about how they might act moderate to get votes but then not take action, and if you really feel so strongly about it, why not vote?

Briefly skimming wikipedia, it seems that the NPD is like the Canadian equivalent of the Greens: left wing and unlikely to ever take office. But if you vote for them, and enough people do likewise, it sends a message to the other parties that the public wants the policies that the NPD holds. That's pretty much the only way we get any environmental policy down here. (Not really, but it helps.) Not that I'm trying to convince you who to vote for, my experience in Canadian politics is that 30 seconds on wikipedia I just mentioned, but I'm just saying that voting is good.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 8, 2011)

Don't you get fined in Australia if you don't vote?

And on many of the Issues the Canadian Conservative party doesn't even pretend to care.

I've never heard them make a peep about taking any sort of action for homosexuals or the rest of the acronyms, or the environment.

They continually advertise that they are going to slash taxes. But it's only ever corporate tax. Or they'll lower the GST by 2% but then raise other taxes (that mostly effect poor people...go figure) to make up the difference and then some.

_Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rights:

_They have made it quite clear, time and time again (occasionally through direct slip ups on live TV or Radio) that they don't care. At all.

_ A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action_
They want to step up Canada's military. They want to make us a military power.

They don't seem to realise that that simply can not happen. Our population is too low for the size of our country. We could defend France with our current army...

_Reducing poverty in Canada[4]
Aggressive human rights protection
Expanding funding for public transportation
Expanding public health care, including dental and prescription drug coverage


_They also don't even pretend to care about these issues and often times speak out directly against them.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 8, 2011)

We do get fined, but they can't stop you from handing in a blank ballot. Even then, they only fine a tiny amount of the people who don't vote because it's very hard to police. Now that I think about it, the fine as about as much as a speeding fine AFAIK.

It sounds like if that party is a contender, perhaps the people that don't want to vote don't mind the reduced rights for the acronyms as you said.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 9, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> They continually advertise that they are going to slash taxes. But it's only ever corporate tax. Or they'll lower the GST by 2% but then raise other taxes (that mostly effect poor people...go figure) to make up the difference and then some.



Slashing corporate tax is a very good thing. It encourages businesses to invest in your country, which brings more cashflow, and therefore creates jobs which leads to incomes. More investment = greater amount of incomes = more taxes collected overall. The solution to improving the economy is not throwing money at it in stimulus packages, it is increasing what level of business being conducted.



Public health care is quite the turd here, we need a better system. A mixed system (public/private). That would allow those with the ability to seek their own way (without having to go to the US) and at the same time would reduce system congestion. Expanding public healthcare is far too costly, and overall a waste, when there are cheaper more reasonable solutions available. This would likely stop as many doctors getting their credentials then going to somewhere where the grass is greener.


As far as aboriginal rights go I am part native and still don't give a rats arse. That was a over a hundred years ago. People need to move the hell on, anyone who did it is long dead. They can't remember the times either, because they were not even born. Assimilate into society, job done.


----------



## groph (Apr 9, 2011)

Attack ads are hilarious. I'm either going to base my vote on whose attack ad I like the best, or I'm going to do eeny-meeny-miney-moe. Heck, I'll probably vote Liberal and next time vote Conservative, then back to NDP like last time, then Liberal, then Conservative, etc.,etc. so when I'm dead I'll have voted for each of the three parties equally.

These guys don't represent me, and it fully doesn't matter what their platforms are since politicians are not in charge of the world. _The evil corporations are, open your eyes._ They really seem to be, though. I don't think a federal NDP government would mean that Canada would suddenly become an awesome place to live as a poor gay person and a Conservative government would make Canada an awesome place to live if you're an old rich person. Apparently the Harper government has expanded in size, which is the polar opposite of what a conservative government is supposed to do. The bigger problems lie in the bigger system, it seems.

and SirMyghin, I'm no expert in economics, but you're describing the "trickle-down" effect. How's that been working out for the world so far? If all you have is a bloated rich upper class and a starving poor lower class with no middle class with purchasing power, you can have all the productive capacity you want but with nobody around to actually buy anything it's all useless. APPARENTLY, despite the efforts to improve the economy, the cash injections have pretty much gone towards increasing the paycheques of corporate owners and expanding productive capacity, and no actual jobs have been created. This is probably pretty debatable, and I'm not trying to start a big vicious argument or anything.

My understanding of the Aboriginal situation is that they want to be taken seriously as a people and not acted upon with impunity by the Canadian State. I've got no bloody clue how to approach that one. As a white Canadian, I have my ancestral background in a people that set up shop here on effectively stolen land. I don't feel guilty for it since it wasn't me who did it, and everybody has to live somewhere, but at the same time I don't feel as if I have any rightful claim to where I live other than the plain fact that the Canadian State can beat back the Aboriginals in a fight if it ever came to it, meaning I live here under the protection of the violent capability of "my" government. That's kind of alienating. I'd love to see relations between the government and the First Nations to enter a meaningful (IE the First Nations start getting what they want even if the government has to secede a national park or two) partnership as far as improving things. Yes, people with green cards have access to "our" institutions for free, that's my understanding, but the reserves are pretty much all impoverished, suicide rates are ridiculously high, alcohol and drug abuse are extremely high, the police and Aboriginals hate each other, it's just a mess. Whenever they try to stand up and resist the State, it rolls in with the military and starts a fight. In my opinion, the Aboriginals are the subordinates of the Canadian government and I think things would be better if our relationship wasn't like that. Yeah, I know, I live in sunshine and lollipops land.


----------



## Mexi (Apr 9, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Slashing corporate tax is a very good thing. * It encourages businesses to invest in your country, which brings more cashflow, and therefore creates jobs which leads to incomes*. More investment = greater amount of incomes = more taxes collected overall. The solution to improving the economy is not throwing money at it in stimulus packages, it is increasing what level of business being conducted.



In theory, it would certainly work out that way. This is all just rehashed Reaganomics from the 80s, and we all know how well that worked out for the other 95% of tax-payers who aren't a part of the richest bracket. Companies use these tax breaks to increase their bottom line, not hire more workers. It is rather naive to think that private companies have the well-being of Canadians at the forefront of their hiring policies. Time and time again, history has shown us that massive tax breaks to corporations DO NOT necessarily lead to increased hiring and investment (especially when these same companies use any excuse in the book to ship our jobs overseas.)

And as far as healthcare goes in Canada, to fund the private sector is to acquiesce to the notion that the public sector isn't worth fixing, when it is. Healthcare shouldn't be a business here as it is in the States, with all the best doctors going to the private sector that ultimate screws over the other 90% of Canadians that are not in a financial position to pay for on-demand healthcare service. We should focus on training more doctors for rural areas, to even out the discrepancies of wait times and focus on *preventative *policies (but those are far too logical for our elected representatives to explore)


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 9, 2011)

People seem to have covered the bullshit of the Trickle Down effect enough (every time it happen...it seems to tank the economy. Cold, hard, fact.) so I'll avoid going on a huge, meaningless and angering rant.

I actually don't give a rats ass about the aboriginal people's plight either. I'm 1/64th Aboriginal (he raped his way into the bloodline) but it happened 500 some years ago (If you discount the absolutely horrific stuff the church based school were doing in the early 1900s...brutal) and none of the people involved are still alive. It's also the way the world worked back then. White people did it too other white people too, it was (well...not entirely anyways) a race motivated thing so much as a: "We want what you have...and we're more powerful then you" thing.

I'm also all for assimilating. It's why the vikings were so successful. Whenever they took a country over they just assimilated into it's culture.


On the Healthcare issue. Private sector health care is the anathema of civilized culture (much like paid education). Everybody deserves the same level of healthcare irregardless (and yes, it's a word, I don't care if they took it out of the dictionary 50 years ago, it has the exact meaning I'm looking for here.) of their wealth. 

Canada also has one of the best care systems in the world. This has been proven time and time again. Are Doctors still ridiculous overworked? Yes. Do why too many people not have Family Doctors? Yes, me included. And blah blah blah.

But studies have shown it to be massively superior to the US system, in both efficiency and effectiveness countless times. So we get treatment faster, and it works better. Why would we want to copy their system more? Seems pretty foolhardy to me.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 9, 2011)

Mexi said:


> And as far as healthcare goes in Canada, to fund the private sector is to acquiesce to the notion that the public sector isn't worth fixing, when it is. Healthcare shouldn't be a business here as it is in the States, with all the best doctors going to the private sector that ultimate screws over the other 90% of Canadians that are not in a financial position to pay for on-demand healthcare service. We should focus on training more doctors for rural areas, to even out the discrepancies of wait times and focus on *preventative *policies (but those are far too logical for our elected representatives to explore)



You still fix the public, but the private side is on its own, you don't fund it. That is why it is private in the first place. Who cares if people want to throw their money into getting something done faster, all the power to them. If you want to wait it out (and think your chances are good) you would be able to go the public route, if you want something now, you go private. Just a step up from what we have, as we allow cosmetic surgery to be private. Want a new nose, better boobs, right away sir. Oh you need life altering surgery and you want it soon, good bloody luck.

Axehappy, the word you want is REGARDLESS not IRREGARDLESS, regardless would mean you all get the same , no matter what. That kind of dogmatic view is why our healthcare system is bogged down and behind schedule, there is no out for those who want to relieve from the system at their own expense for a private option. There is no reason you can't have both. 



Hell, I am waiting for a government that proposes a flat tax.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 10, 2011)

I think demanding that Rich people be allowed a higher quality of life than poor people is a dogmatic view.


There is some logic behind a flat tax, but it just doesn't work in our current system.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 10, 2011)

The lower classes would also have access to this, so it is not as if only the 'rich' would be allowed it. Had the others worked harder and didn't make poor choices they wouldn't be poor in the first place. I am for the record decidedly not rich, but I make good decisions and live comfortably on what I have. 


Supporting the useless portion of society (a good 90% of those on social programs such as welfare) is the curse of the '1st world'. We need to start drug testing welfare clients, and start having people struggle to live with the consequences of their actions. Easily done if there are no children that the idiots brought into the world out of their poor decisions that will also suffer however. All goes down to penalizing success and saying everyone has a 'right' to live in stability regardless of how bad their choices are. I have a problem with that, you own your decisions, and should be forced to live with their full extent.


----------



## Mexi (Apr 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> The lower classes would also have access to this, so it is not as if only the 'rich' would be allowed it. Had the others worked harder and didn't make poor choices they wouldn't be poor in the first place. I am for the record decidedly not rich, but I make good decisions and live comfortably on what I have.
> 
> 
> Supporting the useless portion of society (a good 90% of those on social programs such as welfare) is the curse of the '1st world'. We need to start drug testing welfare clients, and start having people struggle to live with the consequences of their actions. Easily done if there are no children that the idiots brought into the world out of their poor decisions that will also suffer however. All goes down to penalizing success and saying everyone has a 'right' to live in stability regardless of how bad their choices are. I have a problem with that, you own your decisions, and should be forced to live with their full extent.



So poor people are only poor because they made bad choices in life? What if they were laid off, had their jobs shipped overseas or were forced to leave their work because of some kind of physical impairment? Of course the onus is on them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of their lives the moment that happens.

It is not only factually incorrect but downright disrespectful to malign those on social assistance as the "useless portion of society". You have to demonstrate that you're actively trying to find viable employment to even receive your "welfare" cheques (the amount of which has fallen by 50% in the past 10-15 years) And we all know that poor people are so bad at making decisions that they'll blow their meager cheques from the government on drugs instead of providing food/shelter for their families (yes poor people have families too!) Social assistance is there as a safety net to help Canadians when they fall on hard times, it is near impossible to live off the government for your life and have "stability", especially given the considerable cutbacks on social assistance since the Harper Government came into power.

The fact that you equate to living on welfare as some kind of paradise for lazy fucks to feed off the government just smacks of blissful ignorance and a genuine disrespect for people that aren't in an ideal financial situation. Living on that system is humiliating and 90% of those people (I can make up stats too!) will gladly take viable, dignified employment over government handouts. Of course the thousands of Canadians that are now poor after having lost their jobs in the recession are only there because THEY fucked up right?

Having known people on social assistance through my work, I can tell you that NO ONE is happy to be receiving that kind of assistance, when it can barely cover the basic necessities of life. Listening to their anguish while their tears run down their faces because they wish they could find work is quite gut-wrenching, and I hope you exercise a bit more tact in the future when describing this "useless portion of society".

edit: let's not try to derail this thread with a pointless argument on welfare that will get this thread locked. that said, I think its interesting that we're well into the Election month and very few leaders have come out with a solid platform for any sort of Healthcare Reform, even though its the one area of policy that most Canadians seem to have gripes with. It seems because Healthcare is regulated through by the provinces, the Feds seem quite reluctant to make any meaningful changes that could be interpreted as them overstepping their bounds/responsibilities as the government.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 10, 2011)

Did I include physical impairment as a bad choice? Disability and workpalce injuries are well waranted for support, albeit even that system gets abused heavily. "Actively looking for employment" is a joke, people skirt that all the time, the same reason the unemployment rate is a bad measure as people lie to the census (you do not count as unemployed unless you are actively looking for work). Most people looking for work aren't doing nearly what they can be. Yes it is difficult, yes it is depressing, but people like to let that dominate them. 

I am from a rural community and many people DO live off welfare, pop out a few kids and you are good to go. There are those who are not content, and they may be the majority, but their are always those who will abuse the system, and if they do not plan to fix this, I oppose the system entirely. Little harder in the urban center, but I also live beside geared to income housing unfortunately... Drug nest that it is. 


As far as provincial stuff goes, pretty sure this fall is that election too.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 11, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I am from a rural community and many people DO live off welfare, pop out a few kids and you are good to go. There are those who are not content, and they may be the majority, but their are always those who will abuse the system, and if they do not plan to fix this, I oppose the system entirely. Little harder in the urban center, but I also live beside geared to income housing unfortunately... Drug nest that it is.



I must agree with this statement. Coming from the Yukon, I see people doing nothing but living off the system and cheating it every day.

_______________________________


This is as far as I've gotten in this post. I've rewritten it twice, both times realizing I'd gone so far into an angry rant of epic proportions. Needless to say, the topic makes my blood boil, as I see the effects a broken social assistance system has on people every day. So I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## zappatton2 (Apr 11, 2011)

As far as left-vs-right on economic matters, or how to maintain a welfare state that doesn't encourage sloth, I consider myself more or less a centrist, I certainly can't pretend to have the answers anyway. Those things require a balancing act. But when it comes to Harper's conservatives, I can't think of a Canadian government that has been worse or more unbalanced in my lifetime. My number one reason to vote against them, their complete aversion to EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY. This government is run by the very sort of anti-science crowd that sees a liberal agenda in anything that doesn't confirm their strongly held feelings, even if their policies have demonstrably failed in other countries. And they can barely contain their contempt for both the opposition, and parliament in general. This is a government run by feelings, and almost all of those feelings reveal a deep-seated inability to consider facts or offer compromise. Now I would never vote liberal either, but I would like to see something like a liberal-NDP coalition (minus the separatists) with maybe a Green or two thrown into the mix. Canada can yet regain its reputation as a progressive force in the world!


----------



## Mexi (Apr 13, 2011)

English debates were on last night and while it probably won't change a damn thing in the minds of the voters, it was good to see the Opposition parties make an attempt to take Harper to task on all the BS he's been shoveling the past few years. I'm surprised by how well Harper held up, considering the consistent verbal barbs thrown his way. I liked how he spent most of the debate on the defensive, having to argue on his lackluster record and the leaked G8/G20 report. Iggy and Jack spent too much time posturing on Harper's clear contempt for parliamentary democracy and not enough time on actual Liberal/NDP policy.

Here's the closing remarks by the party leaders for those who missed em


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 13, 2011)

NDP was much too busy slanging every other party. Job Creation eh? More useless government jobs that cause raised taxes is what I hear there. 

I love the Bloc, seriously, I do. They have balls. 

I agree with your comment they were too focused on slagging Harper than securing their place. Bad call really.

Edit: Half way through the actual debate, not seeing much difference however. The other party leaders are more encouraged in attacking/trying to befuddle Harper than they are in trying to push their platforms, which I have a surprising little idea of what they are despite being 1/2 way through. It is all blah blah blah you are in contempt, omg you did this.


----------



## Trespass (Apr 14, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> First, sorry for the hyperbole, it was a bit silly.
> 
> I get what you're saying about how they might act moderate to get votes but then not take action, and if you really feel so strongly about it, why not vote?
> 
> Briefly skimming wikipedia, it seems that the NPD is like the Canadian equivalent of the Greens: left wing and unlikely to ever take office. But if you vote for them, and enough people do likewise, it sends a message to the other parties that the public wants the policies that the NPD holds. That's pretty much the only way we get any environmental policy down here. (Not really, but it helps.) Not that I'm trying to convince you who to vote for, my experience in Canadian politics is that 30 seconds on wikipedia I just mentioned, but I'm just saying that voting is good.



We actually have a Green party on top of the NDP.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm actually a huge fan of the Bloc as well. Were he not a separatist, I think Duceppe would make an outstanding PM. It's the mere fact that they want a sovereign Quebec, however, that means that they'll never be getting my vote.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 16, 2011)

Trespass said:


> We actually have a Green party on top of the NDP.




Green Party is a little more left than the NDP but on Social freedoms they're the closest to the middle line of of our Left wing parties. Weird eh?

Unless I'm randomly misremembering something. Which is entirely possible.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 18, 2011)

Lets also remember that the Conservative party isn't the Canadian Progress Conservative party who's name they stole but rather the Reformer party.


----------



## Mexi (Apr 19, 2011)

actually the current Conservative Party is, in essence, a coalition between the old Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. Strange that the current party seems to ignore this fact when they continually maligned the word COALITION with the libs/ndp/bloc


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 19, 2011)

That is in theory true. 

But seeing as the PC party was practically dead when the Reform (Or Alliance, whatever you want to call it same thing) took over, and Reform/Alliance (I think they should have gone with the CRAP acronym) policies dominate, it seems like the reform party to me.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 19, 2011)

I just spent a few minutes looking for the old air farce skit 'love that word reform'. Can't find it in video though. Sad panda.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 20, 2011)

so the conservatives have officially lost me for ever! it doesn't matter what they promise, i will never be voting for them!

during the second last and last election, we had a guy by the name of 'wajid khan' running for our district/municipality. he was running for the liberals. he won 2 elections in a row. however, during the second election, he crossed the floor (as in, he switched sides during the run) to conservatives. right before that election, he had the oddasity to post signs on my lawn for the conservatives. 

i yelled at his representatives to get those signs off my lawn ASAP as i'm not supporting him for SO many reasons. his 'street team' i guess? they replied back by saying 'but he's from your country, speaks your language and is of your religion'. 

i yelled back saying 'i dont care if he is my dad! he is corrupt, and he actually switched parties in the middle of his run! WTF?! plus, no one gave you authority to put those signs up on my property!'

after a bit bickering, they pulled off the signs. 

and then this election, guess what i see out my window after i wake up?! same blue signs (differnet name).... 

isnt that them kinda trespassing?!


----------



## AySay (Apr 20, 2011)

soliloquy said:


> so the conservatives have officially lost me for ever! it doesn't matter what they promise, i will never be voting for them!
> 
> during the second last and last election, we had a guy by the name of 'wajid khan' running for our district/municipality. he was running for the liberals. he won 2 elections in a row. however, during the second election, he crossed the floor (as in, he switched sides during the run) to conservatives. right before that election, he had the oddasity to post signs on my lawn for the conservatives.
> 
> ...




Wow that's fucked up. How fucking dare they say something like that? They need a kick in the teeth.

Also, just for future reference..."audacity"


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

So one guy sullies your mood? 

2 words - Income Sharing. That conservatives want to put that into play and it is a very very good thing Canada is a bit behind on compared to a lot of other nations. You work and your spouse doesn't good news, you can now split your one income into 2 in lower brackets.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> So one guy sullies your mood?
> 
> 2 words - Income Sharing. That conservatives want to put that into play and it is a very very good thing Canada is a bit behind on compared to a lot of other nations. You work and your spouse doesn't good news, you can now split your one income into 2 in lower brackets.



maybe so
but even then, considering the conservatives are trying to sac majority of humanities/history/social science and other related courses in universities in favor of those such as neo-liberal courses bothers me.
considering they are trying to remove anything that is to help immigrants such as ESL classes, or work help group to help them get jobs in favor to save money.
considering they are trying to get rid of social service in order to save money
considering he is trying to, or has already changed the up coming census so it would appear on paper that 2009's recession never occured. this is the same thing that happened to greece where their politician came out and admitted to their foreign investors that all the numbers provided on the census that display the unemployment insurance, the GDP, the debt and all were a lie. this raised the insecurity level of the foreign investors as they didn't know why they could get their money back, and as such, they pretty much left greece over night, screwing greece far worse than they had been before they joined the EU. canada is headed that way....


----------



## Xaios (Apr 21, 2011)

^ Yes, Greece is in terrible financial shape, but that's in large part due to the fact that tax evasion in Greece is absolutely rampant. The populace expects socialism-level help from the government, but refuses to pay the taxes that would fund it. It's estimated that they lose $30 billion a year in revenue because of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/europe/21greece.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/05/21/tax-evasion-becomes-extreme-sport-in-greece/

Basically, the general population sees that the rich are getting richer by dodging taxes, so they say to themselves "well, if they can, we can to." Now, you might say that it's a fair comparison to tax evasion problems we have here, but that's incorrect. In Canada and the US, most of the rich who find ways to pay less taxes at least go about it legally. Not so in Greece, apparently. By the looks of things, their form of tax evasion breaks the law quite blatantly.

I actually have a funny story about tax evasion regarding a couple of people that I had in my office about a week ago. I don't want to go into great detail, partly because of confidentiality, partly because trying to explain it makes my brain want to lobotomize itself. Seriously, after a week, it just seems so non-sensical, I can't even comprehend how they thought they were getting ahead by it. Essentially, they were hiding their car in a dummy company to save money on their tax returns. Ironically, the extra premium they were paying on their auto insurance because of their whole "situation" means they were probably losing far more than they were gaining.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

soliloquy said:


> maybe so
> but even then, considering the conservatives are trying to sac majority of humanities/history/social science and other related courses in universities in favor of those such as neo-liberal courses bothers me.
> considering they are trying to remove anything that is to help immigrants such as ESL classes, or work help group to help them get jobs in favor to save money.
> considering they are trying to get rid of social service in order to save money
> considering he is trying to, or has already changed the up coming census so it would appear on paper that 2009's recession never occured. this is the same thing that happened to greece where their politician came out and admitted to their foreign investors that all the numbers provided on the census that display the unemployment insurance, the GDP, the debt and all were a lie. this raised the insecurity level of the foreign investors as they didn't know why they could get their money back, and as such, they pretty much left greece over night, screwing greece far worse than they had been before they joined the EU. canada is headed that way....



We are still doing better than the states and a lot of Europe 

Sacking humanitys /etc, honestly I have no issue there. Those do not need funding, they are rarely doing research that is valuable to society. They should be able to support themselves if they hold as much merit as they claim. There is a reason graduate students in science and engineering are PAID to do research, our results are important and can be potentially world changing. 

Cutting Social service I also do not mind, not in the least. 

ESL, If someone comes to canada, it should be on them to learn english. The budgetted enough to get here, budget a little more and put some language lesson cash aside too.

For that last one, got any concrete evidence or do you have heresay and suspicion?

Bottom line, I am not looking out for people in need, I am looking out for me. I am a generous and good fellow, so I may help people out on my own terms, but it is not for a government to tell me I have to.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> We are still doing better than the states and a lot of Europe
> 
> Sacking humanitys /etc, honestly I have no issue there. Those do not need funding, they are rarely doing research that is valuable to society. They should be able to support themselves if they hold as much merit as they claim. There is a reason graduate students in science and engineering are PAID to do research, our results are important and can be potentially world changing.
> 
> ...




have you looked at the kids that are being raised now? why is that? school isn't teaching them empathy. school isn't teaching them a LOT of stuff. parents dont have time as they are being forced to work for all that. schools are only teaching them neo-liberal courses that will feed the economy, but not the society. society and economy are two different things that have some connections back and forth, but not always the same. and not everything should be measured in how much money someone can make. if you think that, then sure, might as well start selling children as they make money...

if we dont have social service, you'll be seeing a lot more crime and homeless people on the street. if the government refuses to do anything about them, they become militant and we really dont need that. 


and let me look up the few articles i was studying regarding what harper is doing about the census. but you may remember last summer how one of our lead researchers in our census quit because he didn't want to lie in a feild he had been a part of for 30 years or so. i'll have to ask my old prof for all that though. gimme a day or two


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

Schools job isn't to teach you anythign to do with empathy. School is there to educate you, facts, nothing else. It is not there to groom you for life, it is there to fill your mind. If parents are too busy to do their half the job, whose fault is that? The school systems needs to stop coddling students about issues like self esteem and start failing and holding students back. Cold, ofcourse, but thinking rationally tends to do that to a person. 

I look forward to seeing what you find either way.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Schools job isn't to teach you anythign to do with empathy. School is there to educate you, facts, nothing else. It is not there to groom you for life, it is there to fill your mind. If parents are too busy to do their half the job, whose fault is that? The school systems needs to stop coddling students about issues like self esteem and start failing and holding students back. Cold, ofcourse, but thinking rationally tends to do that to a person.
> 
> I look forward to seeing what you find either way.



i'm guessing you're against the marxsist school of thought?
depends on how narrowly you define 'school'. if you define it as a eurocentric term, then school is to train kids, suck their soul out of them, and make them into factory workers even before they can learn to spell their names. 

however, define school in a more international level, then school is where people learn to network, learn about the world, appreciate the world and expand their horizon collectively rather than individually. 

i mean, i see students in universities trying to screw their class mates over when it comes to marks as they want to hog the glory for themselves. i often argue with them saying it really doesn't matter if they pass the course with a 110 or a 50%. their employers wont care, so long as you pass, and so long as you know how to network, you'll get a job and your marks are irrelevant once you graduate. 


and i dropped an email to my prof...lets see what he replied back as


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

soliloquy said:


> i'm guessing you're against the marxsist school of thought?
> depends on how narrowly you define 'school'. if you define it as a eurocentric term, then school is to train kids, suck their soul out of them, and make them into factory workers even before they can learn to spell their names.
> 
> however, define school in a more international level, then school is where people learn to network, learn about the world, appreciate the world and expand their horizon collectively rather than individually.
> ...



Not quite, you can't teach people to feel, so there is no point in trying. If you try to teach somehow how to feel you are only trying to impart your reaction. The only way to teach empathy is through example. You can't teach someone how to feel, but your actions can drive someone from feeling. Learning collectively is a bit of an issue but exposures to topics is important, as long as it is verifiable. I am not talking about trainable employees, as I support higher knowledge for the sake of higher knowledge in principal, I just don't agree it should be funded by virtue alone, as with all things it should be able to stand alone. 

The final step is a bit of social responsibility and conscience. It is up to you to return to society something productive and tangible. I could have eked by, barely contributing and been a musician. You are giving your art sure, and I don't mean to devalue that, I mean to question how you expect to live off that alone. So I struck a different path, and went into engineering, which is where I am today, one step further in my Master's which is a stressful and challenging venture. I felt I would be giving something back to society by taking on that burden, a stressful, highly skilled job. Engineering is all about giving back to society, giving society something new, different or better. A lot of folks like to tote Engineers Rule The World, in reality Engineers Serve the World. 

As far as screwing your fellow students, I have always been the opposite I taught my fellow students (who then proceeding, being a better student that I, to outscore me). McMaster engineering was more of a fraternity than a competition, which was quite nice for a large school.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 21, 2011)

/\ McMaster was the university i wanted to go to. but if i went, my commute would be just over 2 hours each way, and it was going to be a bit expensive. but i have to say, i've only been to Mac twice, each time no more than 2 hours stay. and within those 4 hours of me being there, i actually made more friends than i did in my entire 5 years at yorkU! i HATE my life in york! 

plus, i know you're married/engaged, so it doesn't apply to you, but the girl to guy ratio at mac is quiet nice. 


anyways, regarding art. i believe that art is a a great way to let people express themselves. i mean, you display an art piece infront of class and ask them what they feel about it, or what the author/painter/etc meant by it, and each and every one tells a different story. and as a result, i think it is easy to teach anger and love in school as you constantly read about it. but not empathy. at least, not in north america. but my point is, that pretty much everything art related is being taken out as well in favor for neo-liberal courses. i mean, we complain about our younger generation not having any particular hobbies out side of video games or drugs (more popular the latter...), but how can they get other interests when all that is at risk? 

10-20 years from you, you tell your kids to pick up painting, writing, poetry, acting, dancing, different instruments, languages etc....to which, they may reply back by saying 'whats that?'

i dont want to be a part of the world where that is the case. 



also, sure, it is parents duty in the end to teach their kids about the world and all. however, from a neo-liberal point of view, helping kids out is useless as it doens't feed into the economy. have both parents work their asses off, pay the baby sitter or the nanny. a lot of kids in my class associate their nannies as their parents more so than their actual parents. and i'm not even that young at 23. and i see my baby cousins and friends siblings who are doing just that and it frightens me. 

i mean, social service is taken away. that means single moms/parents who need that child service is gone or is getting more and more expensive, so they have to sit at home with the kid, or hire a nanny they cant afford as they work. and again, i say this from seeing it myself. where people who have a lot of potential with really impressive resumes and great networks, they cant work due to them being single parents. 

yes, there is such a thing as welfare-to-work (or was it work to welfare?) where the government actually helps people get new skills and throw them into the market to get jobs. it was VERY successful in Winnipeg in early 2000's as they were having a lot of unemployment. however, if they decrease unemployment to zero, or close, that may become far more dangerous as thats what the whole idea behind Keynesianism is. i mean, zero or close to zero unemployment will make employees militant, which effects supply, which effects demand, and before we know it, we are in another ugly recession...


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 21, 2011)

That is why we have to live by example. Some of us here are rather polymathic individuals. You can't effectively decrease unemployment to zero, so there isn't much to worry about. The problem is the unemployment rate is by nature a defective census. The idea behind Keynesianism is to stabilize the economy through the influx of government spending, ideally to reduce the length of downturns. I can't say I support the government in the market at all, with the exception of anti-trust issues.

Single moms/parents are a tricky subject, while I may empathize for those adults who spouses left them I have absolutely no sympathy for teenage pregnancy and teenage mothers, it is nothing beyond poor decisions that landed them in that boat. 

I would also like to know why you think I am interested in Neo-Liberalism, I am interesting in me, my productivity, contributing and living with as few dickwards butting in my life or taxing my soul out through my pocket as possible. 

As far as learning art and stuff, that is where it is up to us to be autodidacts, there is nothing you cannot learn on your own from it. This goes back to striving to be polymathic. 

As far as parenting goes, again nothing the state can do anything for explicitely anyway, but an introduction of income sharing would greatly help families that have a divide in their total income levels by allowing that to be smeared, saving them from paying taxes, effectively requiring them to work less, in order to spend more time with their families. A much better solution than the Liberal proposition of 'free' daycare. 



As far as Mac goes, I came from the North shore of lake huron and uprooted myself and then scraped by for a few years. I agree though, the overall environment there is quite friendly.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 22, 2011)

sir, look into this link. its interesting how lil some people know. i showed this to my friends who were pro conservatives, or pro NDP or something. but their results were completely opposite there than what they had in mind:
Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 22, 2011)

I fall right where I thought it was, the closest party is conservative and the farther is NDP. I am actually near right on top of them


----------



## josh pelican (Apr 23, 2011)

JeffFromMtl said:


> Stephen Harper is a fucking weasel and Michael Ignatieff has the charisma of a cardboard box.
> 
> I'll be voting NDP yet again...



THANK YOU.

I'll go for Layton because of his moustache. There is no lesser of two evils between Harper and Ignatieff. They bicker back and forth like two fucking girls and Layton sits back and laughs.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 23, 2011)

i find it interesting that NDP is now right up against the liberals in the elections. so no longer is this a fight between the two giants. now its 3...


----------



## josh pelican (Apr 23, 2011)

I should get into politics. I'd make so much money for lying.


----------



## DVRP (Apr 23, 2011)

This will be my first time having a chance to vote since turning 18. Im literally going to vote NDP just because I like Jack Laytons porno mustache....

Until MY generation is running for office I really don't give a shit what happens.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 23, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> That is why we have to live by example. Some of us here are rather polymathic individuals. You can't effectively decrease unemployment to zero, so there isn't much to worry about. The problem is the unemployment rate is by nature a defective census. The idea behind Keynesianism is to stabilize the economy through the influx of government spending, ideally to reduce the length of downturns. I can't say I support the government in the market at all, with the exception of anti-trust issues.
> 
> Single moms/parents are a tricky subject, while I may empathize for those adults who spouses left them I have absolutely no sympathy for teenage pregnancy and teenage mothers, it is nothing beyond poor decisions that landed them in that boat.
> 
> ...





my prof wasnt really much help :S
i just said if he can recap his (et al.) theory about whatever debacle happened in greece will shadow in canada due to harper mucking up the census. and if he has any articles to back it up, to which he replied:



> afraid, not, just a logical conclusion.
> 
> best of luck with your efforts
> DC
> ...


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 23, 2011)

Thanks for following up Soliloquy, I do so enjoy the discourse either way. 




DVRP said:


> This will be my first time having a chance to vote since turning 18. Im literally going to vote NDP just because I like Jack Laytons porno mustache....
> 
> Until MY generation is running for office I really don't give a shit what happens.




That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. If you aren't going to vote in an educated fashion, do the world a favour and don't vote. Dead serious here. When your generation is running for office, people voting with your mentality will have already secured the bullshit position your generation will be in through such attitudes.


----------



## DVRP (Apr 24, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. If you aren't going to vote in an educated fashion, do the world a favour and don't vote. Dead serious here. When your generation is running for office, people voting with your mentality will have already secured the bullshit position your generation will be in through such attitudes.



Whats it matter to you, its my vote and Ill do what I want with it. Who are you to tell me "do the world a favour and dont vote". 

FYI Ive been planning on voting NDP for years now. So back off bub. You clearly cant tell when someone is joking. You really think someone would be foolish enough to base there vote on facial hair.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 24, 2011)

DVRP said:


> FYI Ive been planning on voting NDP for years now. So back off bub. You clearly cant tell when someone is joking. You really think someone would be foolish enough to base there vote on facial hair.



People plan their votes for much dumber reasons.


----------



## soliloquy (Apr 24, 2011)

i agree with SirMyghin. 

take palin for example. a lot of people who voted and supported her did so primarily on looks. 

but i would recommend looking into what the politicians are promising before blindly voting. because, say you vote in a tyrant because you're ignorant and you think the idea behind that is cool. you basically screwed the entire country IF that tyrant won.

sure, thats an extreme example, but you get the basic idea...


----------



## Origin (Apr 24, 2011)

I'm going for Layton, the two most well-known are turning out to be childish SNAKES, and Green Party isn't realistically going to tip that smarmy blue dick off his throne this time around. For god's sake, if Steve and Mike could get onto PLATFORMS without BITCHING ABOUT EACH OTHER, I might listen to them. But fuck no. I'm not watching 2 hours of crying to get 5 minutes of information.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 24, 2011)




----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 24, 2011)

Origin said:


> I'm going for Layton, the two most well-known are turning out to be childish SNAKES, and Green Party isn't realistically going to tip that smarmy blue dick off his throne this time around. For god's sake, if Steve and Mike could get onto PLATFORMS without BITCHING ABOUT EACH OTHER, I might listen to them. But fuck no. I'm not watching 2 hours of crying to get 5 minutes of information.



During the debates the only one who really pushed his platform was Harper. Layton, Ignatieff and Duceppe were all busy doing nothing by attacking harper and trying to smear more than anything, not to mention talking over eachother constantly and getting owned by calm demeanor. Had you watched it your opinion might be slightly more valid. Layton was no exception, albeit SLIGHTLY less bad than the other two.

A good reason why watching the debates is more important than making assumptions about how the debates would have went.

Edit: I should add that Layton does speak well, and is the only other really interest in furthering his platform ,and that alone demands respect.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 25, 2011)

I'll give the NDP this: while I would never vote for their platform, Jack Layton does come off as being a very decent human being, and I respect that.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 25, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I'll give the NDP this: while I would never vote for their platform, Jack Layton does come off as being a very decent human being, and I respect that.




Although I cannot support his platform on the whole, I really like his views on changes to the system of governence to represent votes, opposed to who wins ridings (as that may not reflect a parties overall popularity, the Bloc is a fine example). As well as his want to abolish the senate to save money. Less government = the best government. 

Overall though, I would rather not be taxed to shit and expected to carry society on my back.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 25, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Although I cannot support his platform on the whole, I really like his views on changes to the system of governence to represent votes, opposed to who wins ridings (as that may not reflect a parties overall popularity, the Bloc is a fine example). As well as his want to abolish the senate to save money. Less government = the best government.
> 
> Overall though, I would rather not be taxed to shit and expected to carry society on my back.



I'm almost in total agreement.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 25, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I'm almost in total agreement.




We need to find a way to combine the NDPs odd anti-big government sentiments (odd as they are far left) and the conservatives low taxes and income sharing ideas to create a super party! (Oddly enough reducing the government facilitates low taxes somewhat... ) 

TO THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER!


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 25, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> We need to find a way to combine the NDPs odd anti-big government sentiments (odd as they are far left)



I can see why you would say that a left wing party wanting small government is weird, but I've always thought that (because of the tendency towards 'moral' laws such as anti-gay-marriage, anti-drugs etc...) small government style policies don't really match up with right wing parties. So I would say that the norm is unusual, and your anomaly should be unsurprising.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 25, 2011)

Has any other party than the NDP actually posted their platform yet? 

Oddly enough NDP is all for lower corporate tax. Lower than the US even. 

It's a pretty good platform, I'm not in 100% agreement with it, but it's the best platform I've seen from a political party...since I've been able to vote.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 25, 2011)

Platform | Liberal Party of Canada

NDP Platform: Practical First Steps

Conservative Party Of Canada - Platform 2011

Yep, they are all up. Full PDFs can be seen as offshoots from each of those links.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 25, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> TO THE LAYTON-HARPER COLLIDER!



Fixed.


----------



## chevymeister (Apr 26, 2011)

I think I'm either going to void my ballet (At least void it so it counts as a vote you morons. You were given a right, exercise it. Plus, nothing is more of a slap in the face than "You all suck.") or vote conservative.

The liberals almost bought me over with the students get 1k for school thing but then I saw that they were going to remove the tuition and textbook amounts from our tax forms which will just further fuck us students in the future. No thanks, Liberal's budget is retarded this year.

Seriously, doubling CPP rates? That should never have been entered into the system EVER. Now that the baby boomers are growing up, it's finally going to land flat on it's face and they are trying to preserve it...Don't fuck me more for something I'm never going to get.

The conservative budget is the only one that makes sense this year (it's great to see how it's supported Canada so far as we have an amazing growth) but conservative morals are so balls I can't seem to want to vote for them. I like Liberals morals but... come on. You're never going to get what you want in the end anyway, I guess.


----------



## -42- (Apr 26, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> We need to find a way to combine the NDPs odd anti-big government sentiments (odd as they are far left) and the conservatives low taxes and income sharing ideas to create a super party! (Oddly enough reducing the government facilitates low taxes somewhat... )
> 
> TO THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER!



Does Canada have a Libertarian party? Or something equivalent?


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 26, 2011)

Not really no, we generally only have the Libs or Conservatives in the running for actual leadership, with NDP pulling up a fair amount of seats and every so often actually standing a chance of getting in power (this is one of them I wager), and the bloc getting a lot of seats in Quebec. Any other party will rarely if ever even see a seat.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 26, 2011)

Gotta admit, it's pretty cool that Canada has 5 parties that nearly everyone is aware of, even if one of them is batshit crazy and only people in Quebec can vote for them (not that anyone outside Quebec would anyway).


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 26, 2011)

If I could vote for the Bloc I would, anything to help remove Quebec from Canada


----------



## zappatton2 (Apr 29, 2011)

We actually do have the Libertarian Party of Canada, as well as the Communist Party, the Pirate Party (not what you think, mostly to do with copyright policies), the Marxist-Leninist Party, the Christian Heritage Party, and I'm quite certain we've got a few more in various ridings. We used to have parties like the Marijuana Party, Natural Law (a new-age party all about flying yoga), and Rhino (I believe they once advocated reversing the Law of Gravity, but I really just heard someone say that once). I have voted for small parties before, and I do think it's a more legitimate option than spoiling your ballot, as there really is a political party for everyone. I'm still up in the air over NDP or Greens, but it looks like, shockingly, the NDP are actually giving the Cons a run for their money. My personal opinion is that Harper has taken this country to a very dark place, at least we can have an official opposition with a conscience (as opposed to the same ol' Liberals).


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 29, 2011)

^^

The problem here is this, I am worried about the NDP attaining power heavily. Why? They want to double the public pention. The Baby boom is starting to retire (and some have), doubling the public pension would be a very bad idea.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 29, 2011)

No worse than most(all) of Harper's Ideas. And at least it's only 1 (or a couple) of bad ideas.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 29, 2011)

I am sorry income sharing is a bad idea?
Strengthening our military so we will still have jets when we retire these ones is bad? 
Minimum manditory sentences within the criminal code are a bad idea? 

That '1' bad idea you attribute to Layton is enough to break the country. A large portion of the problems in Greece were due to not being able to honour their too generous pensions to people in the public sector, which was about 50% of the populace. You will never find a platform you fully agree on, but as far as fatal error goes, Laytons doubling the pension takes the cake. 

I find his credit card fee cap also quite silly. You take money on a loan, you shouldn't be the one in a place to dictate the risk level. 

The only thing that doesn't involve ridiculous tax increases on his bill, or hell falling on consumers (through carbon tax, which will also bleed investment in Canada) is his Fix ottawa plan. Monday will be here soon enough though.

You see 'low income' benefits far too often also, if you are going to apply a service, best at least let those who fund it use it also (hint, it isn't those they let use it typically). Aboriginals need more nearly free school too? Sure they do..


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 29, 2011)

Yes, all those are terrible ideas. Absolutely terrible ideas. Income sharing may be the least bad, but it still doesn't fly with this guy. 

Again, there is no way (with our population density) to strengthen Canada's military into a powerhouse like the US. The absolute last thing we should be doing is buying new jets (at ridiculous cost to the taxpayer I might add. And that's just the initial price. Lets not mention all the other fees associated with them.) The entire concept of strengthening our military (as Presented by Harper) is just silly. It's absolutely ridiculous. And I'm one of the guys that thinks Canada's military needs a boost. But the conservative party's way is not the way to do it. The NDP's plan however...

Mandatory Minimum sentence is pretty much (well...no, but it played a large factor) what ruined the justice system in the US and is an absolutely terrible idea and has no place in a system with Judges. The whole reasons judges exist is to use their Judgement.


Clearly we disagree on politics and aren't going to agree.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 29, 2011)

The Jets aren't even bought this term, the are bought nearing the end of the decade when our other jets start falling apart. Like our Sea King Helecopters. We need a military, like every other developed nation whether we like it or not. It is not about buying fancy new jets, there won't even be a purchase of them in this term, it is about having jets in the future and this plan predates Harper, he is just following through on it.

Income sharing will allow families with one person staying at home to not get completely boned on taxes, maybe let folks spend a little more time with their kids, teach em all the stuff they should instead of being worked to the bone. It is a much better plan than funding daycare that these people won't even be allowed to use as they are too well off.. While they pay for it. It is effectively saying screw you to the guy with a big income supporting his entire family by tossing excessive taxes at him, opposed to a more reasonable tax considering he is effectively working as two. It facilitates people actually raising their family over the NDP/Liberal daycare and state will raise your family.

The minimum sentence is mostly in respect to most criminals getting out on parole far too early, not the initial sentence. You break the law in conscience, you deserve to face the penalties. 



Agreeing is over rated. Discoursei s more fun.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 30, 2011)

I agree that agreeing is over rated. 

Doesn't really matter when the jets are bought. It's a huge waste of money. Always will be. What good has the US's over powered military done them. They still can't win a damn war.

Income sharing is just another way to not lower taxes on the super little guy whilst allowing those who make more than most to skip out on their share of the burden.

I find the entire concept of parole to be stupid. You were sentenced to time for a crime. Do it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

This election is nothing but a fucking power grab by the opposition that's costing us $300 million. Going by poll numbers, nothing is going to change except possibly a Conservative majority, which makes their position worse. I'm not sure I want people that fucking stupid running our country and our economy.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> We need a military



Nah.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

So you'd like to be the only country in the world without a military? Good luck with that


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Origin (Apr 30, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I am sorry income sharing is a bad idea?
> Strengthening our military so we will still have jets when we retire these ones is bad?
> Minimum manditory sentences within the criminal code are a bad idea?
> 
> ...



Great points, I voted NDP but these aspects of the platform worry me to shit. Especially the part where we mirror Greece, which has completely shit itself and died.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yeah, because we should follow the model of the great nation of Kiribati with it's population of 100k.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Yeah, because we should follow the model of the great nation of Kiribati with it's population of 100k.



Nah dude, let's follow the model of the great nation of the USA, and invade random middle eastern countries, bomb the shit out of brown people for no real reason except to steal their resources (cough cough, I mean spread democracy, cough cough), end up getting hated for being assholes, use up taxpayer money to take away life instead of making shit better (half a million bucks for a tomahawk missile, let's launch a few hundred of those, that should free the shit out of oppressed people), while people at home are living meager lives and barely getting by.

I'd much rather, you know, not have a military, not get into conflicts that doesn't concern the country, use the money that would have been used for stupid shit that shouldn't exist in the 21st century for other things like, I don't know, fixing the health care system, making sure an adequate quality of life is available for every citizen, making education free, helping small business, and a million other things.

Nah, I have a better idea, let's bomb some people, that should fix things. God knows that worked wonders for the USA. Never ending wars where mostly innocent people die for the pursuit of profit and control, having the blind sheep fight each other while the wolves and pigs snicker at the sight. There's a major theme in 1984 where resources and man hours are spent creating things that are meant to destroy instead of using the time and resources to make everything better. It should get people thinking about the point of it all.

But what do I know, I don't like the idea of armies, I obviously don't know anything


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

Who says just because we have an army we have to invade countries? You're putting words in my mouth and saying completely ridiculous things.

In the real world, a country needs a military to defend itself should the need ever arise. It's one of those that is better to have and not need rather than need and not have. If we lived in a happy hippy world where nothing bad ever happened, then sure, fuck having a military.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

As this thread was loading I thought to myself "he's gonna say the put the words in mouth shit", and lo and behold there it was, even though it was a more broad statement than anything personal 

As to the second comment, are we going to wake up tomorrow morning and have Russia invade us? Or any other country for that matter? I honestly don't think so. The only good thing this country's military has done was help clear out some snow when that huge snowstorm hit Quebec way back when. That's pretty much it. A waste of money otherwise, in my opinion.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

Who's to say in 50 years someone won't? Just because we don't have anyone pissed at us today doesn't mean tomorrow we won't. Shit happens. That's like saying we might as well dismantle the police force because I've personally never had a B&E happen at my place.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

If in 50 years there would still be wars fought and humanity hasn't figured out how to stop being a petty species, then I quit


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 30, 2011)

Again, based of population density Canada will never have a military capable of truly defending our country. Not enough people. Too big. 

Unless we magically get all like Warhammer 40 000 and plasma rifles and Powered armour or something shit. 

Or a ridiculous population boom. 

But that's it.


How exactly does buying a couple of planes...make our military better?

I'm actually a pro military guy. I have family serving right now. And my bass player's brother is enlisted too. 

I think instead of buying stupidly expensive planes that don't actually help our military at all, we should focus on improving our soldiers training, quality of life (pay, benefits, etc.) and equipment. Bring that up. Then maybe...maybe after all of that, we can focus on buying planes at ridiculous tax payer expensive (again, don't even get me started on the upkeep) that will be out of date shortly after we get them...


It's also worth Pointing out that the NDP does in fact want to invest in the military. They just differ from the Conservative platform in that they want to focus the military on peacekeeping and helping out with natural disasters instead of bombing the ever loving fuck out of other countries.


Edit:
Also...the whole this election was just forced by the opposition thing;

Wasn't it like...Harper's 5th year in power anyways? Didn't he...have to call an election? Period?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 30, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> Again, based of population density Canada will never have a military capable of truly defending our country. Not enough people. Too big.
> 
> Unless we magically get all like Warhammer 40 000 and plasma rifles and Powered armour or something shit.
> 
> ...



We give our army up to date equipment for the same reason we don't arm our police with swords, so they're well equipped with modern equipment. As far as population density, it wouldn't be such an issue if the left wing parties weren't so adamant about disarming Canadian civilians, and turning us into a bunch of pussies by making self defense illegal.

Also, our last federal election was in 2008. Before that, it was in 2006.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 30, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> police with swords


Fuck yeah



JJ Rodriguez said:


> it wouldn't be such an issue if the left wing parties weren't so adamant about disarming Canadian civilians, and turning us into a bunch of pussies by making self defense illegal.



I agree, it does seem to me counter intuitive to have super strict gun laws, making it really hard for people to obtain guns. While I agree that crazy people should probably not have access to a gun, I think that it should be fairly easy to obtain weapons for defending yourself/your property/your family and whatnot.

However, to be like the average American and have more guns than there are teeth in your mouth is a bit extreme. I believe that armed civilians are important. It is an important tool should tyranny ever descend.

Think of it this way: owning a gun is illegal, everything is going fine, some guy gets into power and turns the country into an authoritative, oppressive dictatorship and starts using the military to keep everything in check. You aren't overthrowing the dictator if you're unarmed. The entire country could be pissed off, and with no weapons you can't do much.

Now think of it this way: same scenario, except a large percentage of the population is armed. Who's gonna try to turn the country into a dictatorship when the entire country will be pissed off and X% of the population has the means to defend itself?

Obviously there's exceptions to this, and is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of gun control, but it needed to be stated.


----------



## SirMyghin (Apr 30, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> Edit:
> Also...the whole this election was just forced by the opposition thing;
> 
> Wasn't it like...Harper's 5th year in power anyways? Didn't he...have to call an election? Period?



No, he was just re-elected in 2008, meaning he still had 2.5 more years before the next scheduled election. This election was entirely caused by opposition push, next election was fall 2012. 

Our militaries training is actually quite good, it is our equipment that is often the limitting factor . Salary and benefits could be higher yes, and should be I agree.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 1, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> I agree, it does seem to me counter intuitive to have super strict gun laws, making it really hard for people to obtain guns. While I agree that crazy people should probably not have access to a gun, I think that it should be fairly easy to obtain weapons for defending yourself/your property/your family and whatnot.
> 
> However, to be like the average American and have more guns than there are teeth in your mouth is a bit extreme. I believe that armed civilians are important. It is an important tool should tyranny ever descend.
> 
> ...



Pretty much how I feel. I went and did the course, obtained my license, and the hoops you have to go through are kind of ridiculous. I mean, I do believe in control to a certain extent, but the gun laws here are so cryptic and insane. 

Also, Google Ian Thompson to see how our country treats those who defend themselves, and when you read it, remember that it is NOT an isolated incident.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 1, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also, Google Ian Thompson to see how our country treats those who defend themselves, and when you read it, remember that it is NOT an isolated incident.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 1, 2011)

Are you saying I'm crazy or the people who are prosecuting him?


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 1, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Are you saying I'm crazy or the people who are prosecuting him?



Obviously the latter


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 1, 2011)

Yeah. If the Conservatives don't take a majority expect a lot more of this, or just plain old banning of guns period. I don't particularly like a lot of what they're about... but I like what the other parties are about a lot less.


----------



## groph (May 1, 2011)

What about this Lucky Moose Bill?

Apparently Conservatives and the NDP are looking to enact legislation which will enable small business owners more freedom in making citizen's arrests.

Maybe that's got nothing to do with shooting somebody who breaks into your house (which you totally fucking should be able to, including police officers) but it at least seems like less bullshit you get for defending yourself.

I'm all for guns, I don't even necessarily care about gun control as a good in itself. Maybe gun control laws keep guns away from kids but there's still a black market anyway, that's how gangs get their guns and responsible parents need to teach their kids about that stuff anyway. I very much like the idea of having the means to remove the brain of somebody who doesn't respect my life. The main reason why I'm not voting Conservative is the punitive aspect of their platform. I don't want MORE police buzzing around me looking for reasons to arrest me and I don't want MORE people thrown in jail for no good reason at all. Apparently the NDP want more cops too. Arm your citizens and see what happens to the crime rate. Next time there's a swarming in Halifax and a few of these punk fuckers gets a bullet between the eyes, that might deter future attackers. It might turn the place into a constant fire-fight, too since everybody has guns, but that's totally badass so it's really a win/win situation. Bring on the guns, give the cops a break,


----------



## SirMyghin (May 1, 2011)

^^^

You sounded good until you said police are looking for reasons to arrest everyone. Victim mentality doesn't get people very far. Otherwise I agree, if someone doesn't want to respect life, they don't deserve the same respect in return.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 1, 2011)

groph said:


> What about this Lucky Moose Bill?
> 
> Apparently Conservatives and the NDP are looking to enact legislation which will enable small business owners more freedom in making citizen's arrests.
> 
> ...



A vote for the NDP is a vote to confiscate and outlaw firearms ownership completely. Jack Layton has specifically said that he wants to ban ALL semi auto firearms (shotguns, rifles, etc) and handguns obviously. A few NDP MP's were going to vote to scrap the registry when they voted on it a few months back, and Jack whipped them into voting to keep it. The registry survived by only a few votes.

And yeah, they introduced that citizen's arrest bill after the whole David Chen(I think that's his last name?) thing. They also changed the wording of the section of the criminal code that allows for self defense. Since I'm no lawyer, I'm not too sure how exactly it affects it, but I guess we'll see.

Another thing that's completely retarded is they just banned body armor in Nova Scotia. So if you have reason to fear for your life, you can't legally wear a bullet proof vest. This of course is retarded, as someone can just purchase it in another province where it's legal. I can understand that the cops are worried about criminals wearing it and the cops not being able to take them down.... but do you think someone who's not shy about getting into a fire fight with a cop is going to worry about illegally wearing body armor? Even better, the wording of the law would also make it illegal to wear kevlar pants that people wear for chainsaws and shit to prevent injury. You might say these laws are passing under the Conservatives, but the people who are actually passing these laws and lobbying for this shit are Liberal appointed judges and MP's.

This is just the tip of the ice berg if we get a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition after Monday.


----------



## SnowfaLL (May 1, 2011)

oh im so torn between NDP and Conservatives.. I really agree with portions of each, but disagree with others..

I am strongly for at least maintaining or increasing military funds. Military is very important, if we didnt have a military, the US would just walk over us and assimilate us most likely. Military is required.

On the other hand, Layton is clearly the most trustworthy and the person I would want to represent Canada in world events. hmm.

So can anyone give some CLEAR information on taxes? What do you think an election of either party will mean for our future taxes/wages?? I know the Conservative propaganda keeps mentioning how the NDP's budget is unrealistic and won't be possible without a tax hike, but is that truth or politcal banter? 

its funny; im teetering on the balance of both sides, yet id NEVER vote for liberal. Esp this election, Iggy is just about the worst prime minister candidate I think i've ever seen since I was born. That guy screams shady as fuck.


----------



## groph (May 2, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> ^^^
> 
> You sounded good until you said police are looking for reasons to arrest everyone. Victim mentality doesn't get people very far. Otherwise I agree, if someone doesn't want to respect life, they don't deserve the same respect in return.



I just don't trust "authority figures" with guns, especially when I'm a law abiding citizen. Cops may not go around literally looking for reasons to arrest people, but there's still a lot of foul play that goes on with police like random arrests, brutality, generally pointless punishments (like going 55 in a 50 or having your inspection a day or two overdue, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.). I'm not going to teach my children that police are to be obeyed unquestionably, I'm not teaching them that they're your "friends" because they're not. They're charged with protecting private interest through the enforcement of laws designed with these interests in mind. I'm capable of managing the safety of my own household, thanks. Of course, I won't teach them to flip cops the bird whenever they see one, just be cautious around them. It's entirely possible to get yourself into some serious trouble if you don't know how to handle a confrontation with a cop, trouble that really doesn't need to happen for the "greater good" of any sort.

Totally got off topic. I'm just generally disgusted and insulted by "nanny states" and any political party that will give us some more credit and allow us to run our own lives has my support. I guess that means I'm not voting. 

But really, what are the huge differences between the three parties? It's not like one is going to be like "Well, we'd like to see all Canadians unemployed so our tax revenue goes completely out the window. We'd also like to abolish the military so Canada is taken about as seriously as the French, and screw the elderly, they're old and should die soon anyway. Why should they get special pensions? What? Aboriginal people? Who the hell are they? They get into school pretty much for free? Huh. Oh, and I guess we'll just not bother with this whole oil sands thing, oil is just stupid and dirty and grimy and definitely not worth a cent."

Then again, it's pretty easy to have zero faith in electoral politics when you have barely a clue as to what is actually going on. A better reason for me to not vote would be simply that; I have no clue who or what I'm voting for. It's not like the respective parties are actually going to follow their platforms to the letter, things will change, money will come and go, new stuff will crop up, more problems will be made, maybe a few things will get better, and then there will be another swath of attack ads saying how crappy everybody is at their jobs. I'm either going to not vote or just do eenie-meeny-miney-moe like I said earlier.


----------



## SnowfaLL (May 2, 2011)

i'll remind all you musicians here (which im assuming most are).. in order to get government grants in Canada, wither its Emerging Music grants from each province or FACTOR.. It requires the artist to vote.

Thats enough reason right there to vote. even if you go void it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 2, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> oh im so torn between NDP and Conservatives.. I really agree with portions of each, but disagree with others..
> 
> I am strongly for at least maintaining or increasing military funds. Military is very important, if we didnt have a military, the US would just walk over us and assimilate us most likely. Military is required.
> 
> ...



Just look at election promises, and see who's looks more expensive. Chances are if they're promising a fuck ton of social programs, that money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 2, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> oh im so torn between NDP and Conservatives.. I really agree with portions of each, but disagree with others..
> 
> I am strongly for at least maintaining or increasing military funds. Military is very important, if we didnt have a military, the US would just walk over us and assimilate us most likely. Military is required.
> 
> ...



NDP wants to double the public pension, look at Greece, enough said? We won't even mention funded daycare and the rest of it. That one straw is enough to break it all.


----------



## Mexi (May 2, 2011)

If you haven't already, VOTE!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 2, 2011)

Already did on Good Friday.


----------



## Xaios (May 2, 2011)

Well, I'll be hitting the polls after work.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (May 2, 2011)

I voted a couple of hours ago


----------



## chevymeister (May 2, 2011)

I voted for nobody. Gotta love exercising your vote and showing every party that they all suck.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 2, 2011)

chevymeister said:


> I voted for nobody. Gotta love exercising your vote and showing every party that they all suck.




Gotta love complaining about the situation but doing absolutely nothing to make it better as spoiling your ballot effectively changes nothing.  (blabbing about that is a bad idea too, especially on a forum, as spoiling your ballot is a felony).


----------



## chevymeister (May 2, 2011)

Lololol, no it's not? I'd like to see proof. Oh well, babbling on a forum is gonna get me caught even though my ballot is registered to my person .

Also, what better way than voiding your ballot. You say it's the least effective way... Are you retarded? When they see that 10% of the population has voided their ballot, do you think they are going to sit around, play with their balls and say, "Oh well?"... Plus, picking a party that is effectively running the country down is NOT the best possible course of action.

Realistically, this always happens and half of the time, they will come out and ask what's wrong with their party. In this time, you are given the best situation possible TO MAKE A CHANGE AND VOICE YOUR OPINION.

/ANGRYCOMPUTERNERD FUUUUUUU


----------



## Xaios (May 2, 2011)

Hate to break it to you bucko, but he speaks truth:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20060121/eating_ballot_060122/

At this point, with all the polls closed, I can only say this. Our forefathers gave their lives to fight against Nazi Germany so that we could have a better tomorrow. At this very hour, there are people fighting and dying for their right to choose in some countries. Even our worst possible outcome is enviable compared to their best, probably by a wide margin. Knowing that, I am truly ashamed of anyone who refuses to partake in choosing a new leader for our country, or worse, goes out of their way to mock the process.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (May 2, 2011)

Looks like traditional BQ voters are finally realizing that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote 
Fuck yeah, Jack


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 2, 2011)

Xaios said:


> At this point, with all the polls closed, I can only say this. Our forefathers gave their lives to fight against Nazi Germany so that we could have a better tomorrow. At this very hour, there are people fighting and dying for their right to choose in some countries. Even our worst possible outcome is enviable compared to their best, probably by a wide margin. Knowing that, I am truly ashamed of anyone who refuses to partake in choosing a new leader for our country, or worse, goes out of their way to mock the process.



Hmm...I never quite understood this reasoning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but around 42000 Canadians died in WWII, out of the 60 million total deaths that the war gathered. At what point did our freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom to vote ever got in danger?

I've been through all the history textbooks over the years and all this reading up, and, to me, it doesn't really add up. Perhaps I overlooked something, but I don't really see how it makes any sense. Please, though, don't take this as an insult or anything, I really need someone to show me how it adds up.

This is sort of like how the States boasts that they single-handedly annihilated the fascist foes when they actually entered the war fairly late and didn't do nearly as much as, let's say the USSR. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am and am confronted by the evidence, I will admit it.

As for other people in less fortunate countries who don't have the right to choose, I sympathize, I truly do, but we've reached an age where the people are starting to get pissed off and starting to take back what is theirs, i.e. Egypt and similar situations.

Still, I don't think that anyone should be look down upon for choosing to spoil their vote or not vote at all. If voting has any bearing at all, it should allow the individual to choose whether to vote or to abstain from voting. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.

To conclude with a quote from South Park: "every election is between a giant douche and a turd."


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 2, 2011)

Looks like Harper got the majority, according to preliminary results.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 2, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Looks like Harper got the majority, according to preliminary results.



I read minority not long ago, got a link? Edit: NM checked CBC 119 up 47 leading. Looks like most people say this opposition power grab for what it was?

Liberals are really tanking though, no surprise under Iggy. Really weird spectrum with strong NDP over strong liberal, lets hope it is a change for the better either way. I agree Jeff, good to see less/nearly no BQ.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 2, 2011)

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip459854#clip459854


----------



## chevymeister (May 2, 2011)

Xaios said:


> Hate to break it to you bucko, but he speaks truth:
> 
> Spoiling ballot is a crime, warns Elections Canada - CTV News
> 
> At this point, with all the polls closed, I can only say this. Our forefathers gave their lives to fight against Nazi Germany so that we could have a better tomorrow. At this very hour, there are people fighting and dying for their right to choose in some countries. Even our worst possible outcome is enviable compared to their best, probably by a wide margin. Knowing that, I am truly ashamed of anyone who refuses to partake in choosing a new leader for our country, or worse, goes out of their way to mock the process.


 Wow eh... first time I've heard of this. Hahaha. Uhoh.


----------



## AySay (May 2, 2011)

Canada...I am disappoint...kinda...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 2, 2011)

Why? Because your party of choice didn't win? Whether you like it or not, that's democracy.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 2, 2011)

Well, only 6.5 million people voted, which means that the other 20 million realize that the current system is broken or they don't really care.


----------



## zappatton2 (May 2, 2011)

Goodbye Canada of compassion and moderation, hello Military-Industrial Police State. I'll be fixing up the raft and brushing up on my Norwegian.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 2, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Well, only 6.5 million people voted, which means that the other 20 million realize that the current system is broken or they don't really care.



Where do you see that? 

In what situation can you fix a problem by doing nothing. Think on that.


----------



## AySay (May 2, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Why? Because your party of choice didn't win? Whether you like it or not, that's democracy.



that's why that "kinda" was there. Regardless of which party won, I'd rather be here than anywhere else...


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 2, 2011)

Too bad I'm JUST getting into university, otherwise I'd be leaving right now.


----------



## SnowfaLL (May 2, 2011)

Well.. facebook is unreadable for the next few days, til the whole "Canada is fucked" whining from this youth generation is over.


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Well, only 6.5 million people voted, which means that the other 20 million realize that the current system is broken or they don't really care.



Wow, this number is way wrong. 14-something million people voted. While it was only a small increase over last year, it's still something.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> Well.. facebook is unreadable for the next few days, til the whole "Canada is fucked" whining from this youth generation is over.



Holy fuck, tell me about it. "Welcome to the United States of Canada" and shit about Harper being a tyrant


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 3, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Whether you like it or not, that's democracy.


 
And because its Democracy, we have the right to disagree with the result in the case that you have used your right to vote. I'm using both apparently ahahah



NickCormier said:


> Well.. facebook is unreadable for the next few days, til the whole "Canada is fucked" whining from this youth generation is over.


 
Well you can't complain about the fact that at least, the youth have an interest in politics, weither or not they are agreeing with the choice. There again, its democracy, so we can complain about the results. I don't believe that our future is screwed, its "only" a 4 years deal so its may hurt, but we should be able to fix the mistakes afterward.



JeffFromMtl said:


> Looks like traditional BQ voters are finally realizing that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote
> Fuck yeah, Jack


 
And you want to know what I like the most about it? That means that people in Quebec wanted to have some changes. Voting for the bloc was indeed pretty much like cancelling your vote. So the people decided to vote for a more federal oriented party, hoping that it would change something in the income. It didn't, so today we awake with a huge majority in quebec being unhappy in the income. It will be fun to watch what will happen. I predict the fall of the Liberals in the next provincial, a regrowth of the PQ and the seperatist.

Its politics. Yesterday, I used my right to vote. Today, I'm using my right to disagree with the result.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2011)

Vostre Roy said:


> And because its Democracy, we have the right to disagree with the result in the case that you have used your right to vote. I'm using both apparently ahahah



I'm not saying you didn't vote, but I can guarantee 90% of the people bitching on my Facebook did NOT vote. I'm not generally a "if you don't vote you can't bitch about government" except with the outcome of an election. If we only had like 60% of people go out and vote, that's damn near half the country that stayed home, and will probably bitch about Harper getting a majority. If the government does something you don't like, like raising taxes, I think that those people have the right to bitch then regardless if they voted or not.


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 3, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm not saying you didn't vote, but I can guarantee 90% of the people bitching on my Facebook did NOT vote. I'm not generally a "if you don't vote you can't bitch about government" except with the outcome of an election. If we only had like 60% of people go out and vote, that's damn near half the country that stayed home, and will probably bitch about Harper getting a majority. If the government does something you don't like, like raising taxes, I think that those people have the right to bitch then regardless if they voted or not.


 

Actually, people who don't vote don't really have the right to complain. Democracy is about freedom of speech and choosing who will represent us. If you don't vote, you don't gain the right to contest the results, you have to deal with it. I went voting knowing that I would not win, but still its my duty to do so if I want to get mad after ahahah

That being said, I still believe that our democratic format is outdated. Not enough people voting. Even tho its a majority now, a good part of the country didn't vote for Harper and yet we got to deal with him.

I'm not an expert in politic, but that it what I believe.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2011)

You will never get a "true" majority of over 50% of the vote with more than 2 parties, well, hardly ever  Since we have a gazillion parties here the vote is split, and people will have to live with that or move to the US where there's only 2 real parties.


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 3, 2011)

You are dead right on that one. Altho, having only two party to choose from, is it any better? I don,t think so... Thats why I deal with what we have, but there must be a better way to make that work. But I ain,t a politic genius, so I can't think of any


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2011)

I think having 2 parties would suck. Hell, we have like 3 major parties and 2 smaller ones, and THEY all fucking suck. The way to figure out how to vote in Canada is try to decide who sucks less.

The US would be shitty to vote in though, you have extreme right and extreme left  At least our Conservatives are like just a tad right of center


----------



## AxeHappy (May 3, 2011)

The US is not extreme right and extreme left. It's extreme Right and right of centre.


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2011)

I'll be honest, even though I knew I absolutely had to vote yesterday, I felt beforehand as if it wouldn't count for anything as the Yukon has had a strong Liberal presence for many years. But low and behold, looks like our Conservative candidate won by a slim margin of 130 votes, so I really do feel like my vote counted for something.

I think the local Liberal candidate got ousted because of his actions with regards to the long gun registry. Yukoners hate it, as we, despite generally being quite left of center on average, love guns. His consituency told him to vote against the long gun registry and he flipped and voted for it at the last minute. It's entirely possible his vote was whipped by the party, but in the end, it didn't matter as it was viewed as a fairly major slight. Local voters apparently (and quite to my surprise) disliked that move enough to send him packing with a new Conservative MP inbound. That's something I never thought I'd see.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 3, 2011)

Vostre Roy said:


> Well you can't complain about the fact that at least, the youth have an interest in politics, weither or not they are agreeing with the choice. There again, its democracy, so we can complain about the results. I don't believe that our future is screwed, its "only" a 4 years deal so its may hurt, but we should be able to fix the mistakes afterward.



Well we all need to sit back and see what happens, I realize you said MAY not will hurt, some good foresight there. 


Axe Happy, the US is mostly right, but Canada is mostly left. Our conservative party is fairly centrist. 

JJ, yep, who sucks less, often followed by, who is going to try and rape my income and feed it to people who didn't earn it the most (they don't get the vote )


----------



## Mexi (May 3, 2011)

as an NDP supporter, I'm really happy at the surge in popularity of a socially-minded party but I'm really disappointed that this came at a huge price of a harper majority. layton will have less power than ever now that the tories can easily pass their crime bill (yay more prisons), buy a completely unnecessary fleet of F-35s among countless cuts to social programs that we will no doubt see in the next 4 years (which is just enough time for him to burn this country to the ground)


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Well we all need to sit back and see what happens, I realize you said MAY not will hurt, some good foresight there.


 

Indeed, too soon to tell what will happen, but I hate the tories and Harper, so I'm getting ready for the worst lol


----------



## SirMyghin (May 3, 2011)

Mexi said:


> as an NDP supporter, I'm really happy at the surge in popularity of a socially-minded party but I'm really disappointed that this came at a huge price of a harper majority. layton will have less power than ever now that the tories can easily pass their crime bill (yay more prisons), buy a completely unnecessary fleet of F-35s among countless cuts to social programs that we will no doubt see in the next 4 years (which is just enough time for him to burn this country to the ground)



As said before, the jets are not purchased this term, and they are to replace our jets that will be out of their service life. Can't have an air force without jets. 

I will be happy when my taxes don't shoot through the roof to pay for people who aren't paying taxes anyway. Programs I am not allowed to use even though funded in part by me are enacted.



Vostre Roy said:


> Indeed, too soon to tell what will happen, but I hate the tories and Harper, so I'm getting ready for the worst lol



Fair enough, Layton was definitely the most likeable candidate, albeit I can't say Harper bothers me in the least, aside from his hair, it doesn't look real. I don't have much of a social conscious, aside from my choice in career, which is entirely a public service (civil engineering).


----------



## avenger (May 3, 2011)

Someone explian this contempt of parliment deal to me. I dont understand exactly what it means. I read articles saying that Harper wasnt allowed to run because its considered a federal crime but he ran and got a majority anyhow? I must be missing something or we are just dumb.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (May 3, 2011)

Where did this guy go?







and do you get to vote for this guy?





I don't get why the general theme of this thread is:

Give lockheed and the military indutrial complex our money for death from above to fight nobody

Punish the poor for being lazy

I'm in London, a den of oligarch serving puppets are in charge and I've always thought of Canada as the most civilised place in the "New world". Ever heard of this fin Canadian?

Benjamin Fulford


So much so, I forgive you Canadians this:


Even after so long, I finally forgive you CANADA!!! 

Was it Plato who said: "the trouble with politics is that real men refuse to be a part of it" ? Or something similar.... Big respec' to Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras (inventor of communism... strangely not well known) and ancient Sumeria, without which, the template for civilisation would not exist. Research!!!

Go get yourself some new puppets this election!


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2011)

^ What on earth was that about?


----------



## Mexi (May 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> As said before, the jets are not purchased this term, and they are to replace our jets that will be out of their service life. Can't have an air force without jets.
> 
> I will be happy when my taxes don't shoot through the roof to pay for people who aren't paying taxes anyway. Programs I am not allowed to use even though funded in part by me are enacted.



I'm all for new jets, but we should be basing this substantial monetary sum based on Canada's needs. Do we really need the latest stealth fighters? (the price tag for which seems to be rising constantly) and why couldn't we have let there be an open-bidding with European contractors that could have provided far more affordable alternatives (especially given this post-recession situation) without all the modular bells and whistles of the F-35s?

Instead of cutting billions of dollars to programs that Canadians depend on, whether it be for daycare subsidies, youth programs etc, we should make better attempts to *reform* our tax and welfare system (perhaps people on welfare could do 40 hrs of volunteer work a week so they contribute) and prioritize the cuts we make based the kind of society we want. I don't mind paying a bit more taxes if I know that the money is legitimately going to helping Canadians or for helping that machine of Parliament go along (more transparency in the govt $$$ would help in that respect)

There is a real "I don't want to pay taxes for services I wont use" kind of mentality that is really popular in there parts which is really quite sad, given the fact that there are probably dozens of countries that would give _anything_ to have the kind of social safety net the Canadian government provides us which is something that most of us really do seem to take for granted. Maybe you might use some services, maybe you wont, but the fact that they're there means that (conceivably) everyone has an opportunity to be on equal-footing, despite the socio-economic differences between groups.

That said, the fact that the election this year turned out to be interesting for once means that the democratic process is alive and well (good on all of you who voted. period) With a Harper majority now, he needs to _deliver_ on his promises (despite me disagreeing with virtually all of them). People should hold him to his words (this time) and hopefully if he fucks it all up, he has nobody (or party) to blame but himself.
/end rant


----------



## avenger (May 3, 2011)

Mexi said:


> I'm all for new jets, but we should be basing this substantial monetary sum based on Canada's needs. Do we really need the latest stealth fighters? (the price tag for which seems to be rising constantly) and why couldn't we have let there be an open-bidding with European contractors that could have provided far more affordable alternatives (especially given this post-recession situation) without all the modular bells and whistles of the F-35s
> 
> Instead of cutting billions of dollars to programs that Canadians depend on, whether it be for daycare subsidies, youth programs etc, we should make better attempts to *reform* our tax and welfare system (perhaps people on welfare could do 40 hrs of volunteer work a week so they contribute) and prioritize the cuts we make based the kind of society we want. I don't mind paying a bit more taxes if I know that the money is legitimately going to helping Canadians or for helping that machine of Parliament go along (more transparency in the govt $$$ would help in that respect)
> 
> ...


 I really like this statement. Strong post overall.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (May 3, 2011)

Xaios said:


> ^ What on earth was that about?



Don't mind him, he just has a tendency to think he's way funnier than he actually is.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 3, 2011)

Mexi said:


> I'm all for new jets, but we should be basing this substantial monetary sum based on Canada's needs. Do we really need the latest stealth fighters? (the price tag for which seems to be rising constantly) and why couldn't we have let there be an open-bidding with European contractors that could have provided far more affordable alternatives (especially given this post-recession situation) without all the modular bells and whistles of the F-35s



A good point, they are a little over the top



> Instead of cutting billions of dollars to programs that Canadians depend on, whether it be for daycare subsidies, youth programs etc, we should make better attempts to *reform* our tax and welfare system (perhaps people on welfare could do 40 hrs of volunteer work a week so they contribute) and prioritize the cuts we make based the kind of society we want. I don't mind paying a bit more taxes if I know that the money is legitimately going to helping Canadians or for helping that machine of Parliament go along (more transparency in the govt $$$ would help in that respect)


A welfare reform is definitely something long over due. Add manditory drug tested to be able to recieve welfare to that list and I can probably get behind it. Putting welfare recievers to work, even without pay is a good idea, they should be doing something more than existing to recieve that money. Yes they need to 'look for work' but that is a joke. 



> There is a real "I don't want to pay taxes for services I wont use" kind of mentality that is really popular in there parts which is really quite sad, given the fact that there are probably dozens of countries that would give _anything_ to have the kind of social safety net the Canadian government provides us which is something that most of us really do seem to take for granted. Maybe you might use some services, maybe you wont, but the fact that they're there means that (conceivably) everyone has an opportunity to be on equal-footing, despite the socio-economic differences between groups.


Won't use is not the issue in my place, it is CAN'T use. If you are going to put something like the popular daycare ideas into place, make it available to everyone, income regardless. Saying only you can have daycare as you don't make much, when the other guy who is paying for it cannot have said daycare is a big issue for me. 



> That said, the fact that the election this year turned out to be interesting for once means that the democratic process is alive and well (good on all of you who voted. period) With a Harper majority now, he needs to _deliver_ on his promises. People should hold him to his words (this time) and hopefully if he fucks it all up, he has nobody (or party) to blame but himself.
> /end rant


QFT, the political landscape changed drastically here, for a country that usually has a very strong liberal party. This may be the kick in the ass they need to make themselves a real contender again, which IMO they have been lacking in since the days of Cretian (who I was not likely to agree with often but the man dominated canadian politics). I am hoping even though the NDP is not in a position to change outcome that their opinions and ideas/ammendments will still be considerred to some extent, in the name of balance. If the NDP and conservatives can get along at least a reasonable amount of the time, it will create less of the back and forth nature party politics usually has. A little more stability if you will. I am not going to count on that happening though , party politics is what it is.


----------



## Mexi (May 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Won't use is not the issue in my place, it is CAN'T use. If you are going to put something like the popular daycare ideas into place, make it available to everyone, income regardless. Saying only you can have daycare as you don't make much, when the other guy who is paying for it cannot have said daycare is a big issue for me.



I completely understand that, however I think the the reason why healthcare subsidies are geared to lower-income families is _because_ of the inherent lack of funding those programs have (which ranges greatly from province to province) and because of those relatively meager resources, they have to prioritize based on *necessity. *and to be fair, a single mom with 3 kids definitely needs subsidized daycare more than a well-to-do family with income exceeding, I dunno, somewhere above the poverty line. that being said, if Canadians were willing to fork over a little more in taxes, the feds could easily fund a national daycare system for every citizen that is affordable (as its been proposed by the ndp and libs on various occasions)



SirMyghin said:


> I am hoping even though the NDP is not in a position to change outcome that their opinions and ideas/ammendments will still be considerred to some extent, in the name of balance. If the NDP and conservatives can get along at least a reasonable amount of the time, it will create less of the back and forth nature party politics usually has. A little more stability if you will. I am not going to count on that happening though , party politics is what it is.



Because there is a Conservative majority, the NDP will have virtually no say in how politics is practiced. every Conservative bill will pass and there will be no "no-confidence" votes. However, I hope that the left-leaning opposition will be a good counterweight to the right of the Tories and maybe (with some luck) we'll see some middle-ground debates w/o all the BS posturing


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (May 3, 2011)

My post was adding some light relief / comedy, as Canada has produced some interesting high profile "eccentrics" that I'm aware of.

Xaios, have a look if your interested, they're not spoof or faked. All brave men.

I have a question: Who will Canada kill with jets?

Russians, Chinese?

Defence spending is ridiculous now a days when economic warfare is the new "final solution" and the U.N.'s recent spate of assasinations strengthens International "peace" accords.






My Great Uncle in the 18th CASC, pre 1930.




Jets, eh? Hmmmm....

Right, I shall leave you to your serious discussion.  Good luck!


----------



## groph (May 3, 2011)

wat


----------



## SirMyghin (May 3, 2011)

Mexi said:


> I completely understand that, however I think the the reason why healthcare subsidies are geared to lower-income families is _because_ of the inherent lack of funding those programs have (which ranges greatly from province to province) and because of those relatively meager resources, they have to prioritize based on *necessity. *and to be fair, a single mom with 3 kids definitely needs subsidized daycare more than a well-to-do family with income exceeding, I dunno, somewhere above the poverty line. that being said, if Canadians were willing to fork over a little more in taxes, the feds could easily fund a national daycare system for every citizen that is affordable (as its been proposed by the ndp and libs on various occasions)



A single mom with 3 kids has likely made some poor decisions a long the way to end up in that boat. I will support some welfare in the case for the children alone, but for her I give no sympathy. Asking people to pay more than about 33-35% taxes is a steep call, as that is what those with good incomes are paying, and that is a huge chunk. Giving the government a third of your income is pretty massive.



> Because there is a Conservative majority, the NDP will have virtually no say in how politics is practiced. every Conservative bill will pass and there will be no "no-confidence" votes. However, I hope that the left-leaning opposition will be a good counterweight to the right of the Tories and maybe (with some luck) we'll see some middle-ground debates w/o all the BS posturing



I know they have virtually no say in the actual passing of bills, that is why they need to be convincing during debates. That is all they have.


----------



## Xaios (May 3, 2011)

Some of the comments on my Facebook were just golden. Of course, there was the usual "Stephen Harper is the devil, United States of Canada" kneejerk diatribe, but there was some hilarious comments as well.

"My car has more seats than the Bloc."


----------



## Mexi (May 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> A single mom with 3 kids has likely made some poor decisions a long the way to end up in that boat. I will support some welfare in the case for the children alone, but for her I give no sympathy. Asking people to pay more than about 33-35% taxes is a steep call, as that is what those with good incomes are paying, and that is a huge chunk. Giving the government a third of your income is pretty massive.



whether she has 3 kids or 1 it doesn't matter, we can't pick and choose individual families that are "more" deserving than others based on the decisions they've made in life. rather, the only way we can effectively decide is by basing them off the economic circumstances that they're in. A solution to not having to ask the average joe to pay even more in taxes is to ask joe millionaire to pay more in taxes. People that wealthy should have no problem having to put up with only 2 summer homes instead of 3. seems counterproductive to have a system that is supposed to work for everyone while singling out people that may not have had the same options/opportunities or faced unique hardships.



SirMyghin said:


> I know they have virtually no say in the actual passing of bills, that is why they need to be convincing during debates. That is all they have.



have you ever SEEN the debates in the house of commons? you can't argue facts and logic against rhetoric and arrogance. Layton trying to be persuasive and charming is all well and good, but unless he has actual power to back it up, it will just be 4 years of the Tories getting whatever they want passed without the need of support from any of the other parties. I like Jack more than any of the other candidates by a longshot, and I freely admit the NDP will never lead the federal government, but hopefully Harper will make some attempt at bipartisanship with this unprecedented rearrangement of the political landscape.


----------



## josh pelican (May 5, 2011)

I said it on fb, but I'll say it here...

The Green Party should just change their name to The Troll Party.


----------

