Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: chris gadsden on December 03, 2008, 07:23:26 PM
-
With all the goings on in Ottawa would you change your vote if we had another election? Give your voting change only if you wish.
I would stay with our MP, Conservative Chuck Strahl as he is the best person in my opinion to serve ones community.
-
I would change my vote to the Green Party.
-
Anarchy... THEY ALL BLOW!
-
Chris you would be the better candidate. Chucks a steak and potatoe guy. :)
-
NO
-
chuck is the man ;) and plus i cant stomach the other parties
-
Would i change my vote?? hmm depends on who the conservatives/fascists run in this riding. I'd like to vote liberal but my top priority is ensuring that the conservatives don't get elected in this riding, so i hold my nose and vote for the lessor of two evils the NDP.
the only way i would vote conservative is if i made over a $100,000 a year, had adequate private medical insurance for myself and family, and stopped caring about the common good
but since i am university educated, make more than the average wage, only have decent third party medical coverage, and care about issues such as the environment, economy, child care, and social justice i will continue to vote for the left side of the political spectrum.
-
would not change. (Ed Fast for Abby)
-
Nope wouldnt change my vote.
I voted Liberal and will continue to vote Liberal.
-
C
-
hmmmmm tough one... where is marc emery? ::) my vote to him hands down.... :)
-
I would stay with our MP, Conservative Chuck Strahl as he is the best person in my opinion to serve ones community.
Why would you vote for someone that belongs to a coward party?
Harper bullied his 2+ years as leader by making so many votes non confidence, yet when he gets challenged, he goes and hides...I guess he is really just a coward after all as are all conservative MP's that supported that thug err coward now.
I think I will switch to the Marxist's this time. So sick of the rest of them. We really need some form of pro rep...
-
The politicians in Ottawa are all acting like a bunch of little kids. Bullying, intimidating etc.etc.
-
I would stay with our MP, Conservative Chuck Strahl as he is the best person in my opinion to serve ones community.
Why would you vote for someone that belongs to a coward party?
Harper bullied his 2+ years as leader by making so many votes non confidence, yet when he gets challenged, he goes and hides...I guess he is really just a coward after all as are all conservative MP's that supported that thug err coward now.
I think I will switch to the Marxist's this time. So sick of the rest of them. We really need some form of pro rep...
chuck strahl has done a good job for us here imo and deserves the vote regardless of which party hes in
-
I find it hard to believe that people who continue to support the conservative party are the same people who argue against privatization....doesn't that keep you up at night???
-
Well I own my own business and I am sick of how this country takes care of the lazy and stupid and punishes those who bust their A$$ and have an education !! so I would definitely vote Conservative again !!!! Oh yeah and by the way I am definitely a proponent of Privatization, save for Fire and Police...
TH
-
So privatization of rivers / parks etc. .....that makes sense to some people in here? Pay for something that should be free? What about water? Want to start paying for your drinking water when that gets privatized? Education? Time for people to wake up and see it for what it really means. I own my own business....and I make a good living doing it....I am proud to be in a country that takes care of people who are less fortunate than ourselves.....and that includes people who are "stupid". Remember, not everyone is lucky to have been born with average mental capability.
You say you're being punished for busting your my friend and getting an education, please enlighten......do you mean taxes are punishment????? As a business owner I'm sure you are aware that we actually pay less taxes and get WAY more write offs than the guy next door....you can't be serious. We are rewarded for purchasing stuff so we can make MORE money, we are taxed at a much lower rate, I mean, come on.....where is the punishment??? I'm not seeing it.
And for the guys who are lazy, they don't live the lifestyle you do either. They PAY for it, it's not an easy life.
-
.
You say you're being punished for busting your *** and getting an education, please enlighten......do you mean taxes are punishment????? As a business owner I'm sure you are aware that we actually pay less taxes and get WAY more write offs than the guy next door....you can't be serious. We are rewarded for purchasing stuff so we can make MORE money, we are taxed at a much lower rate, I mean, come on.....where is the punishment??? I'm not seeing it.
And for the guys who are lazy, they don't live the lifestyle you do either. They PAY for it, it's not an easy life.
I am a new business owner and I have to agree with everything you just said. Although I must say just starting out is not easy.
-
I find it hard to believe that people who continue to support the conservative party are the same people who argue against privatization....doesn't that keep you up at night???
Canadian politics is hardly a "hard line lineal" form of politics. If it was, three parties who historically don't even talk to eachother would never think of forming a coalition. Much like the rest of the world, we are due for a correction, the taxpayer is going to have to take on some of this correction. It can't be put squarely on the shoulder of the politicians, as it's our greed and hyperinflation over the last 10 years that has got us in this mess. Remember, when the market/oil/housing goes up, way out of control there is a buyer and a seller. They contractually make a decision to drive the prices up to that level.
The House of Commons was in a chaotic state. The GG made the right decision in setting a cooling off period, especially since it is a slow time of year. Let's see if this is enough of a scare for the Conservatives and they make concessions in their budget plan to appease members of the NDP/Liberals/Bloc, or at the least...one of those parties, which will break the coalition.
I'm more curious as to what each party would do if in power, or what budget ideas they push to better Canada, that the mud slinging of pointing the finger and blaming everyone else.
Google Jeffrey Simpson, a Globe and Mail journalist and political pundit. He is very non-partisan and provides an interesting read. One of his points is that all this mess actually strengthens the Blocs position.
-
So privatization of rivers / parks etc. .....that makes sense to some people in here? Pay for something that should be free? What about water? Want to start paying for your drinking water when that gets privatized? Education?
You say you're being punished for busting your *** and getting an education, please enlighten......do you mean taxes are punishment????? As a business owner I'm sure you are aware that we actually pay less taxes and get WAY more write offs than the guy next door....you can't be serious. We are rewarded for purchasing stuff so we can make MORE money, we are taxed at a much lower rate, I mean, come on.....where is the punishment??? I'm not seeing it.
And for the guys who are lazy, they don't live the lifestyle you do either. They PAY for it, it's not an easy life.
Obviously you have never actually thought about what privatization means.... it doesn't mean that every service provided by the government automatically becomes pay per use !!! it means that there is competition for projects for example, imagine how much more would get done at a lower cost if there was competition for highway and street maintenace, you would have private companies bidding on jobs while still being held to a certain standard.... Education, Healthcare etc would all benefit from competition !!! I have had many many discussions with numerous people on this subject, you would be very surprised at how many people think along the same lines.... Of course this would be something that would have to be regulated, but imagine the savings and the increase in production that would occur !!!
As for the comment on Lazy people.... I honestly cannot agree with you, my father taught me that if you want something , you have to work for it... if you aren't willing to work for it then too bad !!!!
TH
-
Marmot, if you re-read my original post I was not directing my comment towards business owners I was talking about anyone who busts their A$$ and gets an education.... it is a total joke how income tax works in this country !!! the more you earn the more you pay... how does that make any sense ??? why should anyone have to pay more tax than anyone else ?? do the rich have better roads to drive on ?? better public education ?? better public healthcare ?? NOPE!!! but they are forced to pay more tax the more they earn !!
Lets say for example you have two people graduating from highschool, one decides to go straight to post secondary and the other chooses to travel Europe, Ten years later the first person is a Lawyer making $200,000.00 per year and the other is washing cars at the local Auto Mall making $40,000 per year.... should the person that chose to go to school and sacrifice everything to better themseves really pay one more penny than the other ??? Not only should the % of tax ever change but the dollar amount period should never change, if the guy earning $40,000 a year pays $7000 in tax then so should the guy earning $200,000 a year !!!
We punish people for being successfull and it is disgusting !!!!
I understand that the country would go broke if something like this ever happened but that is only because of how poorly this country is run !!!! Privatize everything possible, regulate it , and this country would be in a much better place than it is now.
TH
-
Obviously you have never actually thought about what privatization means.... it doesn't mean that every service provided by the government automatically becomes pay per use !!!
Actually it does. It meant what taxpayers paid for and funded, being sold to a private entity.
It's not going to happen over night because those who are pushing for privatization of everything don't want to alarm the public while the theft is going on.
But in the end you will pay, and private owners will have the right to charge you, for use of their property.
Public / private partnership are made to steal money out of tax payers for the benefit of private entities.
Basically if you agree that all the land and everything on it belongs to someone and should belong to someone,
than privatization is ok.
I am not against private propety, like your house, your car, your vacation home in Hawaii etc.
That's not the issue.
The issue is multi billion dollar legal entities buying scores of land and creating feuds.
Slowly it's already happening, the city folk have nothing and really work on the land and for those few who have everything.
Megalopolis, we have seen this before.
"Eppur si muove"
And this leads to some form of feudalism. You can call it what you like.
And eventually people will stop liking it and it leads to some kind of revolt...
and the history repeats again.
Basically we have not learned anything.
Goverments privatize profits, but socialize deficits.
-
"Governments privatize profits, but socialize deficits."
Well put.
If you run your own business I would definitely get an accountant. Best bit of privatized spending you can make.
-
Obviously adriaticum , you failed to read the part where I mentioned "REGULATION" !!! Any service can be privatized and be beneficial to everybody as long as it is regulated, the government would still have a board overseeing the private companies that would be bidding on the projects/services. It isn't something that will happen overnight but I hope I get to see it in my lifetime !!
I know that not everybody will agree with my thoughts, and they probably sound harsh to some, but have you ever stopped to wonder what kind of a mess this country will be in if changes aren't made ??
Competition = success ............ Privatization = Competition
TH
-
"Governments privatize profits, but socialize deficits."
Well put.
If you run your own business I would definitely get an accountant. Best bit of privatized spending you can make.
No spending for me on an accountant. My wife is an accountant :)
-
Obviously adriaticum , you failed to read the part where I mentioned "REGULATION" !!!
Ha, ha you're absolutely right, I didn't read it thoroughly because I was working. Multitasking , you know when you do a lot of things and none of them really good.
I do agree with your formula "Competition = success ............ Privatization = Competition" a little bit, but in the end it's not accurate math.
Competition more frequently equals failure, and Privatization is more and more equalling lack of competition.
Depends on perspective, I guess.
Look at our wireless industry, banking industry. They don't compete.
They have carved out territories for themselves and don't give a fiddle.
In other words you can become too big to allow competition.
As it is happening all over the world, 'Consolidation', big fish eating small fish and that is effectively destroying competition.
In terms of privatization as it pertains to competition, we are already all privatized, and that's ok. As long as anyone with an idea is allowed to start a business and make money, we are good.
The only problem is when governments interfere.
Like these coalition monkeys who are trying to throw billions of dollars of our money at a failed company like GM. And then there is no money in the budget to build roads, bridges, hospitals.
There is tonnes of money out there, let me repeat, there is tonnes of money out there.
It's just that you, and 30 million other customers, can't tell where its going because of complex financial structures of the government.
But you can bet its ending up in someone's pocket.
GM is garbage, it has been garbage for the last 2 decades and it will fail. People, high, at the head of that company have ruined it. Lets move on.
I'd rather spend 30 billion in re-educating GM employees so they can pursue other interest.
In terms of executive pay and bonuses, GM is doing great. Make no mistake about that.
We should help those affected by the recession, not those affecting the recession.
What caolition is doing is its telling GM you can be as stupid as you want and have bad business practises, as they do, and bad management, as they do, and bad cost structures, as they do, and not know what you are doing, as they don't, and be in a race where everyone is better than you, as is true, but because you are so big and have so many employees we will give you more money.
Is this a sound economic practise, or what?!
GM needs to fail, if common sense is to survive.
I am sick and tired of this blackmail.
If we keep propping these companies, we are setting ourselves up for retardation.
Back to my point.
Competition means nothing.
Money is the real driver. Money is the cause, competition is the effect.
Competition is something we all have innately built in. We compete even when we are told not to.
But as it is happening,
unlimited wealth is creating unlimited poverty.
GO HARPER!
Hold on to our money!
-
One thing for sure...If there is another election, I guarantee a much bigger voter turn-out than the last election!
-
i would vote for george w bush
-
harper wasted atleast 7 weeks before revealing his budget, when many other countries have tabled stimulus packages, whether they are good or not. i think harpers reluctance to act quickly is reason enough to vote non confidence. the pussy doesnt have the balls to face a confidence vote. i would hope that if there is another election, that the voter turnout is way better.
-
harper wasted atleast 7 weeks before revealing his budget, when many other countries have tabled stimulus packages, whether they are good or not. i think harpers reluctance to act quickly is reason enough to vote non confidence. the pussy doesnt have the balls to face a confidence vote. i would hope that if there is another election, that the voter turnout is way better.
It will be....and it will be a Conservative Majority. Most Canadians are afraid of the Bloc and Dion. We are a forgiving bunch, and Harper may have been slower, but the budget wasn't out yet. The coalition jumped the gun and played bad politics by deciding to get into bed with one another. Not to mention the polls are showing over 60% of the public don't agree with party funding out of taxpayers coffers. (me included). If you have a strong political platform, you don't need a kickback, you just need to get your message out there and find donors. Don't forget, Harper was going to pass this piece of the legislation with a minority government, which means his party would have to play by the same rules and find it's own funding next time too. In a time of fiscal restraint, it seems smart (not popular to other parties, but smart) to cut your own budget first and be smarter with taxpayers money....it's all how the papers want you to read it....they are the worst.
-
harper wasted atleast 7 weeks before revealing his budget, when many other countries have tabled stimulus packages, whether they are good or not. i think harpers reluctance to act quickly is reason enough to vote non confidence. the pussy doesn't have the balls to face a confidence vote. i would hope that if there is another election, that the voter turnout is way better.
It will be....and it will be a Conservative Majority. Most Canadians are afraid of the Bloc and Dion. We are a forgiving bunch, and Harper may have been slower, but the budget wasn't out yet. The coalition jumped the gun and played bad politics by deciding to get into bed with one another. Not to mention the polls are showing over 60% of the public don't agree with party funding out of taxpayers coffers. (me included). If you have a strong political platform, you don't need a kickback, you just need to get your message out there and find donors. Don't forget, Harper was going to pass this piece of the legislation with a minority government, which means his party would have to play by the same rules and find it's own funding next time too. In a time of fiscal restraint, it seems smart (not popular to other parties, but smart) to cut your own budget first and be smarter with taxpayers money....it's all how the papers want you to read it....they are the worst.
I love reading biased Cons supporters LOL
Ya sure it doesn't come out of taxpayers money. Who cares!! The reason he did this was because the Cons have lots of money while the NDP and Liberals are broke. Their is no other reason why he is doing it. Harper doesn't care about tax payers money. He cares about one thing and thats Harper. I wont vote for some racist fascist.......
If they do have to go back to the polls you can guarantee that Dion well not be the leader of the party.
-
the reason there is a subside is to curb the private funding from corporations and unions to avoid influence. harpers only reason is to hurt the other parties financially. he is arrogant and thought he was gonna walk away with a majority and was made to look like an idiot. saving 24 million isnt gonna break the coffers.
-
It's not mine but:
Jack and Gilles
Went up the Hill
To build a Coalition
And, with Dion,
They shoved the Cons
Back into Opposition.
Three lunatics
Whose stupid tricks
Will leave us all in Debt
Thus, I note,
When you don't Vote
This is the cupcakes you get!
-
Some people don't seem to understand that the coalition has nothing to do with economy and the way government runs and it has all to do with taking power!
We are in a perfect situation in Ottawa.
We have a minority government which means they can't put any laws through without public being alerted and getting support from a part of the opposition.
We have an economic crysis around the world and we have a Conservative government which is far more fiscally responsible.
Coalitions are not formed after elections to take power from the ruling party.
Coalitions are formed before the elections to gain votes to take power.
Capisce!
-
the reason there is a subside is to curb the private funding from corporations and unions to avoid influence. harpers only reason is to hurt the other parties financially. he is arrogant and thought he was gonna walk away with a majority and was made to look like an idiot. saving 24 million isnt gonna break the coffers.
Agreed
-
To this comment-"Three lunatics Whose stupid tricks Will leave us all in Debt" : You do realize the country's debt was being paid down under the liberals right? And they not only did not run a deficit, they ran a surplus of (don't quote me) but I believe when they left office it was a surplus of 9.1 billion. Since the Conservatives took power, the surplus has shriveled to almost nothing, and they (Conservatives) are talking about running a deficit of up to 14 billion next year(2009). So, to correct, who's fiscally responsible ??? ;D
-
To this comment-"Three lunatics Whose stupid tricks Will leave us all in Debt" : You do realize the country's debt was being paid down under the liberals right? And they not only did not run a deficit, they ran a surplus of (don't quote me) but I believe when they left office it was a surplus of 9.1 billion. Since the Conservatives took power, the surplus has shriveled to almost nothing, and they (Conservatives) are talking about running a deficit of up to 14 billion next year(2009). So, to correct, who's fiscally responsible ??? ;D
You do realize Canada was in an economic boom the last 5-7 years. The government experiences surpluses the same time as the economy due to increased spending, incomes thus taxes. Aswell, the government has investment, holdings etc that all increase. Don't know who is responsible for better money management, but we can't be quick to give too much credit during high times and too much blame during low times. In saying that, we need our government to be fiscally responsible in these times and if they run a deficit, to choose wisely and creatively to keep our economy bouyant.
-
Yes I do realize, and do you realize the conservatives has been in power since 2006? A time when our country was in the best financial state in a decade or more? Since they took power in 2006 when the economy was probably in the best position in recent memory, our surplus still faded. It was mismanaged even when our country was prosperous under Conservative management. They chose to doll out massive corporate tax cuts (in the billions to oil companies) at a time when they know claim they knew tough times were coming and to companies who are making billions (oil sands). Now, I do like tax cuts (to small businesses not to corporations) but only in times when it is fiscally possible, and I believe we would be better prepaired as a country if there was no corporate tax cuts and we had the billions given to oil companies. If you read into the financial history of when the conservatives were in power and compare it to the financials of when the liberals were in power, there is a huge difference in fiscal responsibility. I realize there are ups and downs and yes the liberals also enjoyed the "good" times, the difference being they ran a massive surplus and chose to use the money to pay down our national debt instead of more corporate tax cuts to rich fat cats. Its just a matter of choosing which party will screw us little people over less , after seeing Harper's latest methods, I personally can't trust him but I also don't want to have another 350 million dollar election. We shall see in the new year if this time he will choose to work with the opposition as it is his job as a minority government to work with all parties and listen to their ideas and not try to rule as a dictator. just my personal thoughts.
-
Salmonsturgeontrout,
Neither Liberals nor Conservaties have a measurable effect on the economy.
Liberals were in power for over a decade and it just so happens that the decade was a prosperus one.
Liberal policies didn't cause the prosperity just like Conservative policies are not causing the recession.
This recession has been long time in the making.
It just so happens that Conservatives got into power when the times are bad.
If nothing else, Liberal policies of liberalising banking/credit system are bringing this recession on.
And we rank as the best positioned country to ride out this recession without major damage.
If you blame ones or credit the others you have too much faith in what they can really do.
They ride the waves for the most part. The economy these days is a global phenomenon.
Right now, no one country in the world is doing well.
So does that mean all governments have bad fiscal policies?
Except Somalia ,which is apparently doing well, we are all in the hole. Some more than others.
The recession is happening because people have over-extended and spent too much money they didn't have.
Now they are trying to spend even more money they don't have but there is no credit available.
This is a mere correction and it's a good thing.
If we don't learn something now and change our fiscal habits, the next recession will be worse than the Great Depression.
It boggles my mind to hear on CKNW that they are telling people to go out and spend money to support their local economy.
This epitomizes the problems we have and the world we live in.
Anyway, this coalition is dead and if we go to the polls in January, Convervatives will win a majority.
-
Adriaticum,
I obviously didn't specify what I was referring to when talking about the economy, I should have said government budget as thats what I was referring to, not the actual economy, obviously they don't play much of a role in the economy. The liberals were in power in a prosperous era but not to begin with as "When Chrétien took office in 1993, he inherited a $43-billion deficit left by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. By the time he retired in 2003, the deficit had been eliminated and the federal government was awash in huge annual surpluses. After less than three years in office, Liberals contend, Harper has squandered the surpluses and left the country teetering on the brink of deficit. Moreover, Dion has repeatedly charged that Harper has presided over the slowest economic growth since 1990, when Mulroney was still in charge." The Canadian Press. That was my point. As for the banks/ credit crisis, Canada is in the best position in the world because of the liberal policies. There is not one party that is fiscally responsible, but when times are tough ie) early 90's with a 43 billion deficit. , the liberals have proved to know how to tighten the belts instead of dolling out corporate tax cuts to multi-billion dollar companies. Lets face it ALL THE PARTIES SUCK! but the liberals have proved to be MORE fiscally responsible with their budgets.
.
-
Well I side with those that say governments do matter with regards to business. Governments establish the rules of the game, the climate in which businesses can operate. For instance, higher levels of taxation might have a negative effect on future investment. But with regards to the mess we are in, and unfortunately will be in for a number of years. This is the direct result of not having strict rules in place when it came down to mortagages and loans South of the border. When those big banks and financial institutions started going down one by one, it was just a matter of time before it became a global problem. A lot of the corporate bigshots who preached laissez faire business practices are having to eat crow now as they go to the U.S government with hands extended asking for a government bailout. Hopefully we and our elected officials learn from this, if not expect the same thing to happen once again later on down the road.
-
Adriaticum,
I obviously didn't specify what I was referring to when talking about the economy, I should have said government budget as thats what I was referring to, not the actual economy, obviously they don't play much of a role in the economy. The liberals were in power in a prosperous era but not to begin with as "When Chrétien took office in 1993, he inherited a $43-billion deficit left by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. By the time he retired in 2003, the deficit had been eliminated and the federal government was awash in huge annual surpluses. After less than three years in office, Liberals contend, Harper has squandered the surpluses and left the country teetering on the brink of deficit. Moreover, Dion has repeatedly charged that Harper has presided over the slowest economic growth since 1990, when Mulroney was still in charge." The Canadian Press. That was my point. As for the banks/ credit crisis, Canada is in the best position in the world because of the liberal policies. There is not one party that is fiscally responsible, but when times are tough ie) early 90's with a 43 billion deficit. , the liberals have proved to know how to tighten the belts instead of dolling out corporate tax cuts to multi-billion dollar companies. Lets face it ALL THE PARTIES SUCK! but the liberals have proved to be MORE fiscally responsible with their budgets.
.
When the Tories came into power in 1984 they inherited $34.5 billion in deficit from Liberal.
-
Adriaticum,
I obviously didn't specify what I was referring to when talking about the economy, I should have said government budget as thats what I was referring to, not the actual economy, obviously they don't play much of a role in the economy. The liberals were in power in a prosperous era but not to begin with as "When Chrétien took office in 1993, he inherited a $43-billion deficit left by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. By the time he retired in 2003, the deficit had been eliminated and the federal government was awash in huge annual surpluses. After less than three years in office, Liberals contend, Harper has squandered the surpluses and left the country teetering on the brink of deficit. Moreover, Dion has repeatedly charged that Harper has presided over the slowest economic growth since 1990, when Mulroney was still in charge." The Canadian Press. That was my point. As for the banks/ credit crisis, Canada is in the best position in the world because of the liberal policies. There is not one party that is fiscally responsible, but when times are tough ie) early 90's with a 43 billion deficit. , the liberals have proved to know how to tighten the belts instead of dolling out corporate tax cuts to multi-billion dollar companies. Lets face it ALL THE PARTIES SUCK! but the liberals have proved to be MORE fiscally responsible with their budgets.
.
Dion is not Chretien and Harper is not Mulroney.
Dion contents all kinds of things and he is wasting everyone's time. You are not paying attention to what he says, are you?
He is out and grasping for a straw. This whole coalition mission is his doing. He figured he and Duceppe speak the same lingo and they could come up with something.
Liberals have nobody right now, they have lost their competent people and they are bare bones. Chretiens, Martins, Manleys, Goodales are gone. Goodale is still quietly there.
Ignatieff and Rae are a joke.
And Trudeau...joke.
When Chretien took office in 1993, it was the beginning of the Information age, the Technology was exploding, stocks were rocketing up, everyone that had some money made money.
Everyone. The going was good, until about 2000 after the markets crashed because the stocks were so over valued. After that everything went down hill slowly.
I don't think you can credit Liberals with making that happen.
I think Harper is the better of the bunch right now and some of the guys around him really give him bad reputation.
They can't form a coalition to take down the government. That should be illegal.
If they want to forma a coalition before the elections to garner more votes as a united front thats ok.
But once the people have spoken, absolutely not.
Nor can governor general say I will give power to these guys, or those guys. This is a system where people vote for their MPs, not one individual. Are you with me so far?
We are in a perfect scenario right now.
Minority governments are perfect.
Conservatives can't pass any laws that defy logic and common sense without the public and the media being alerted.
I really want them to duke it out all in public without slipping us a mickey.
Comprende!
But in the end I do agree,
politics of today are less about who we want to be in power
and more about who we definitely don't want to be in power.
Sad.
-
Coalition is all but done. Looks like their well be a new Liberal leader sooner rather than later.
-
Well you are free to speak your mind and thoughts; however I do not agree with them. You don't trust liberals, I don't trust Conservatives, as I consider them the republicans of the north. As for Harper, how do you trust someone who tried passing a bill to undermine our democratic political funding? 30 million is less than the government spends on tim hortons for their staff, it sure wasn't to save tax payers money. Not to mention he refused to pass a bill for equal rights for equal pay (women's rights) . If he will actually listen to the ideas of other parties instead of trying to pass his own personal agenda then it might work in the new year, but so far he has not shown any willingness to work with the opposition, every other party seems to get along or at least show that they are willing to work together whether for a short period or not, again you are entitled to your perspective just like I am wether I agree with it or wether you agree with mine, bottomline is we as a country need a strong minority government (we don't need a majority of ANY party), and one that is willing to listen to all party platforms and negotiate proposals that will benefit ALL Canadians and not just their own parties and its supporters. Why should a coalition be illegal, if the majority of voters say yes , there is nothing wrong with it, but if it is not supported by the public then obviously it should not be allowed, it should be a voter/poll decision. As for bad people , you realize the conservatives had to kick a few people from their party for bad conduct right? its not just bad liberals , thats every political party's problem. I could say some conservatives are a joke too but I wont go down that road since they don't lead the party and are not as important.And I love how its a bad move when the liberals try a coalition, but when Harper tried it was all OK? double standard? The part I do agree with is this : "But in the end I do agree, politics of today are less about who we want to be in power and more about who we definitely don't want to be in power.Sad." I hate to say it but I think the states has the right idea in their voting system, Canadians should (I think) vote the Parliament members in, then vote for the prime minister, and vote for each cabinet member instead of our system : eany, meany, miney, moe, your it ....congratulations you are now minister of education. Hopefully Harper learned his lesson and will be more willing in January to work with Parliament as I don't want another election , we already have a provincial one coming in the near future.
-
for Harper, how do you trust someone who tried passing a bill to undermine our democratic political funding?
Why should political parties get funding from government ???
-
for Harper, how do you trust someone who tried passing a bill to undermine our democratic political funding?
Why should political parties get funding from government ???
They have been for years. Harper is only doing this because the Cons are rich, the Liberals, and NDP have no money. They dont want a fair election. They dont want the Liberals and NDP to be able to compete. It should be a fair race and by cutting them off its not. Do you think if the Cons had less money they would have introduced this? Not likely.
-
As I understand, the reason this was brought into effect was to prevent what has happened in the USA with their politics and how major corporations control a lot of the content which is released by the political parties and to put a stop to the influences brought on by major corporations funding political parties. For example if the liberals or conservatives were sponsored by the oil sands or say car manufacturers the political parties would have no chance at increasing taxes for these companies as they would likely pull their funding, also those parties that are funded by corporations tend to pass bills that would help out those companies in kind of a, you help me I'll help you attitude. Notice down in the states, in the republican party they were for offshore oil drilling? That is because John McCain has major money in oil companies as well as other republicans and they are a major sponsor of the republican party. It has been proved by scientists and oil speculators etc. that even if they did drill it would take ten years to effect the oil prices and would likely drop by only 1-2 cents meaning little to no difference.So why the big push on oil drilling that won't effect the price to the average person by much? Because they are influenced by their sponsors (oil companies) Same thing on the Democrats, they are funded by many environmental groups (wind,solar etc.). Basically it tries to stop the influence of major money corporations on political parties and their political strategies.
-
Harper's the new Hitler ;D Zeig Heil
More propaganda on the radio than any other party can afford. The ovens are heating up for those who don't toe zie line.
-
Well TH, I do understand privatization. For certain things, I think privatization is a good alternative, but for others such as education, natural resources, healthcare etc, you don't have to look far to see the negative effects.
As for regulation.....provided by who? More private companies? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the companies that regulate the least will get the most business.
I for one am proud to be able to give back to society in the form of taxation. The more i can make, the more i can give back....to me, that is what living in canada is all about and part of what makes me proud to be a canadian. Social priorities, and not selfish ones. Sometimes I wish it our taxes were spent more responsibly, of course....but I was taught that helping other people is a good thing. I take pride in the fact that many Canadians feel the same way and that greed and selfishness doesn't guide their behavior.
I guess that's why I typically don't get along well with neocons :)
-
for Harper, how do you trust someone who tried passing a bill to undermine our democratic political funding?
Why should political parties get funding from government ???
They have been for years. Harper is only doing this because the Cons are rich, the Liberals, and NDP have no money. They dont want a fair election. They dont want the Liberals and NDP to be able to compete. It should be a fair race and by cutting them off its not. Do you think if the Cons had less money they would have introduced this? Not likely.
I tried to find figures on what each party's balance sheet is like but can't find it. Do you have any links I can take a look at?
-
Nope no links but they reported it right after the election. They have also mentioned it on the news during this whole mess.
-
Salmonsturgeontrout,
I don't want your money or my money, funding any political party, unless you or I give them the money.
I like the cut he was trying to make and that cut would apply to him too, when he makes it into the opposition.
Opposition parties always look at laws as they apply in the short term, but never in the long term.
Very, very few look at the laws in the long term.
Liberals and NDP are raising hell about this because they would lose money and power, they don't really care about people or their party in the long term.
This is a good thing.
You got me all wrong. I am socially conservative, but I am a nonpartisan, not a member of any party and a member of all parties.
Frankly, I think parties should be illegal.
Right now, we elect MPs who are nothing more than sheep in parliament and vote however their shepherds tell them to.
That's not democratic at all.
And that is the state of current parliament. Here and in the US.
On the womens' rights thing, I don't know much about it, but if it has a title "Women's pay equity", I am a little skeptical.
Sound to me like regulating the regulated regulation with yet another regulation.
I don't want anyone's pay equity to be part of any law.
There is no law that says men have to make more money than women.
There is no scale to measure value or someone's worth. This is very tricky business.
So there is no reason elevate anyone by using laws. Less laws, more common sense, more happiness. IMO. (This republican motto, I agree with)
Lawyers will tell you we need that law because they will make tonnes of money making it. It's just advertising.
I think there is lots of opportunity for both women and men. In my field there was almost more women then men at one time. I had 2 female execs for about 4 years. Now they are hard to find.
Since then I moved into the small business arena and there are more women entrepreneurs then men.
If we elevate one's by law we create imbalance.
Like giving bad company like GM money so they can procreate bad business practices.
It's dangerous.
People are deciding which company is good and which one is not.
I am more of a Darwinist and believe things should be left to their own devices for the most part. Create a playground with regulations, have someone to referee the game and let people play.
People are good just as they are and have empathy, and like company of other people and so will naturally learn to live together.
If laws don't burden them.
I think we've had enough history of violence and don't think a guy like Hitler can ever rise again.
Your theory of where the money came from for Democrats and Republicans is dead wrong. That's a stereotype we've been taught.
Big oil votes for Republicans, and Joe the plumber votes Democrat.
No.
Dems got more money from big business this time around.
Everyone wanted Republicans out.
I know Conservatives had to get rid of some people from the party, that's ok. They should get rid of them. Some people shouldn't be in politics.
There are a few goons around Harper, no doubt.
But overall today, I think they are the better party and have my vote.
Tomorrow, is a whole different ball game.
-
A) any law will inevitably effect something long term, therefore parties must look at the long term and short term effects and outway which is best(in their belief)
B)the liberals and Ndp raising hell about power and money shows they care about their long term status (cant play politics without money and power) and if you can prove me wrong? last I checked Tim Felger hasn't been elected
C)you admit you are conservative so how do i see you are wrong? "You got me all wrong. I am socially conservative, but I am a nonpartisan, not a member of any party and a member of all parties.I think they are the better party and have my vote" How can you be socially conservative, think they are better, vote for them but be nonpartisan ?one is influenced by their beliefs, wether they think they are or are not
D)The women's rights bill, was to introduce a law to prevent and oppose sexism in the work place. if a man and woman do the same job and do it the same quality why should a woman be paid less? its sexist to think they should be paid less just because they are women.Do you support sexist practices?
E)"If we elevate one's by law we create imbalance."- wether anyone likes it or not the TRUTH is the more laws the more balance and regulation. That is a fact. This doesn't mean I want 10 trillion laws but thats the truth. What you stated is in effect an oxymoron.
F) "There is no law that says men have to make more money than women"- no, but there should be because sexism still exists
G)There is no scale to measure value or someone's worth- dependant upon the job there is IE) work ethic, speed, productivity etc.
h)"If we elevate one's by law we create imbalance. Like giving bad company like GM money so they can procreate bad business practices"-there is a difference between this and seeing two people that do the same job with the same efficiency being paid differently just because of the sex of the individual.
I)"People are good just as they are and have empathy, and like company of other people and so will naturally learn to live together.If laws don't burden them."- not entirely true, as many heard the salvation army and food bank were robbed, does that show empathy, that they like people or that they are learning to live "together" NO, there is an opposite to every positive in the universe
J)"Your theory of where the money came from for Democrats and Republicans is dead wrong. That's a stereotype we've been taught. " - don't believe me look in to the donors and sponsors of the democrats and republicans and do some fact checking on these companies and you'll change your mind. John McCain and George Bush Sr. and Jr. are all big oil family's
K) Joe plumber was made up, racist, a republican and a liar ( not a plumber, not named Joe, not making 250,000 and not from where he said he was)
l)Dems got more money from big business this time around.- if you read my post I never said anything about who made more, only that the conservatives have more money than all other parties , so not sure why you mentioned this?
m)Why did you go into attack onto liberals members, and not mention problems with other parties including conservatives? this is not a one party problem, they all have bad members - this shows a biased opinion.
and to conclude this alphabetical political post if you would like to discuss this back and forth conversation further Adriaticum perhaps it would be in the best interest of the thread to conclude this public posting session and if you would like to continue conversing, you can pm me and leave this thread to continue for others before it becomes locked.
-
Ha,ha we could solve all the worlds problems.
A) Yes it inevitably does, but they don't look at it that way. They opposition parties, and parties in general, are all about them and how it affects them, now.
B) Sure, I think this law should be passed with the large majority supporting it. I don't exactly agree with the timing of it, but it should be passed. I guess Harper knew he would get good support for it from the public, but he figured he could jab the opposition at the same time. I don't care how it affects any one party, really. I think it's a good proposition and it should be the law.
C) Just because I am socially leaning conservative it doesn't mean I throw my mouth behind everything Conservatives do or say. There is a big difference. My values don't quite agree with any particular party. They have little bits of of all of them and a lot of what they don't have.
D),E),G),H) "If a man and woman do the same job and do it the same quality why should a woman be paid less?"
No she shouldn't, but who can accurately gauge this? Who can accurately gauge the value this (wo)man brings to their company?
Bring this divine being forth!
It's all psychological.
You tell some HR manager that he should pay something to someone and he will laugh.
It's like there can't be any discrimination based on age, sex, marital status, social status, educational background, pregnancy status, perceived intelligence.
Did that law work?
Salary based on much more than just education and skill.
Its based much more on the soft skills and perceived values.
Education and awarenes are the key here, but I don't want to go into this discussion. This is a social issue, There is a whole other book on that.
Politics is the name of the game.
I) Yes, but do you know who stole from Salvation Army? Probably some poor bastard who needed something to eat and doesn't have a roof over his head. Maybe he is a drug addict too. Do you think he received any empathy from others? It's a vicious cycle. You give, what you receive and what you know. Not that I'm justifying this action.
I went downtown the other day to see Robin Williams and I couldn't believe my eyes how many people were on the street asking for change. This is unbelievable.
If you think you live in a developed country, go down town for a day. I have neve seen this in my flippin life.
J), K) I don't believe you, I know you are off target here.
M) Actually I'm not the one on the offensive, I was defending policies I believe were right and good for people. Ok, an offensive defenceman.
Of course some will disagree.
It was the Liberals, NDP and Bloc who were on the offensive. Remember how this all started a few weeks ago...??
Life was good and we were waiting for steelhead to move into the Vedder and then these 3, who shall remain anonymous on Mars, said they were going to form some sort of a coalition to overthrow the elected government.
Go figure
That's ok, if they lock the thread, this is a political thread after all. It's not like they will run out of hard disk space.
Anyway I should leave politics to the stooges, you win!
-
First let me start by saying that when you say they don't look at it that way. That you don't know, and no one knows unless you are close to those in charge. I think that yes they probably do whats best for their party but all parties do and its not right to put words in other peoples mouths without knowing for a fact that it is the truth. It was not Harper that wanted the bill passed, he opposed it as did a lot of conservatives and it was the opposition that jabbed him about it. I never said that you throw your mouth behind everything conservative, did I? I stated and I quote "one is influenced by their beliefs, wether they think they are or are not" - that is simple psychology, and again everyone, wether they think, or are willing to admit, are influenced by the beliefs and the way they vote- if you vote for someone on say American idle and they mess up a song, you still want to see them go to the final, am i right? thats my point, if a politician you vote for messes up, you still want to see them succeed because you are voting based on you believing they will do a better job than the opposition. I am not sure what kind of job you work in but with most jobs you can gauge it. In the majority of everyday jobs, your pay and rate of advancement is based on your work ethic, speed, efficiency, interaction with others, wether your on time etc etc etc. so it can be gauged for MOST jobs and the person that gauges this is the boss/manager of the company. And at my last job the HR manager did decide who got paid what based on a persons performance-thats what they did there.Soft skills are still a skill, thats why they are called soft "skills", and a persons values/beliefs should never play a role in a job- unless you are talking about if a person will steal from the company (in that sense you are correct) but religion etc. have no role in a workplace and most don't allow any talk of it. My point of mentioning the robbery was to bring to point the fact you mentioned "People are good just as they are and have empathy, and like company of other people and so will naturally learn to live together. If laws don't burden them." was that this statement is completely untrue, there is a lot of empathy yes, but there are a lot of bad people out there as well, that is the way it is, the world will always have bad people, greed has become human nature, would everyone give up their belongings to make everyone have the same thing ? no because everyone is greedy to some extent and this proves that statement was incorrect.- You go to Africa and tell me the lack of laws is a good thing (had an exchange student at our work, he had his bike stolen, cops told him to steal one that looks similar). Fact is laws create balance and justice. If you don't believe me about Joe and the sponsorships , I told you to look it up, you don't have to believe me, but they had a special on CNN about the REAL Joe the plumber and yes the sponsors are correct- again don't believe it if you don't want to but the facts are there if you look it up.All parties must release where they get their funding from by law.As for saying that you are not on the offensive, thats a flat out lie, we both are on the offensive defending what we believe in, fact, like it or lump it. And it was Harper on the offensive by trying to pass/ boycott the laws bills. It was the opposition that came up in the defensive to protect their rights.They did not try and squash their own funding, Harper did, that makes him the aggressor, remember that? Anyways, the reason I posted on the political thread was to promote the other parties much like those that posted originally to promote who they believe in. I find politics extremely interesting and follow very closely as it is crucial to our future. Although I don't agree with all the postings ( I am sure others don't agree with mine) it is nice to see people besides myself passinate about something so crucial to our future. After seeing the voter turnout you start to wonder how many people actually care about their own as well as this country's future.
P.S.- Not meaning to pick on you Adriaticum but you seem to be flip-flopping on some of your postings, in my opinion that just reinforces my points.