Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dave_ON

  1. Yes, they are. Barring people who weren't born in the US is discriminatory. Barring people under the age of 35 is discriminatory. And those are just the written rules. The point has already been brought to your attention that there are unwritten socially enforced restrictions on who can occupy the presidential office.

    Indeed a point that has been ignored, perhaps AW should actually listen to her names sake song :D

  2. That is not why we need an elected Senate. There are other ways to reform the process of selecting senators, if it's really necessary.

    [c/e]

    Agreed though correct me if I'm wrong this would require a modification to the Constitution to do so. I would think that since it is supposed to be regional representation, we should at least let the appropriate Premieres make the senate appointments. I'm not certain which part of the amendment formula this would require to implement however. I do agree with Benz that having the Senate as an appointment of the PM somewhat defeats the purpose of its original intent.

  3. And who voted for the other senators?

    These senators were elected to their positions when Canada elected Harper as PM.

    It's too bad the left hates democracy when it doesn't benefit the liberals or NDP.

    Ah yes the oft used "The CPC is no worse than the Liberals" argument that is indeed a classic and never waxes old in the least.

    The CPC was supposed to hold to a higher standard for the senate than the LPC before them, this was one of their major criticisms of the LPC. Now previously the CPC and their supporters would blame the fact that the senate was stacked with LPC party hacks, now it's stacked with CPC hacks. Then they complained that it was the opposition parties and the fact that Harper had only a minority that was the roadblock to reform. Now we're left with the tired ol' excuse of "but but the Liberals did it too!"

    As I've said from the very beginning the more things change the more they stay the same.

    Also on a side note, you cannot rightly categorize the LPC or their supporters as "left wing" a rather loosely bantered about term. Given the Record of the previous LPC government and the current CPC government the LPC were far more fiscally to the right than the CPC ever dreamed of being.

    Many of us supported the LPC because they were fiscally reasonable (read conservative) but socially Liberal. Not supporting the CPC and or criticizing them for their vapid promises make neither me nor anyone else a dreaded "leftist".

  4. Well said......we get very vocal partisans on this site that espouse their views that our electoral system should be trashed or reformed - mostly because THEIR party didn't win. But really, our system has served us well......there is no country I would rather be a citizen of....although I like the weather in Barbados. When we're feeling good, we elect majorities and get a few things done. When we're unsure, we elect minorities and tred cautiously. When we're fed up, we throw the bums out. It works.

    Well there's an easy solution to the weather problem, allow the Turks and Caicos to join Confederation. Sadly the attempt failed the first time but I say we give it another try. That way we can still live in Canada, and have our warm weather too! They're already a British territory. The only downside is that pesky constitutional amendment...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/turksandcaicos/

    But to the thread at hand. I would tend to agree that our system is not at all the problem, merely the way party's work. I think that there does need to be a great deal more accountability of the party leader to their caucus. People tend to forget our system was around long before party's were developed. Parties are useful voting block tools, but if the leader gains too much power, we sap the power from our individual representatives. Our system is far from broken, I just think the current incarnation could use a little tweaking as far as parties go. How precisely to achieve this is a whole other matter.

  5. Sure, it could. IF things were changed. I'm not so sure it would be "easily," but things would need to be changed. Precisely my point. We are talking about things as they stand now; about Canada's current situation.

    You don't think a system that would allow anyone - based on their merits - the opportunity to be head of state over a system that automatically gives someone the position by virtue of their bloodline and birth order to be more fair? Seriously??

    Fair? Why does fair matter? You fail to understand on a fundamental level what the Monarch really is. It's a symbol of our nation, it's a tie to our history, our roots and our heritage. It's a symbol, that unites and should not be politicized so it will ultimately divide. How the Monarch is chosen, yes I use the word chosen, is rather immaterial, it's what the Monarch represents that matters more than anything. Yes succession is an older method of choosing, but the fact remains, we choose as Canadians to continue with the system we currently have. We're not forced into it as you seem to be implying. We could change it, but there is no need. The head of state is not a political figure in a constitutional monarch as they are in a presidential republic. I think this is where we are having our disconnect.

    But it doesn't allow ANYONE as you stated below, just those over 35 who were born in the US. Doesn't matter if someone better from another country, and bleeds apple pie and baseball would be a better choice you discriminate based on country of birth. That too is a bloodline discrimination.

    If you would look at our history, you would see that people who came from all economic classes have gone on to be POTUS. They earn the connections, the support, et al by their accomplishments; by their own merits. Furthermore, you don't "choose" your head of state at all. Your "choice" will be whoever is the next monarch of Britain.

    We chose to keep our current head of state and remain loyal to the crown, even as your ancestors chose to betray the crown. Many of your then citizens chose to leave the US and come to Canada where they could continue to choose to remain loyal to the crown. You imply disparity where none exists.

    Whether or not it "worked" for that long is a matter of opinion. My countrymen didn't think so. They didn't think having a monarch across the ocean dictating their lives to them, without representation, "worked."

    Indeed, let's discuss how the Westminster system is not only the longest standing and most successful systems of governance but also the most widely used. But what does the rest of the world know right?

    But what you would "gain" is a voice in your head of state. What Catholics would hopefully gain is not being excluded. You don't see that kind of restriction against one religion as wrong? Seriously?? This is your head of state. Why can't a Catholic or a Catholic spouse fulfill that position? And how can it be anything but intolerance to not allow one religion access to that position?

    Why does it matter? Why must I have a voice in the head of state as the office exists in Canada? What direct control does the sovereign exert over my life? I think you're confusing the current head of state with Medieval absolute monarchs. The role of the Monarch is vastly different than the office of the president. There is a balance, between the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The executive, based on their role, need not and should not be politicized. It should remain separate from the whims of the day, that's the role of parliament. You are operating under the assumption that nothing but an elected head of state will suffice. So your forefathers believe, mine believe differently. Your forefathers, also believe it was their job to "liberate" we Canadians from the Monarchy. We fought you to preserve our way of life, and yet to this very day you still fail to understand, it has always been our choice.

    Who, during the times of civil unrest in the 50's and 60's, would have thought that the U.S. would have a black president in their life time? Of course it's conceivable that a Muslim/candidate with a Muslim spouse could be POTUS. Furthermore, there's nothing to prevent it from happening. You keep ignoring the question: how would you feel if Congress passed a law preventing that from happening? Do you honestly think you, Canada, the world, wouldn't have an opinion about that? And what do you think the opinion would be? - We get flack over two Muslims not being allowed on a plane, a decision made by one pilot, and you're excluding all Catholics from any part of the position of head of state; an exclusion endorsed by your government.

    You're avoiding the question. WOULD A MUSLIM GET ELECTED PRESIDENT OR EVEN NOMINATED? as things are now? You seem to be quite content to bring up this as they are now point so please elucidate me. I'm not interested in COULD BE's I want your honest response in this.

    We're not going to put a Muslim in the campaign just for the sake of putting one in, but we wouldn't exclude anyone on that basis, either. But no matter how badly you want to compare what you think the odds of a Muslim being elected POTUS are to a Catholic not being allowed, not even a spouse, they are two very, very different things. And I'm sure we'd hear just how different it is if we were to pass a law banning Muslims in any way. Do you seriously think otherwise? You think there would be no judgement?

    Actually you are excluding Muslims precisely because you know it would be political suicide. You refuse to out and out admit that I am correct that a Muslim would never at present, nor in the foreseeable future be elected president. Look at the furor surrounding the building of the mosque at ground zero. That is a prime example of how amiable the American people would be a Muslim candidate. The difference is, our exclusion of Catholics, is not a social convention, it's a legal one. Laws are far easier to change than are peoples minds. Yes a Muslim "Can" be president legally. But Socially a Muslim "can't" be president, You fail to see there is little difference, between a legal written law and an unwritten social convention.

    Really. You've never had an opinion on our government? And it wouldn't bother you in the least if we passed a law excluding Muslims? You'd have no comment, it would be just fine with you? And you think the rest of the world would feel the same?

    The fact that it doesn't bother you that the monarch can't be a Catholic or marry a Catholic is not a tolerant attitude. It's not a very enlightened attitude, especially in a nation that prides itself on tolerance and multiculturalism. Canada bends over backwards to be tolerant of Muslims, yet it's perfectly ok to exclude Catholics from being their head of state.

    Whether or not I have a say in what Canada does doesn't affect whether or not I have an opinion.

    As I said, it may not be official that Muslims can't be POTUS from a legal stand point that doesn't change the fact that they can't from a social standpoint. There are many things in US I have opinions about, that doesn't change the fact that I cannot do anything about it.

    Please now there's no need to be insulting, I didn't start off by calling you an ignorant American, because our opinions and attitudes are different doesn't make one of us unenlightened. If you truly believe that you are the sole proprietor of enlightenment, then this discussion is already over.

    And I've clearly stated that many times, so I don't need it repeated in every discussion. The anyone I speak of is an American born citizen over 35 who resides in the U.S. I hope that's now settled for once and for all. But the child of citizens not born in the U.S. can qualify, which means any family could produce a president regardless of bloodline or religion. Based on their merits.

    It's not "may the best person win:" it's may the best American born person over 35 who has resided in the United States win. With no restrictions regarding religion. One group of people isn't excluded based on their bloodline or their religion, and their children have every opportunity to become POTUS.

    Why the limitation of American born? I'm asking sincerely. Your furor is all well and good but how much of it is simply what you're used to? How has having an elected head of state actually measurably improved the lives of Americans over that of Canadians? What true benefit is there? What is a say going to do for us based on the role of our head of state? How is that better? I'm sorry but having a say isn't a sufficient response. My life is not adversely affected by the fact that my Monarch is selected based on bloodline. Furthermore the amount of effort required in order to change this simply so I could "have a say" is not enough. The monarch acts in the interest of the country, he/she does as his/her parliament and council, duly elected by the people, advise. End of story, what really is the problem with this?

    What?? We couldn't be more upfront about it. It's stated in the Constitution.

    As stated above, there is "official" then there is "reality". Ours is expressly written as well, it's not a social reality, it's a legal one.

    The fact that they can, and have, is what it's all about. The fact that they CAN vs. CAN'T by virtue of government endorsed restrictions regarding bloodlines and religion is what is at the heart of it. If the possibility exists vs the possibility NOT existing, then the former is better than the latter.

    Again you speak of "could be changed." I'm speaking of as it is. As for what the original purpose was, do you honestly not know how the role of the monarchy has changed in Canada over the years?

    Yes it could be changed, but why? I'm asking you what YOU believe what the original purpose was. It is my firm belief you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the monarchy functions and what it's purpose in our system is. If you're truly interested in learning about it, I applaud you. If you simply wish to pontificate about archaic systems, which is interesting being as your country still uses the imperial system of measurement, I have little interest in discussing the matter. You believe choice and merit are everything, I believe that a balance between elected and appointed, or in the case of the sovereign hereditary is a better system, and that not all officials need be elected.

  6. "Non-Catholic." <_<

    What difference does it make if she became queen by Canada's constitution and not Britain's? She's still your queen by virtue of being the Queen of Britain. The Swedish monarchy isn't going to be your monarch. Nor is Monaco's. Or Thailand's. Or a uniquely Canadian monarchy completely detached from Britain. The BRITISH monarchy is Canada's head of state; ie: by virtue of being the monarchy of Britain. Just as I said.

    Yes, Canada can change that. That's what this thread/discussion is about - changing it. Until then, Canada's queen, or king, will be whomever Britain's monarch is.

    I don't understand your hangup on the whole matter. What are you implying, that Canada is somehow still subject to the British, simply because our Queen, the Queen of Canada that is, is also the Queen of Britania, Australia, New Zealand, Turks and the Caicos, and several other realms? There was no need or reason to change the monarch, though we could have. I fail to see your point. She's not the Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of Britain, she's the Queen of Canada, because our constitution states thus. We chose to maintain the same monarch as Britain, not because we were constrained to do so by some foreign parliament as you seem to be implying. You just can't get it through your head, that QEII is the Queen of many realms, UK is but one of them.

    I think you fail to understand on even a most basic level who or what the sovereign is. This I can excuse as it's not the system you grew up with, you were taught about how the evil British were oppressing your ancestors, taxation without representation and all that rot.

  7. I already explained why. In an independent nation that has a legislature and a prime minister, royalty is outdated; becoming head of state simply by virtue of blood and birth order is outdated. Being born into the royal family isn't any assurance of being up to the task, and in this day of 'equality' the idea of a 'royal' is outdated. The idea that people in an independent nation have no say as to who has the position of head of state is archaic - the idea that it couldn't be any one if them is archaic - but people in this day and age should be able to have a say in such matters. And as I've pointed out, Canada prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, yet you have an archaic system of "royalty" as your head of state that excludes Catholics, even as a spouse.

    But that's precisely the point you're missing, while yes the direct succession is determined by the act of settlement that could easily be changed. Perhaps even my family could be selected and I could be come King of Canada. "could" is the key word, but I think that's all rather immaterial. The crown is eternal, the person who occupies the title of monarch is not, nor are they particularly relevant. Why must head of state be open to all people? I don't feel that's more "fair" or modern, just different. It grinds against your world view, I get that, but you're operating from the premise that a choice, or a chance, even a false choice or chance is better than none at all. Every little boy and girl dreams of being the president of the US, how many of them really have a shot? How many of them have the capital, connections, support, charisma etc. etc. to back this up? We may "choose" our head of state via bloodline, but you "choose" your head of state by who has the best resources out of two potential candidates, unless an independent is running of course, but when in the entire history of your country has a non partisan president been elected?

    That still doesn't answer the question though, what would we truly gain? The fact that we got to choose is immaterial, that's not really a gain. Maybe it makes you feel good. Even if it turns out to be a dud, at least you chose that dud. To me that's not a good reason to change a system that has worked for longer than your country has even been in existence.

    There is nothing preventing a Muslim from being POTUS while a Catholic or even a Catholic spouse is prohibited from becoming British royalty. And yes, I do believe a Muslim could get elected, same as Catholic JFK got elected when no one thought a Catholic had much of a chance. But the key word there is "could" get elected, whereas in Britain a Catholic/royal with a Catholic spouse cannot reign. I'll ask of you - what would you think if the US had a stipulation that the POTUS could not be Muslim, could not be married to a Muslim? Seriously. What would you think of that?

    I'll grant you there is no "law" preventing a Muslim from becoming the POTUS but you and I are both fully aware that, that will not happen in either of our life times nor is it terribly likely that it will happen in the next two centuries. However, we're dealing in "coulds" after all, so technically you are correct, there is no law standing in their way, but there are many unwritten social conventions that make it just as impossible. To say otherwise is ludicrous. I'm not certain if you're a Rep or a Dem but I would suggest you put forward a Muslim for nomination, good luck in the campaign :)

    As I've mentioned it doesn't bother me that the Monarch cannot be catholic, by the same token I could care less what the US passes for it's own laws as I have absolutely no say in them. If they wish to exclude Muslims from the presidency that's your choice. The US already has a stipulation on the presidency that flies in the face of your anyone can be president. It is not true that any citizen can be the president, only citizens that are born in the US can. So even if I'm the most capable president in the entire US of A if I was not born on your soil I could never become the POTUS. This goes against your "may the best person win" philosophy.

    My main point is, Canada is up front about the limitations we put on our head of state, the US is not. There are unwritten social conventions, politics and pragmatic matters that make it impossible for 99% of all US citizens to become the POTUS. The fact that they "can" is tantamount to a fairytale. Officially yes, realistically? Absolutely not!

    I said it doesn't serve it's original purpose, and it doesn't. That's a fact. I've never said that it failed to serve Canada, but that a more modern system, based on merit, not exclusive of one religion, would be more in keeping with a modern, independent, multi-cultural, tolerant Canada. If I were a Catholic Canadian, I wouldn't see the exclusion of my religion from being tied even by marriage to the Head of State as very tolerant. It is, in fact, very intolerant. As an American I don't see it as any more tolerant than the rest of the world would see it if the US were to put a provision into effect banning a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim from being our Head of State.

    What precisely was it's original purpose in your view, I'm afraid you'll have to clarify. It has served it's intended purpose ever since Canada has been a country. Further, the current selection of the Monarch does not mean the monarchy is inherently flawed, the act of settlement could be changed, if the political will existed to do so. However, not enough political will exists to make that change in all commonwealth nations. I suppose it's a non issue for majority of us.

  8. Dave.... I'm beginning to believe that a february trip between Winnipeg and Sudbury, in an overloaded U-haul truck should be a mandatory experience for anyone wanting to discuss Canadian east/west relations.

    While income from maritime coal, timber and ports (and fish) no doubt paid some portion of the $25 million invested in a rail link to Britich Columbia, believe me when I say that Western coal, timber and ports are much more accessible to the west than those same resources from the Maritimes.

    I don't underestimate the contributions of the west to getting to where they are today. However, the west, especially Alberta it seems is far far to quick to undersell the vast contributions of those maritimers that came, built, worked on the structure that allowed the west to be settled, this includes Ontario and even Benz version of French Canada :D.

    Keep in mind from NB's perspective, everything that isn't PEI, NS or NFLD is "the west" :D

    Maritimers are not money sucking lazy [email protected]$tards. They're hard working people that contributed greatly to what this country is today. Time, shifting economies and resource management all had an impact on their present day economy. This to me is a cautionary tale to the economic power house of Alberta, you never know how even the smallest shift will affect you, ships aren't built of timber any more, the fisheries are affected by the Portuguese and other European countries, as well as poor management on our side. Coal, is no longer a greatly sought after resource. Someday oil will go the way of coal, could be 30 years could be 230 years, but the fact remains, wealthy today, does not mean wealthy in perpetuity. People should not be so quick to judge or dismiss other regions contributions.

  9. No, she's not the queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so. She's the queen of Canada because in 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada. link

    Lol you really don't want to get into a debate over the place of the monarchy and the constitution with G Bambino... unless you want to lose of course.

  10. No, she's the queen of Canada because she's the queen of the UK. Simple as that. Canada is part of the British commonwealth, and whoever reigns over the UK will be Canada's head of state for that reason.

    Her Royal Highness, the Queen of England visits Ottawa for Canada Day

    My earlier responses/questions got buried it seems, so I'll restate them.

    Why precisely should we change a system that has worked for nearly 4 centuries simply because it's old? What benefit is there to an elected head of state over a hereditary one?

    Do you believe that a Muslim president would EVER get elected or even someone married to a Muslim? Is the US not bound by it's own set of traditions and conventions that are equally archaic?

    Thus far you've talked much about the fact as to Canada needing to change from a successive Monarchy but have failed to outline any benefits as to why, other than that what your particular frame of reference dictates is "right". Further you mentioned the monarchy no longer serves it's original purpose, I'd be curious for you to indicate in what specific instances the Crown has failed to serve Canada, when it was called to do so.

  11. What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

    Is not the queen's shit brown, breath awful in the AM, her blood red (not blue as Victoria BC thinks.

    She is an ordinary human who has reaped the benefits of being born into an old German family and is sucking the the UK & the "colonies" dry.

    Technically since our current monarchy is from the 17th century, it originated in the modern era. The mideval period ended close to a centruy and a half prior to the act of settlement, two and a half if you are of the mind that it ended circa 1300. Either way the Renaissance era was even gone by the time our current monarchy came to be.

    The fact that the monarch is human is immaterial, the Crown is what is important not the person who occupies the position of monarch. If one monarch fails, abdicates or what have you, the act of settlement provides stipulations for who will succeed that person. The crown continues even though the individual monarchs come and go.

  12. I just want to point out NS, PEI and to a less extent NB took the fish out of the Ocean to finance the building of Railroads, and grain elevators which made it possible to settle the West in the first place. For all the whining Westerns do about paying their "fair share" they still owe a heck of a lost to the east. Although I am not one to play West against East we can not forget the huge debate that is always forgotten by those who live outside what are now poor provinces that were once the engine that ran this great nation of ours.

    I wouldn't say a lesser extent NB for fishing. You also forgot to mention the timber from NB as well as the coal from both NS and NB that helped the push west and the ship building industry which allowed for international trade.

    I think that the Maritimes are a cautionary tale for the West, but for the grace of God so go you. Coal and lumber were big money back in the day and the maritimes had a wealth of it. Things change, ships aren't built of wood and coal isn't burned like it used to be.

  13. (103, actually.)

    How effective were Clark's PCs from 1980-1984?

    Oh I agree with you. Then again, how effective were the Turner Liberals after the final Trudeau Majority? I just think it's interesting that the CPC lost a seat by 9 votes in a recount.

    It just brings to mind again is this the start of a new Era for the NDP or a blip on the political radar never to be repeated? Guess we'll have to wait 4 whole years to find out.

  14. Queen Elizabeth II is a British royal. She is also our head of state. Neither fact makes me wrong, however. Canada is an independent country; the idea that it is under a foreign institution (i.e. the British monarchy) is therefore untenable.

    Where I think GH is confused, is that he fails to realize that Queen of the United Kingdom is but one of QEII's titles, she's also Queeen of Canada, Australia and many other commonwealth realms.

  15. "Correcting every tradition" and getting rid of a major archaic tradition which no longer serves the purpose that it did in the past are two very different things.

    You've failed to demonstrate your point, because something is old does not make it useless. On the Contrary I would say that in terms of systems of governments it makes it all the more useful. How does it not server the purpose it did in the past? Please explain how the Monarchy has failed to fulfill it's role?

    Lots of things are difficult by design. Does that mean people should just sit back and not make changes? Seriously. You think Canada isn't up to the task?

    Letting the people have a say in their head of state rather than having it be determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion IS accomplishing something useful.

    It's difficult by design precisely because it shouldn't be changed on a whim. If the change is truly desired it must be worked for, thus we prevent half-hearted whimsical changes to the foundation of our society.

    What do we gain by electing a head of state other than politicizing the whole affair. I like that the head of state is traditional, a symbol that unites rather than divides. Politicizing the whole thing only adds another election, with little benefit.

    The crown is eternal, the person who wears it isn't as important. I find it curious, how very enamored the US is with the monarchy though, almost as if they regret their decision. I was in Illinois, during the Royal wedding and I couldn't turn to a single channel without seeing the coverage. Why do Americans care about a foreign monarchy? Why is it so on their mind and for goodness sakes why the heck were they so enamored with the Duchess of York? You try and change the office of the president and the first lady in to a kind of Monarchy, attempting to capture the regal aura, but don't quite make it and why? It lacks permanence, and a foundation in tradition.

    Says you. Other people don't think so.

    I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be?

    I don't care that Monarch cannot be a catholic, and I suspect most Canadians are of the same mind. Most of Canada may be Catholic in name but I doubt very much they are in practice. I for one was raised protestant, as were millions of other Canadians.

    Question for you, do you honestly think that any person would EVER be elected POTUS if they were Muslim or married to a muslim? What about a gay or lesbian president? Come now, get off your high horse for a second and think about what you're saying. Whether you acknowledge it or not you are as bound by tradition and convention in the US as much as we are in Canada, you're just not as honest with yourselves about it as we are.

    Why is electing the head of state as it exists in Canada any better? What benefit do we gain?

  16. Why would a system where the people elect the head of state not be possible? Why shouldn't the citizen's of Canada choose who does those things?

    Why should the head of state be politicized? Why must all officials be elected? There is already electoral fatigue in Canada, for our standard 4-5 year elections. This quick succession of minority governments and the steady decline in voter participation illustrates that. Christ I can't imagine constantly having to elect someone every other month for some type of post like you do in the US.

    I just don't get the why people are convinced that EVERYONE needs to be elected to be "truly" democratic. Our current system has worked fine for the better part of 4 centuries, what do we gain by changing to a yet untested system?

    Several million savings would still be some money in the taxpayers' pockets, to put towards their lifestyle rather than royalty's.

    There would be no savings with the necessity to hold elections all the time. How much does the US, and individual states spend on the incessant elections? I'll be it's about or more then what we spend on the GG and Royal visits.

    I realize from previous posts that you would like to do away with royalty regarding Canada, and I understand. Obviously I would feel the same way.

    The fundamental question is what's the point? There isn't any real political or public will in Canada to make a change. Of course you'd feel the same way you're an American, your ancestors threw off the monarchy long ago, but there were many of your own former citizens that remained loyal to the crown and fled to Canada so they could remain so. In fact the city I grew up in Saint John NB to this very day still celebrates Loyalist Day as it was founded by Royalist Americans fleeing the illegal revolution incited by traitors to the crown :D

  17. And you are of course the CFO of a company, say GM or Ford?

    Your point is what precisely, the corporations and CEO's should set the corporate tax rate? It's a good idea just because you love Harper and he can do no wrong? We already have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, there's not justifiable reason why we should lower it further. Certainly not in lieu of increasing spending. Or is it your position that reducing revenue while increasing spending is in fact a very good idea? What real benefit will lowering corporate taxes further really serve? Do we know for certain that this will be reinvested in the company? Will it magically transform into more jobs? No, at this juncture lowering corporate taxes further will not help the economy in the least.

    If you want to make a point please do so, not simple non-sequitor pots shots with no substance whatsoever.

  18. Chretien also had a majority government. Now Harper does, so there should be no more excuses.

    Yet I fully anticipate that both the CPC and their supporters will have a litany of excuses prepared when they fail to be fiscally conservative. It's already begun, spending has increased while they've cut taxes, you cannot do both, that's utterly foolish.

    I fully expect the throne and mace of parliament to be up on the auction block in the near future to help curtail the shortfall :)

    Also sit tight, if you always wanted to live in Stornaway, I'm certain that will be on the market soon enough now that Flahrety can go all 407 on all crown assets.

  19. Instead of discussions of federal/provincial roles in healthcare or the desireablity of punishment vs. reduction of harm, we have dopes babbling about how to make Bob Rae the leader of the Liberal party now and forever, and a bunch of hyperbole (read: slander) about an unlikely MP having gone on a long-planned vacation.

    Agreed, but this further demonstrates the NDP was not ready to rise to the station of official opposition. Further the LPC needs this time of renewal, hopefully they avail themselves of this opportunity and they take this time to involve the entire party in the rebuilding process and get back in touch with the grassroots. Like it or lump it, there is no one in a position at present to oppose the CPC, so we're in for a rocky 4 years on some issues. It's my hope that the NDP or the LPC, not both, are in a position to give the CPC a run for their money next election. Having only one party capable of governing is not a good thing at all. We need two equally capable parties ready to take the helm at any time. If provides a balance and keeps the politicians "honest", and by honest I mean less corrupt.

  20. I don't disagree with their statement because at face value it makes sense.

    I suggest that their integrity to govern should be questioned if they don't know what services to cut by now. I know a few obvious ones, like funding the CBC, should be on that list. Maybe they are spending a few million conducting polls to see what they can cut without people getting angry? They spend 31 million a year on polling... even then, because they spend so much taxpayer money on polls... shouldn't they know already? :)

    I have lots of suggestions for cuts that wouldn't make people angry, the CBC isn't one of them, no more hockey night in Canada? I think not. How about reducing the number of ministers this go round? Harper had one of the largest ministries in recent history. How about cut his personal security expense? No other PM seemed to need quite as much security. Get rid of the vote subsidy AND the tax credit for political donations. That reduces spending and increases revenue in one shot. Scrap the gun registry which as it currently is, fees being waived, is draining revenues. Scrap all federal contributions to ALL cultural events including the Calgary stampede, and other such festivals. That's a good start and we didn't even have to go near any social programs.

  21. It was on both the CBC and CTV websites that I visited this morning. And I do see both sides of the story. The Cons are saying that it legitimatizes drug use. The supporters say it saves lives. Pick one side and I will argue the other, but would have more enthusiasm for the pro-Insite side.

    I don't think the CPC can in good faith support a Pro-Insite position as it's not particularly compatible with their "tough on crime" stance.

×
×
  • Create New...