Want to stop Harper from getting his majorty government?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by shift

Are you a Harper fan Ninjaboy?

I may not be a fan of his but to be perfectly frank he's the only party leader I see being fiscally responsible.

Layton I agree with philosophically but I'm still iffy about his ability to balance a budget.

Dion still kinda strikes me as useless.

[b0ld]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Bill C-61 is a good example of an attempt to emulate the DMCA.

He passed through a motion for fixed election dates as well (oh hey look, good job on following through on that one there Harper).

You probably already know this (but I am posting this for others who may not know) Bill C-61 ended up being dead along with a bunch of other Bills that were to be brought to the house when harper called the election.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by b0ld

You probably already know this (but I am posting this for others who may not know) Bill C-61 ended up being dead along with a bunch of other Bills that were to be brought to the house when harper called the election.

Well aware. Just kind of illustrates how dangerous a conservative majority will be though.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Voting simply to counter another party is pretty much the least informed way of voting possible. You might as well flip a coin.

Congrats, you're one step closer to thinking like an American when you vote. It's only a shame we don't use a busted two party Republic system!

I'm never one to piddle away my vote on someone who's views I don't support. But if you want to, good job.

Stopped reading at this post as I entirely agree with it. The only reason I would vote Green is to get a a proportional representation system rather than this horrid partisan representative system we have. The best you can ever hope for is that your representative isn't a total back bencher (good luck if you live in a rural community), you send them a letter expressing your concern for the environment (or any other isure), and he or she can bring in up next time he or she meets with the PM or a cabinet minister.

[Krusha]

Originally Posted by rawb

voting anything other than who you think will serve the country best is fucking stupid

how about voting against who you think will serve the country the worst?

hmmm

A.B.C. represent, Anybody But Conservative!

Strategic voting doesn't bother me because ideally I want a well balanced government that represents all aspects of the people in this country. I think each and every party has its own focus, strength, and weakness. If the seats are distributed evenly (approx) so that no party has the majority (sole decision making) hopefully they can run our country in a way that pleases EVERYONE.

[Sykonee]

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

A.B.C. represent, Anybody But Conservative!

Strategic voting doesn't bother me because ideally I want a well balanced government that represents all aspects of the people in this country. I think each and every party has its own focus, strength, and weakness. If the seats are distributed evenly (approx) so that no party has the majority (sole decision making) hopefully they can run our country in a way that pleases EVERYONE.

Either that, or nothing gets accomplished because no party can agree on anything.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

I may not be a fan of his but to be perfectly frank he's the only party leader I see being fiscally responsible.

Layton I agree with philosophically but I'm still iffy about his ability to balance a budget.

Dion still kinda strikes me as useless.

Say what you will about Harper and his some of his govt's conservative policies *COUGHINSITECOUGH* but there's not much denying he's a capable leader/Prime Minister.

I almost see these things as two distinct entities: Leadership qualities and policies.

Like look at some examples out there:

Barack Obama, Jean Cretien (never could spell his name): Leadership qualities: Yes! Policies: Yes!

John McCain, Steven Harper: LQs: Yes! Policies: No...

Paul Martin, Stephan Dion: LQs: Uhhh.. Policies: OK

Jack Layton: LQs: Sort've, yeah! Policies: Unrealisitic :(

George W Bush : LQs: I guess, if you like assholes. Policies: WTF?!?!?!

[Grapes]

No, for the record, I won't be voting Conservative. I'll have to get significantly older and crankier for that.

I'll probably vote Liberal for a few reasons..

- Even if Dion doesn't strike me as a great leader, I know his party is well capable. (To me it still seems Bob Rae would've been the best candidate, although apparently he became pretty unpopular in Ontario when he was Premier there).

- Dion has the courage to put forward innovative and powerful policies regarding the environment, something Harper is counting on most Canadians not viewing in a positive light.

- Realistically this is still a two party country, with some smaller fish swimming around looking for their share.

The link starbright and shift posted does intrigue me though. Criticizing "strategic voting" seems strange to me, because all voting is strategic. Just a question of what strategy you adopt.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Voting simply to counter another party is pretty much the least informed way of voting possible. You might as well flip a coin.

Congrats, you're one step closer to thinking like an American when you vote. It's only a shame we don't use a busted two party Republic system!

I'm never one to piddle away my vote on someone who's views I don't support. But if you want to, good job.

its called strategy *****h!

unless you want some conservative dick up yo poop shoot voting ndp/green is like voting for candyland son!

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

its called strategy *****h!

unless you want some conservative dick up yo poop shoot voting ndp/green is like voting for candyland son!

Tell that to everybody in David Emerson's riding.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

its called strategy *****h!

unless you want some conservative dick up yo poop shoot voting ndp/green is like voting for candyland son!

I'm trying to think of a way you could show your ignorance more, but it's just not coming to me...

Voting is not a strategy. It's a parliament system, the MP in your riding is what's supposed to represent your ideals in parliament.

They come from your neighborhood, and tell everyone in Ottawa what your neighborhood wants. So why would you vote in someone who has none of your interests in mind?

[ebbomega]

I think what a lot of people forget is that parliamentary operation is a lot more than just parliamentary proceedings, and there's a lot that happens behind closed doors where the party leaders aren't so much in complete control.

Originally Posted by Sykonee

Either that, or nothing gets accomplished because no party can agree on anything.

Maybe, but often im more worried about what the government is doing than what they're not doing.

[fritz]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I'm trying to think of a way you could show your ignorance more, but it's just not coming to me...

Voting is not a strategy. It's a parliament system, the MP in your riding is what's supposed to represent your ideals in parliament.

They come from your neighborhood, and tell everyone in Ottawa what your neighborhood wants. So why would you vote in someone who has none of your interests in mind?

Because a lot of the left wing parties have similar interests in mind, not 'none of your interests'. Successful strategic voting means one more MP voting on specific issues in your favour.

If the liberals and the NDP have similar thoughts on climate change (just hypothetical, use whatever issues are important to you), I would rather one of them gets in, instead of a party that doesn't believe the issue exists. Pretty simple.

[Lenny]

A vote for anybody but the Liberals more or less helps Harper by splitting the anti-conservative vote. Simple no?

[ebbomega]

I really expect the NDP to supplant the Liberals for main left-wing opposition party this time around. Especially on the west coast.

[starbright]

Originally Posted by Lenny

A vote for anybody but the Liberals more or less helps Harper by splitting the anti-conservative vote. Simple no?

Not if it's close between the Conservatives and a party other than the Liberals in your riding.
BTW, I think I might trek out to PoCo to vote!

[.Promoter]

Between the leaderless liberals, an NDP who wants to spend money that isnt actually there, and a green party with no real chance of winning you are left with two options.

Vote for a strong leader with a slightly corrupt government much like the liberal giv before it. Who has a bad environmental policy, but a good economic policy, a firm belief in a proud canada, supporting really a war that SHOULD BE FOUGHT (Now this is a firm opinion, but lets be realistic here, if the taleban take hold of afghanistan the world is in for alot of terrorism as seen by pakistan as of late)

Or you can Vote Green, taking votes from the other shitty parties, and giving them to a party which has no real politcal expierience or know-how... but... whose voting for will prodvide funds for, and promote awareness of green issues by vote counts.

Now i dont want a conservative majority, but i also know they probably wont get one anyways... but i also strongly dislike the idea of a stronger liberal or ndp minority. Especially coupled with the bloc quebecois.

As bad as a harper government might be, i am more willing to submit to a term by a harper government that might get things done, then a party who will do unitelligent things in an effort to stay in office. Lets also not forget that you can always vote the conservatives out if they do a bad job this time around..

but lets be frank, its been a long time since weve seen the conservatives run the country in a majority. So really whats the risk in seeing what they can do.

If your not voting conservative green would be the next best option. Because the NDP have no idea about realistic governance, and the liberals are in such a leadership vacumm right now that they will probably end up in a colapse of practical function.

[Dreadnex.Inc]

Harper = Neo-Con. Trained by same peeps as the Bush family, core beliefs in 'elite', and unfitness of the masses to govern themselves.

Afghanistan is about the oil pipeline, not Taliban (when taking firm stances on international politics, correct spelling gets more points). Post Afghani-war, terrorism is more likely than previously, particularly in nations that traditionally were not targets until participating in invasions. When confronted by the statistic that as of last year 60% of Canadians were not in favour of continued engagement, Harper basically said "Who Cares?".

Any governing party that backs out on Kyoto (or similar protocols) is automatically unfit. There might be a case for heads of major parties having a degree in something, anything, other than business, economics, or law (or at least have taken 1st year biology or chemistry).

Standards of living are not as essential as living.

(my one post for the year....)

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

Maybe, but often im more worried about what the government is doing than what they're not doing.

Inaction will cause us to fade and rot.

Kyoto is the worst idea anyone has ever had. What would we gain from it? Nothing. What do we loose to it? Money. Shitloads of it. A made-in-Canada solution would be a thousand times better, even the Liberal Green-Shift plan is better (but not by much).

Originally Posted by Dreadnex.Inc

unfitness of the masses to govern themselves

Sorry to break it to you, but...

[.Promoter]

Taliban (when taking firm stances on international politics, correct spelling gets more points)

My apologies for using the British spelling, Taleban, i happen to be a religious reader of the BBC and have started to use British spelling by accident. And its really not a mistake anyways when you take into comparison things like the "ou" in Canada vs the "o" in the USA.

PS. Yes backing out on Kyoto is a joke, which is why i suggest voting Green if not Conservative. But, If you think the war in Afghanistan has ANYTHING to do with the pipleline as a root cause... you are seriously deluded.

The only real ROOT cause of the invasion was the need for America and Bush to look like they were perusing the attackers responsible for 911, and it was a feel good, go-get-em approach to distract the American public on the eventual goal of Invading Iraq.

Now you can argue that the war is unjust if you'd like, but you are wrong. In all reality the Taleban, oh Taliban...my mistake, was a seriously corrupt, oppressive, and dangerous foreign government. Now yeah, there is no international right for the USA to have invaded them. But it was something widely supported worldwide. In reality the Taliban were habouring extensive terrorist activities, and the nation was quickly become a very destabilizazing factor in the middle east.

However, it is deffinatly the USA's fault that the nation ended up going down such an extreme path, and it was through American support that the nation was able to become stable and functional under Taliban rule.

So on all that, i deffinatly agree with most people that the invasion was a unjust result of extremely poor and ignorant American foreign policy.

BUT

It would be an even greater injustice to the Afghani people, and to the people of all surrounding nations, for foreign troops to withdraw, cut their losses, abandon the elected governemt, and push the nation even further back into the developmental index.

Its important to point out that the Taliban would have no more tanks, and no other heavy soviet fire power remaining with which to maintain effective control of the nation. The end result of Taliban rule would be a country established along the tribal lines of the pakistan tribal belt. Human rights would be irrelevant, technology, education, free speech, democaracy, and social equality (Including that of women and that of races) would be all but eliminated.

If you think you would be doing the people, and the world justice by withdrawl you are sadly mistaken. Considering that 1/2 of the nations economic output is in opium, it is quite obvious that development is seriously needed.

The country has few resources to be stolen, and few sources of water with which to create an effective agricultural society. As a result any from of investment, and all forms of investment by foreigners are not only welcome, but needed.

If a pipeline disigned to carry oil THROUGH and not from the country, how can you possibly lable this as a form of economic imperialism? (Which I might point out is basically what you are suggesting)

The hard facts are that the fees imposed on the oil coming through will actually account for a sizeable portion of the economy. It will put money in the hands of the government directly, and indirectly into the hands of Afghanis. Who do you think is going to protect and service the pipeline when foreigners leave?? Educated and skilled Afghani workers.

And your point about terrorism being more actice now then before.

Yes, its completely 100% correct. But it is an irrelevant arguement to why we should leave. We are in the thick of a mess the Americans started, but we cannot abondon ship, and then pray that the problem goes away. Pakistan is nuclearily armed. To allow its direct neighbour to become a breeding ground for religious extremism once more is ludacris. Pakistan can barely handle the situation within its own borders. But Pakistan is aware of something that the USA is ignorant of. The war is a war of hearts and minds. Pakistan is slowing winning back its population. This is something that Canadian soldiers are actively enganged in. Despite the fact that we only hear of the Military aspect, there is alot going on behind the scenes. We currently have over 2500 troops in Afghanistan. Only about 1000 (+ or - 350) of these are actual combat troops. The vast majority of Canadian troops are support troops. Providing medical, defensive, mechanical, reconstructive and humanitarian tasks.

However, it is highly unfortunate for the Canadian military to have been put into a very active part of Afghanistan with very little foreign support. As a result we have taken a totally inporportionate number of casualties. And as a nation...

Canada has an extremely low cost tolerance.

We refuse to support the costs of war when it does not directly effect us, such as WWI/WWII. This is something that the Taliban tries to use very heavily to its advantage. They know that the only way they pose any real threat to the Western Coalition is to discourage the smaller nations from bearing the costs of the war themselves.

This was the purpose of many of the kid-nappings, and this is the purpose of their attempted big bang bombings and attacks. They are trying to project to the world the image of a strong and unified front.

However their front is not that of a unified one. Many people support the Taliban for different reasons. One of the biggest recent causations of Taliban support was the decimation of Poppy fields. The drug trade employs such a large segment of the Afghani economy that tribal villagers who earned a living through the trade are willing to go to arms to try and re-establish a pro-drug producing environment. Which i will point out is actually not a Taliban ruled afghanistan, but a partially ruled Afghanistan in conflict, where neither side is capable or posseses the will to fight both eachother and the drug trade.

Anyways i have said a whole lot about the war, because it is something that i both feel strongly about, and feel I am sufficiently knowledgable in to make an argument.

Make fun of what you wish but i think ive presented enough evidence here to counter your

Afghanistan is about the oil pipeline

comment.

Take it as you see it, but if you disagree please post something inteligent on your reply, afterall this is my educated opinion, not nessesarily a fact.

Originally Posted by .Promoter

its been a long time since weve seen the conservatives run the country in a majority. So really whats the risk in seeing what they can do.

Thats great... lets risk the next leader of our country.


Its one pet peeve of mine to know that some people dont bother to vote, but sometimes thats just as bad as those who do vote and dont take a few moments to compare and analyze the candidates before hand.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by .Promoter

but lets be frank, its been a long time since weve seen the conservatives run the country in a majority. So really whats the risk in seeing what they can do.

sir john a. must be rolling in his grave. the new conservative is not the original progressive conservative which was dissolved in 03. Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the new conservative fka canadian alliance fka reform party is and was never a majority.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Voting simply to counter another party is pretty much the least informed way of voting possible. You might as well flip a coin.

Congrats, you're one step closer to thinking like an American when you vote. It's only a shame we don't use a busted two party Republic system!

I'm never one to piddle away my vote on someone who's views I don't support. But if you want to, good job.

you're dumber then a rock.

fuck you're principles stand for reality.

p.s. all you bitches worried about crime are a bunch of pussies, it dosnt exist. 80% of the people who get got had it coming and the rest are domestic cases or some some shit that the libs wouldve handled, cuz they wont throw mental health cases out saying they need community help and then never provide the funding thats needed for them.

you're basically voting for a reality that will never exist, life is nothing but comprimese.