Want to stop Harper from getting his majorty government?

[Dreadnex.Inc]

.Promoter

Nicely put (and at this stage in the game, backing out of Afghanistan probably would count as the least humane option, for mostly the reasons that you have listed).

I still would maintain that things are actually worse than they would have been had the country not been invaded.

Anything that encourages the extraction of petroleum products, and their further consumption by industrializing mega-powers, I'm not such a fan of that either.

To my knowledge, the opium production of Afghanistan has increased since the inception of the war. Economic arguments, to me, often are based on shaky ground. The belief in the systems of exchange, credit, and theoretically means of production, can be directly traced to the events of the early twentieth century depression, when sufficient food stuffs had been produced, but due to lack of profitability, were left to rot in shipyards.

Any system that disallows for the common sense actions that enable basic survival, seems to me to be a dubious platform to debate from.

However, the primary point that I would choose to weigh on isn't even whether or not the war is justified, but whether or not it accurately reflects the will of the Canadian populace (whether or not the general population counts as qualified to judge decisions or not is actually beside the point).

If a nation subscribes to the pretext of being democratic, then it is essential that it be so. A useful caveat might be that in that case it also provide the means for the population to make informed choices, but aside from that, when the pretense is made, but does not reflect the reality of the situation, then it would be better to have an honest dictatorship. At least people would be aware of the actual situation.

In the cases of either Canada, or the USA, functionally the leadership races have the real significance of a wrestling match, the same people still gather in the proceeds.

That being said, the "Left" sides (Democrat, or anything other than Progressive Conservative in the current regime) at least are bound by the polite fictions, to less immediate action and at least a show of adaptability and humaneness.

Regarding climate change, I actually would prefer to see a proper borderline Faschist party (in the terms of total governmental control over economic production, not National Socialism). I'm very much not a fan of corporate protectionism, and most definitely not a fan of winning votes by promising a more comfortable lifestyle for individuals (or issuing "Carbon Credits", or restoring funding to services just before election time, that had been brutally cut previously for the sake of demonstrating financial capability).

To use metaphorical terms, if I were caught in a mine cave-in, with even the slightest chance of rescue, and one of the other survivors decided that vigorous calisthenics was a reasonable course of action, well, I might feel justified looking for a large, pointy rock (eighteen years of pacifism aside).

Particularly if the survival at question was not just my own, but likely to involve that of all of my future relations.


Aside from a bit of a strong stance on ecological issues (and yes, before anyone mentions it, I would miss the generators needed to throw outdoor events), my primary opinion remains, that the conservative party of Canada as headed by Stephen Harper, is a more immediate threat to the things and ideals that I value, and therefore any tactics that allow for their displacement is acceptable (regardless of the comforting illusion that any of the major parties actually has the ability to significantly change how the corporation of Canada operates).

That's short of armed insurrection, and that kind of thing, of course.

So I'm voting for a party that I don't particularly like, that to my knowledge has few of the virtues of my preferred party (which I still don't like), to prevent a more rapid descent into a bad situation, in the hope that things might still work out.


If anyone differs with that, I'll take the low road and ask:
"Which Canadian party do you think would be most likely to interfere with the right of free association, by the passing of the equivalent of the American Rave Act?"

[.Promoter]

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

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.

Sorry darling but i have compared and analyzed all 4 potential candidates. And I Have selected mine on a few points, if you read my second post youd get a better idea of why.

NDP=Poor economics in an Economic Crisis=Bad idea
Liberal=Reasonable Economics+Bad Leadership+Lack of Ideals=Not a Great idea
Conservative=Reasonable Economics+Strong Leadership+Lack of public trust=Not a great idea either but +strong support for the war=In my opinion a good idea
Green Party=No governance expierience+Rookie party+poor but better then NDP economics=Bad idea but good idea to vote for if you want to pressure whichever other party is elected to move for environmental controls

now..

Dreadnex.Inc

I definitely cannot argue with most of what you said, it is your right and opinion to think as you do, we are obviously from different paradigms in political thought.

The only thing Id like to point out is your comment on poppy cultivation.

Yes, it has gotten worse since the war. But this is something I said was a direct effect of the conflict, and a reason for people in the drug trade looking to create an imbalance in the conflict to allow it to continue... Because... when the country becomes stable there poppy cultivation comes under attack...

Which is why i suggest to you, todays BBC News Morning Headline..

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Nato to attack Afghan opium labs

[Webber]

...I'm not voting liberal, fuck that...

[b0ld]

[zarlon]

regardless of all points made above re: how strategic voting is not a sound method of choosing a candidate.... my riding has an overwhelming amount of conservative constituents - even if all supporters of other parties were to vote for one single non-conservative party, they would still own us.

damn. this neighborhood sucks.

[Grapes]

You don't still live in the West End??

[Senior]

Originally Posted by .Promoter

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

so you're to young to remember Mulroney? if that is the case than I'll brief you. foreign wars, war on drugs, no policy on climate change. George Bush meet Canada... you DUMB FUCK...

[zarlon]

Originally Posted by Grapes

You don't still live in the West End??

nope, i've moved on to hicksville... population 'unquestioning conservative' :|

[Grapes]

Are you under the reign of King Strahl?