Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Cut Party Subsidies? We cut you real bad maan. Canadian Politics within.

13468959

Posts

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    You think their would be no provisions made for competitive shooting in the event of new legislation limiting the ownership of guns?

    So someone like me who's been shooting for 21 years, has never been involved in an injury caused by firearms (Or even witnessed one for that matter) and follows the law as it is, but isn't competitive, is fucked? Why should my property be taken away from me?

    I'm not saying I agree with their gun policy, and instead believe that any bans should be limited solely to hand guns and fully automatic weaponry. However, were the Greens to somehow become the government with that policy, that would indicate a general agreement with their firearms positions. As such, it would be totally legitimate for them to take your firearms, as a majority of the populace believes that such ownership is a threat to public safety. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but that's kind of how a democracy works...

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    You think their would be no provisions made for competitive shooting in the event of new legislation limiting the ownership of guns?

    So someone like me who's been shooting for 21 years, has never been involved in an injury caused by firearms (Or even witnessed one for that matter) and follows the law as it is, but isn't competitive, is fucked? Why should my property be taken away from me?

    I'm not saying I agree with their gun policy, and instead believe that any bans should be limited solely to hand guns and fully automatic weaponry. However, were the Greens to somehow become the government with that policy, that would indicate a general agreement with their firearms positions. As such, it would be totally legitimate for them to take your firearms, as a majority of the populace believes that such ownership is a threat to public safety. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but that's kind of how a democracy works...

    Canada is not a democracy, then. The will of the majority has never been the only deciding factor. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority.

    PS. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Hell, anything made my Kalashnikov, no matter what it is, is illegal. Handguns are a bitch to get as it is. It'd be a lot easier for me to buy an illegal pistol than a legal one.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Decius wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    Look, if it wasn't weird and complicated, it wouldn't be BC politics. We're the people who elected a dude named Amor De Cosmos as Premier. :P

    Not to mention continually voting in a party that liked to bend the province over a table and make it their bitch. You guys really have a masochistic streak in your selection of political leaders and policy. Not that I have any room to talk, considering where I live now. However I lived through the NDP heyday in B.C. and it's the reason I was so apprehensive about voting for them the first time I did federally. The federal NDP seemed less batshit insane then their B.C. couterparts, but in this recent election their more left-leaning streak is starting to show.

    Really we're in a four horse race where one horse is ugly, one is gimped, one is blind, and one is just running in circles. Place your bets.

    Little late on this but don't get me started on the B.C NDP! I got to live through the Ontario Bob Rae NDP Heyday followed by moving to B.C during the NDP's heyday in that province! I too was fairly apprehensive to say the least to vote for them in a federal election.

    As for this election, I'm voting Obama. Wait, what?

  • I Am Not A BearI Am Not A Bear Registered User
    edited September 2008
    If there was a write-in option, everyone should just write in Obama for the hell of it.

  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I read a little blurb today that Canadians broke 66% Obama, 13% McCain.

    15wxzkn.jpg
  • ComahawkComahawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    You think their would be no provisions made for competitive shooting in the event of new legislation limiting the ownership of guns?

    So someone like me who's been shooting for 21 years, has never been involved in an injury caused by firearms (Or even witnessed one for that matter) and follows the law as it is, but isn't competitive, is fucked? Why should my property be taken away from me?

    I'm not saying I agree with their gun policy, and instead believe that any bans should be limited solely to hand guns and fully automatic weaponry. However, were the Greens to somehow become the government with that policy, that would indicate a general agreement with their firearms positions. As such, it would be totally legitimate for them to take your firearms, as a majority of the populace believes that such ownership is a threat to public safety. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but that's kind of how a democracy works...

    Canada is not a democracy, then. The will of the majority has never been the only deciding factor. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority.

    PS. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Hell, anything made my Kalashnikov, no matter what it is, is illegal. Handguns are a bitch to get as it is. It'd be a lot easier for me to buy an illegal pistol than a legal one.

    Sadly it is much easier... If i wanted to I would need to spend at most one day looking. Should the gun laws change to a total ban I would likely move to a country where there was no such ban. I'm not having my family heirlooms and tradition destroyed because of a poorly informed law.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    the Bloc will have enough seats to be relavent, but again are a useless party. The only thing they do is split the vote between themselves and the liberals, which is actually an advantage for harper.
    I disagree that the Bloc "splitting the vote" between themselves and the Liberals. People who vote Bloc are (mostly) sovereignists, who wouldn't vote Liberal even if the Bloc did not exist. They hate the Liberal Party. In fact, if the 2006 election is any indicator, the "weak" Bloc voters seem more inclined to go for the Conservatives. So, if anything, they might be splitting part of the Conservative vote.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So, those Conservative mail ads. Am I the only one who thinks they are poorly designed? They have a ballot with the four leader's names on it, and an arrow that should be pointing to Harper, but actually falls in-between Harper and Layton.

    I looked at one quickly, and actually stood there for a minute wondering why the NDP had sent out ads praising the Conservatives.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The post I had typed up before was better than this one...

    At any rate, in 2006, the last year for which I have statistics, more Canadians were killed with a knife than killed with a gun. The year prior, knives fell just short. To sum it up, we need to ban knives just as much as we need to ban guns. Don't let me get started on backyard swimming pools.

    A politician's stance on firearms laws is generally a pretty good indicator if they are trying to actually help the country or just say whatever is required to get votes. For example, no argument for why closing firearms ranges on City of Toronto property will save a single life has been made, aside from vague comments about gun culture. This is just another gun control policy that only focuses on law abiding citizen while completely ignoring crime, criminals and illegal firearms. Look at the long gun registry, at a cost of $1 to $2 billion dollars it hasn't solved a single crime.

    The Vancouver police report that over 97% of firearms seized were illegal. As a group, legal firearms owners are among the most law abiding people in Canada, which only makes sense once you weed out all those with prior criminal convictions and those without enough patience for all the paperwork and months of delays. It's cheaper, never mind easier and quicker, to buy an illegal pistol in Canada than a legal one.

    For those of you who have spent a lifetime in a big city, Canada is a nation of gun owners. We're estimated to be in the top 10 countries in the world in per capita firearms ownership yet we rarely kill each other and when we do we're more likely to opt for something other than a gun. Legal firearm ownership in this country is not a problem. I find it ironic that the same people who talk about the culture of fear in the US are often in favour of a handgun or total firearm ban in Canada.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I read a little blurb today that Canadians broke 66% Obama, 13% McCain.

    Sounds shockingly low for Obama. Where's the other 21%?

    Polls indicated that Gore would have won by >90% in 2000 among Canadians.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So, three conservative Cabinet minsters won't run again.

    Emerson, Hearn, Soldberg

  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    According to a poll done by the CBC the conservatives are getting close to getting enough support for a majority.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/04/poll-results.html
    Canadians are most likely to vote for the Conservatives in a federal election, and believe Stephen Harper and Jack Layton would make better prime ministers than Stéphane Dion, according to a new poll sponsored by CBC News.

    The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 38 per cent of Canadians would vote for the Conservative party if an election were held immediately.

    By comparison, 28 per cent would vote for the Liberal party, 19 for the NDP, eight for the Bloc Québécois and seven for the Green party.

    Even when undecided voters were asked to reveal whom they were inclined to vote for, the Conservatives still kept the lead: Conservatives (33 per cent), Liberals (24), NDP (16), Bloc (7), Green (6).

    If the federal election were held today, which of the following parties would you vote for?
    Total %

    Conservative party
    38

    Liberal party
    28

    New Democratic Party
    19

    Bloc Québécois
    8

    Green party
    7

    (Source: Environics survey)


    This latest poll shows that support for the Conservatives has grown since the beginning of the summer.

    A similar survey done in late June and early July showed the Conservatives with 35 per cent support of decided voters, while the Liberals had 30, the NDP had 17, the Greens had 10 and the Bloc had eight.

    "The Conservatives are now up by a couple of points and they are within striking distance of a majority," Donna Dasko, senior vice-president of Environics Research Group, told CBC News on Thursday.

    "This is the early days and there is no election campaign right at this moment and things can happen, but certainly if you look at this poll today, you would conclude that the Conservatives are in a very good position."

    The survey comes as an election looms in Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve his minority Conservative government, the Canadian Press reported Thursday.

    Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14.

    A total of 2,505 people from across the country were surveyed by telephone for the latest Environics poll. It is considered accurate to within plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
    Conservatives lead in Ontario, Prairies, B.C.

    When looking at the regions, the Conservatives have a firm lead in Ontario — 43 per cent of Ontarians would vote Conservative compared to 34 per cent Liberal.

    In your opinion, which of the following party leaders would make the best prime minister of Canada? Leader %
    Stephen Harper 39
    Jack Layton 15
    Stéphane Dion 13
    Gilles Duceppe 4
    Elizabeth May 3
    None of the above 14
    Don't know/No answer 12
    (Source: Environics survey)


    "This is the big story — the strength of Conservative support in Ontario and how their support has inched upward over the past several months," Dasko said.

    The Conservatives also have firm support in the Prairies (53 Conservative, 22 Liberal) and in British Columbia (35 Conservative, 28 NDP, 26 Liberal).

    But Atlantic Canada, a traditional Liberal stronghold, the Liberals maintain the lead — 39 per cent of Atlantic Canadians would vote Liberal while 33 per cent would vote Conservative, according to the poll.

    In Quebec, the Conservatives are second to the Bloc, which has 34 per cent of the vote, compared to 23 for the Conservatives and 22 for the Liberals.

    Dasko noted that the Conservatives and Liberals are neck-and-neck in the province.

    "What's interesting from the poll is how it splits out in terms of Montreal versus the rest of Quebec," Dasko said. "If you look in Montreal, it tends to be a race between the Liberals and the Bloc.

    "But if you look outside of Montreal, it's a race between the Bloc and the Conservatives. So the Conservatives have a real chance, I think, of picking up some seats outside Montreal … That's where we're going to see a lot of action in the election campaign."
    'Dion has a lot of work to do'

    While Canadians are leaning their support toward the Conservatives overall, they also have confidence in the party's leader.

    A total of 39 per cent said Harper would make the best prime minister, while 15 per cent chose the NDP’s Layton.

    Only 13 per cent chose Liberal Dion, while 14 per cent said none of the leaders of the major parties would make a good prime minister.

    "Mr. Dion has a lot of work to do," Dasko said. "He thinks he can speak to Canadians and pick up those numbers during the campaign, but he's starting from a real deficit."

    Former Liberal campaign co-chair David Herle said Thursday that while it's clear much of the momentum currently rests with the Conservatives, the Canadian public's vote intention is far from clear.

    Nothing that the Liberals would need a 10- to 12-point advantage in Ontario to have a chance at forming a government, Herle said the party must make a 25-point turnaround there in the upcoming weeks.

    "It's not impossible — many polls have shown them with that kind of a lead relatively recently in Ontario."
    Conservatives for economy, Liberals for environment

    When Canadians were asked which political parties could best handle a variety of heated issues in Canada, the choice was most often the Conservatives.

    Those responding to the poll said they believe the Conservatives are best able to deal with the economy, provide honest government, deal with crime and justice, represent the interests of people’s home provinces in Ottawa and deal with Afghanistan.

    By comparison they thought the Liberals could best deal with environmental issues like global warming and environmental pollution. The Liberals are also best suited to handle national unity issues, respondents said.

    The Liberals and Conservatives were tied when it came to health care, chosen equally as the best party to handle the issue.

    When considering the issues, the Liberals or the Conservatives were usually considered the first and second most capable parties.

    However, the NDP came in second when it came to choosing the party most capable of providing an honest government — 27 per cent of respondents chose the Conservatives as most capable, 19 per cent chose the NDP and 14 per cent chose the Liberals.

    The NDP, along with the Greens, were also considered strong when it came to the environment — Liberals got 21 per cent of the vote, with the NDP, Greens and Conservatives tied with 20 per cent.

    More results from the Environics poll will be made available Sunday morning on CBCNews.ca, CBC-TV and CBC Radio

    qFN53.png
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I read a little blurb today that Canadians broke 66% Obama, 13% McCain.

    Sounds shockingly low for Obama. Where's the other 21%?

    Polls indicated that Gore would have won by >90% in 2000 among Canadians.

    I'd guess name recognition. Gore spent 8 years as the VP during the tech boom when Nortel was a triple digit stock. If the undecided had to choose either Obama or McCain, I'd guess Obama would be in the 80s.

    People don't seem to understand how large the divide between Canadian and American politics really is. Based on proposed policies, not rhetoric, the Democrats are to the right of the Conservatives on average.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I read a little blurb today that Canadians broke 66% Obama, 13% McCain.

    Sounds shockingly low for Obama. Where's the other 21%?

    Polls indicated that Gore would have won by >90% in 2000 among Canadians.

    I'd guess name recognition. Gore spent 8 years as the VP during the tech boom when Nortel was a triple digit stock. If the undecided had to choose either Obama or McCain, I'd guess Obama would be in the 80s.

    People don't seem to understand how large the divide between Canadian and American politics really is. Based on proposed policies, not rhetoric, the Democrats are to the right of the Conservatives on average.

    That's only somewhat true; The Conservatives are more socially conservative than the vast majority of the Democratic party.

    Also obligatory the Green Party can go fuck a donkey post, while I'm in here

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    People don't seem to understand how large the divide between Canadian and American politics really is. Based on proposed policies, not rhetoric, the Democrats are to the right of the Conservatives on average.
    Which is why it always makes me laugh when people liken the Conservatives a Canadian Republican Party. They're really not.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ugh, I don't see any positives in electing the Conservatives at the moment. I wouldn't be against another minority, but I'm not seeing how Harper is going to function in another minority if he's having trouble as it is working with the other parties enough to call an election before his earlier fixed date.

    But on the other hand, who would I vote for to replace them? For all the disparaging talk of the two-party system in the US, we have 4+ parties here and all of them are shit (comparatively).

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    That's only somewhat true; The Conservatives are more socially conservative than the vast majority of the Democratic party.

    Well, that's why I said on average and stuck to policy only. When it comes to the big issues, the policy isn't that far off. On abortion, for example, the Dems are for while the Cons are meh, which works out to the same thing. On gay marriage, the Dems are generally found in the pro or civil union side while the Cons went with the "we should have a free vote" angle which was pretty much guaranteed to keep gay marriage legal.

    In a private conversation, I'm sure a die hard Democrat would give different answers than a die hard Conservative, but when it comes to actual policy the difference isn't as great as most people would believe.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    That's only somewhat true; The Conservatives are more socially conservative than the vast majority of the Democratic party.

    Well, that's why I said on average and stuck to policy only. When it comes to the big issues, the policy isn't that far off. On abortion, for example, the Dems are for while the Cons are meh, which works out to the same thing. On gay marriage, the Dems are generally found in the pro or civil union side while the Cons went with the "we should have a free vote" angle which was pretty much guaranteed to keep gay marriage legal.

    In a private conversation, I'm sure a die hard Democrat would give different answers than a die hard Conservative, but when it comes to actual policy the difference isn't as great as most people would believe.

    I think that's a generous reading of the Conservative platform at best. Their "mehs" and "free votes" are a product of them being hamstrung by their minority status. I wouldn't trust these fucks to make pudding with a majority.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The only reason the Tories wanted a free vote on gay marriage was because they (thankfully) don't control the Senate or the courts.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    People who mistake a few red tories for the Conservative party being basically the Democratic party need to remember that for every fairly reasonable Conservative MP deemed suitable for the cameras, there are several Conservative backbenchers who are basically forbidden to open their mouths in public.

    Those guys are the ex-Reform members. They're batshit insane. They used to speak occasionally in places where people could hear them, which made the party basically unelectable. Harper, who is himself tight with this whole Alberta social conservative block, instituted tight controls to keep them from letting the public know their views, but they're still very much a force in the party, especially places like here in Alberta where they can freely let people know their views.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So, is anyone else being subjected to a barage of these vapid pro-Harper ads?

    Has Canadian politics finally descended to this bad a level? Or was it always there and I never noticed?

    The ads say NOTHING. It's a bunch of people saying "I like Stephen Harper because he has nice hair" or something equally as stupid.

    Ugh. Shut the fuck up TV and put House back on.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    People who mistake a few red tories for the Conservative party being basically the Democratic party need to remember that for every fairly reasonable Conservative MP deemed suitable for the cameras, there are several Conservative backbenchers who are basically forbidden to open their mouths in public.

    Those guys are the ex-Reform members. They're batshit insane. They used to speak occasionally in places where people could hear them, which made the party basically unelectable. Harper, who is himself tight with this whole Alberta social conservative block, instituted tight controls to keep them from letting the public know their views, but they're still very much a force in the party, especially places like here in Alberta where they can freely let people know their views.

    Sounds suspiciously like the NPD to me...


    But your right. The Conservatives are not the PC party, their the Reform party by another name.

  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I like their new slogan;

    "Canada. We're better off with Harper"

    better off!

    qFN53.png
  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    So, is anyone else being subjected to a barage of these vapid pro-Harper ads?

    Has Canadian politics finally descended to this bad a level? Or was it always there and I never noticed?

    The ads say NOTHING. It's a bunch of people saying "I like Stephen Harper because he has nice hair" or something equally as stupid.

    Ugh. Shut the fuck up TV and put House back on.

    Yeah, those are national ads, and this is only going to get worse until after the election.

    I remembered something that really pisses me off about the Cons. The safe injection site in Vancouver? The science (in peer reviewed journals no less) thats been done on its impact on the community has shown that its positive on reducing crime, overdose deaths, etc.

    The conservatives seem bent on shutting it down. Recently we even had the health minister questioning the ethics of doctors who would work there. The Conservatives don't believe in science, or facts, just their own retarded social ideology. These people would happily drag us into a US style War on Drugs, which has been such a rousing success .

    But I guess we can't expect much from a party that puts a man who believes we coexisted with dinosaurs into a cabinet position where he's in charge of our national intelligence agency.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    People who mistake a few red tories for the Conservative party being basically the Democratic party need to remember that for every fairly reasonable Conservative MP deemed suitable for the cameras, there are several Conservative backbenchers who are basically forbidden to open their mouths in public.

    Those guys are the ex-Reform members. They're batshit insane. They used to speak occasionally in places where people could hear them, which made the party basically unelectable. Harper, who is himself tight with this whole Alberta social conservative block, instituted tight controls to keep them from letting the public know their views, but they're still very much a force in the party, especially places like here in Alberta where they can freely let people know their views.
    If you take the time to read into his background, you'll find that Harper himself is quite the social conservative. He's just smart enough to tread lightly until he has a majority, unlike many of his Reform cronies.
    Recently we even had the health minister questioning the ethics of doctors who would work there.
    Actually the Honourable Minister questioned the ethics of any and all doctors who even support the site.

  • SerpentSerpent Sometimes Vancouver, BC, sometimes Brisbane, QLDRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Corvus wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, is anyone else being subjected to a barage of these vapid pro-Harper ads?

    Has Canadian politics finally descended to this bad a level? Or was it always there and I never noticed?

    The ads say NOTHING. It's a bunch of people saying "I like Stephen Harper because he has nice hair" or something equally as stupid.

    Ugh. Shut the fuck up TV and put House back on.

    Yeah, those are national ads, and this is only going to get worse until after the election.

    I remembered something that really pisses me off about the Cons. The safe injection site in Vancouver? The science (in peer reviewed journals no less) thats been done on its impact on the community has shown that its positive on reducing crime, overdose deaths, etc.

    The conservatives seem bent on shutting it down. Recently we even had the health minister questioning the ethics of doctors who would work there. The Conservatives don't believe in science, or facts, just their own retarded social ideology. These people would happily drag us into a US style War on Drugs, which has been such a rousing success .

    But I guess we can't expect much from a party that puts a man who believes we coexisted with dinosaurs into a cabinet position where he's in charge of our national intelligence agency.

    This is one of the reasons I am leaning liberal.

    I think the cons who are against insite should come and spend a month working in the downtown eastside and actually getting to know some of the street people.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    El Skid wrote: »
    My personal views are definitely most in line with the Green party, and I hope they get a whole whack of seats.

    Unfortunately, I might just vote liberal because the Conservative/PC/Reform/Alliance/Harper party can't be allowed a majority.... And the Greens never seem to get seats even when the Conservatives are doing their "The environment? It's fine. No such thing as Global Warming" routine.

    This has been my voting dilemma for the past 10+ years :-/

    This is also my line of thinking. Green party get something like 5% of national votes, but not enough in a single region to take a seat. Green party is the only serious party among the puny ones listed at the end, but voting for them is still akin to voting for a 3rd party in the USA. Your vote
    >flushed down toilet. I just vote liberal because I don't want Harper/conservatives in power. The liberals need a new leader so badly. No ones votes liberal because of the leader.

    And yeah, Canadian conservatives are so watered down they aren't really conservatives. Canada and the EU are way more socialist then the USA, we don't have hard core conservative political parties anymore and we don't understand how the USA takes republican's seriously. You have a powerful political party that wants to turn women into forced baby incubators by abolishing abortion? Is that a bad joke?:P

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The Green Party is retarded, guys.

    They're pro environment, but want an immediate ban on Uranium mining and exports.

    Canada accounts for a large percentage of the world's uranium supply.

    So they're pro environment, but want to immediately choke the world's uranium supply and force many countries already on nuclear power, and any considering transitioning to it, to stick with coal and oil rather than replacing those with nuclear power as part of a transition to cleaner power sources.

    The Green Party is basically a pack of retarded hippies with no regard for the consequences of their pie-in-the-sky proposals that would be, like, cool man.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    The Green Party is retarded, guys.

    They're pro environment, but want an immediate ban on Uranium mining and exports.

    Canada accounts for a large percentage of the world's uranium supply.

    So they're pro environment, but want to immediately choke the world's uranium supply and force many countries already on nuclear power, and any considering transitioning to it, to stick with coal and oil rather than replacing those with nuclear power as part of a transition to cleaner power sources.

    The Green Party is basically a pack of retarded hippies with no regard for the consequences of their pie-in-the-sky proposals that would be, like, cool man.

    Why do they want an immediate ban on the mining and export?

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Because uranium is like, bad, man.

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/257854
    "Canada must stop mining and refining uranium," said May. "The uranium extraction process is extremely hazardous to the environment and to the health of mine workers and the public. "

    The hazard goes well beyond the mines and refining plants, she said.

    "Radioactive particles carried downwind and downstream have the potential to poison thousands of eastern Ontarians through the air they breathe and the water they drink."

    The industry also fuels the nuclear arms race, she said.

    "Uranium mining and nuclear power are the greatest obstacles to the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Mined uranium inevitably ends up as plutonium, radioactive waste, or worse – nuclear weapons. "

    29% of the world's mined uranium supply from mines comes from Canada. This would be a disaster.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Dman wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    My personal views are definitely most in line with the Green party, and I hope they get a whole whack of seats.

    Unfortunately, I might just vote liberal because the Conservative/PC/Reform/Alliance/Harper party can't be allowed a majority.... And the Greens never seem to get seats even when the Conservatives are doing their "The environment? It's fine. No such thing as Global Warming" routine.

    This has been my voting dilemma for the past 10+ years :-/

    This is also my line of thinking. Green party get something like 5% of national votes, but not enough in a single region to take a seat. Green party is the only serious party among the puny ones listed at the end, but voting for them is still akin to voting for a 3rd party in the USA. Your vote
    >flushed down toilet.

    Actually, voting for the Green party or any other of the small parties in Canada actually has a beneficial effect for them, since government funding is proportional to the amount/ percentage (I can't remember which one) of votes that party gets. By voting for that party you help get them money.

    qFN53.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Because uranium is like, bad, man.

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/257854
    "Canada must stop mining and refining uranium," said May. "The uranium extraction process is extremely hazardous to the environment and to the health of mine workers and the public. "

    The hazard goes well beyond the mines and refining plants, she said.

    "Radioactive particles carried downwind and downstream have the potential to poison thousands of eastern Ontarians through the air they breathe and the water they drink."

    The industry also fuels the nuclear arms race, she said.

    "Uranium mining and nuclear power are the greatest obstacles to the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Mined uranium inevitably ends up as plutonium, radioactive waste, or worse – nuclear weapons. "

    29% of the world's mined uranium supply from mines comes from Canada. This would be a disaster.

    Okay, her last point is kind of silly - nuclear power is one of the greatest obstacles to disarmament?

    But I have to wonder how much truth there is in the criticism of uranium mining and its risks to the surrounding environment. If it is dangerous, it's a case of weighing which one is the lesser evil.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Because uranium is like, bad, man.

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/257854
    "Canada must stop mining and refining uranium," said May. "The uranium extraction process is extremely hazardous to the environment and to the health of mine workers and the public. "

    The hazard goes well beyond the mines and refining plants, she said.

    "Radioactive particles carried downwind and downstream have the potential to poison thousands of eastern Ontarians through the air they breathe and the water they drink."

    The industry also fuels the nuclear arms race, she said.

    "Uranium mining and nuclear power are the greatest obstacles to the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Mined uranium inevitably ends up as plutonium, radioactive waste, or worse – nuclear weapons. "

    29% of the world's mined uranium supply from mines comes from Canada. This would be a disaster.

    Okay, her last point is kind of silly - nuclear power is one of the greatest obstacles to disarmament?

    But I have to wonder how much truth there is in the criticism of uranium mining and its risks to the surrounding environment. If it is dangerous, it's a case of weighing which one is the lesser evil.

    Coal is one of the dirtiest power sources we have and it is also the most common. We need less dependence on coal, not more. Nuclear Power is a good temporary solution until something more renewable becomes feasible.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oh, I am in support of nuclear power, I'm just wondering about the specifics of uranium mining, which I am not altogether familiar with.

    I would imagine that the solution would be not banning uranium mining, but improving it so that it's not hazardous to the surrounding area.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    The Green Party is retarded, guys.

    They're pro environment, but want an immediate ban on Uranium mining and exports.

    Canada accounts for a large percentage of the world's uranium supply.

    So they're pro environment, but want to immediately choke the world's uranium supply and force many countries already on nuclear power, and any considering transitioning to it, to stick with coal and oil rather than replacing those with nuclear power as part of a transition to cleaner power sources.

    The Green Party is basically a pack of retarded hippies with no regard for the consequences of their pie-in-the-sky proposals that would be, like, cool man.

    The beauty is that May cannot get the PM job. Well, technically she can, but its not going to happen. They'll be happy if they can win a single seat. That means that all their stupid ideas (and there are several) wont actually get implemented. I will likely vote for the greens however, because I feel that in a minority position like the NDP, they will have a positive influence on things, namely by really pressing the environmental angle. If the Greens do win a seat or more, then I will re-evaluate my voting policy, and may end up going back to the NDP. I certainly dont want the Greens running shit, they'd fail miserably. I just want their shrill voices to carry some weight in parliament.

    ragesig.jpg

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    You guys have to keep in mind that the party leadership has very little control over what actually appears in the policy document. Unlike some other parties, policy is almost entirely decided upon by the membership as a whole. So you can get contingents of really anti-nuclear people who want to get rid of it right now and forever, and they can outmanuever the more realistic among us (who, like me, view nuclear as a better temporary solution than coal) and put it in the platform.

    But that doesn't mean everything is going to be implemented that is in the platform. Hell, even with the more mainstream parties, none of it ever is. Remember Chretien's vow to repeal the GST? Yeah, or renegotiate FTA?

    Yeah. Don't get too hung up on one little policy point that you don't agree with.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    You guys have to keep in mind that the party leadership has very little control over what actually appears in the policy document. Unlike some other parties, policy is almost entirely decided upon by the membership as a whole. So you can get contingents of really anti-nuclear people who want to get rid of it right now and forever, and they can outmanuever the more realistic among us (who, like me, view nuclear as a better temporary solution than coal) and put it in the platform.

    But that doesn't mean everything is going to be implemented that is in the platform. Hell, even with the more mainstream parties, none of it ever is. Remember Chretien's vow to repeal the GST? Yeah, or renegotiate FTA?

    Yeah. Don't get too hung up on one little policy point that you don't agree with.

    Their stated policy positions as well as the reasons they give behind it give a good indication into their thinking/ideology/goals in the event they do get elected. And if they're including a number of things which show short-sightedness or fit a pattern of a strict ideal, then that's not terribly a positive for them in my eyes.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    The Green Party is retarded, guys.

    They're pro environment, but want an immediate ban on Uranium mining and exports.

    Canada accounts for a large percentage of the world's uranium supply.

    So they're pro environment, but want to immediately choke the world's uranium supply and force many countries already on nuclear power, and any considering transitioning to it, to stick with coal and oil rather than replacing those with nuclear power as part of a transition to cleaner power sources.

    The Green Party is basically a pack of retarded hippies with no regard for the consequences of their pie-in-the-sky proposals that would be, like, cool man.

    The beauty is that May cannot get the PM job. Well, technically she can, but its not going to happen. They'll be happy if they can win a single seat. That means that all their stupid ideas (and there are several) wont actually get implemented. I will likely vote for the greens however, because I feel that in a minority position like the NDP, they will have a positive influence on things, namely by really pressing the environmental angle. If the Greens do win a seat or more, then I will re-evaluate my voting policy, and may end up going back to the NDP. I certainly dont want the Greens running shit, they'd fail miserably. I just want their shrill voices to carry some weight in parliament.

    I don't like the idea of voting for a party that can't get a seat in your riding, especially one that's batshit insane to begin with.

    Best outcome from this election, the way I see it, is that we end up with another minority government. SO I'll vote whoever of the NDP and Liberals is more likely to unseat Jaffer.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    You guys have to keep in mind that the party leadership has very little control over what actually appears in the policy document. Unlike some other parties, policy is almost entirely decided upon by the membership as a whole. So you can get contingents of really anti-nuclear people who want to get rid of it right now and forever, and they can outmanuever the more realistic among us (who, like me, view nuclear as a better temporary solution than coal) and put it in the platform.

    But that doesn't mean everything is going to be implemented that is in the platform. Hell, even with the more mainstream parties, none of it ever is. Remember Chretien's vow to repeal the GST? Yeah, or renegotiate FTA?

    Yeah. Don't get too hung up on one little policy point that you don't agree with.

    So I should vote for them so more money will go to a party whose policies are shaped by lunatic hippies with impractical ideas that don't worry we know are practical?

    Umm, no.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    You guys have to keep in mind that the party leadership has very little control over what actually appears in the policy document. Unlike some other parties, policy is almost entirely decided upon by the membership as a whole. So you can get contingents of really anti-nuclear people who want to get rid of it right now and forever, and they can outmanuever the more realistic among us (who, like me, view nuclear as a better temporary solution than coal) and put it in the platform.

    But that doesn't mean everything is going to be implemented that is in the platform. Hell, even with the more mainstream parties, none of it ever is. Remember Chretien's vow to repeal the GST? Yeah, or renegotiate FTA?

    Yeah. Don't get too hung up on one little policy point that you don't agree with.

    So I should vote for them so more money will go to a party whose policies are shaped by lunatic hippies with impractical ideas that don't worry we know are practical?


    Umm, no.

    Wait, are we talking Green or NPD here?

13468959
This discussion has been closed.