Toronto It's close to election time in Canada...

Styrofoam_Guy

Is there something specific your afraid of? or is it simply a general fear that you cant explain?

I follow all parties fairly closely so I might have answers for you one way or the other.

 

I do recall reading an article during the last election about what policies he tried to bring when he was involved in Alberta politics. I can not recall specifics now since it was a while ago but I recall thinking at the time that a person does not change why they want to bring in those types of policies.

For this election some of the main points are the fact that he wants to revisit the right to gay marriage and abortion.

Now I am not gay and I do have mixed feelings about allowing them to marry but I think it is something they should be allowed to do.

I am pro-choice for abortion. I don't think the state has a right to tell someone what they can or can not do with their body.

Will he revisit the missle defence? He says he may. I hope not.

Kyoto Accord. It may be flawed but to opt out of it is not the way forward.

There are comments from him from the past such as "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country" or "build firewalls around Alberta" or describing Atlantic Provinces having a culture of defeat. These don't really bother me too much as I know things can be taken out of context.

The Belinda thing was a mess. When I heard she joined the Conservatives I thought this would give them a major boost. It was a big shock when I heard she crossed the floor. I have read both sides of the story on what happened so I see it as a big loss for the Conservatives.

We shall see what the next couple of years bring. I may be wrong and my worst fears may be unfounded.


Alex
Styrofoam Guy

 

Luckly the conservatives will not be able to must if not any of that Alex. Because of the minority system they have no way of getting their legislation through parliment. Private healthcare, private funding for education, missle defence, getting out of the kyoto treaty will not happen because they have zero support to do it.

The liberals will not support them for obvious reasons(they just spent the last 12 years avoiding doing those things)
The NDP are 100% against those things.
The bloc is 100% against the conservatives, especially with the inroads they made into Quebec this election. If the bloc supports the conservatives they loose alot of ground politically. Not to mention that if the Conservatives take the help from the bloc it makes it look like they are supporting a seperatist party, which would in turn hurt the conservatives.

As much as i dislike the conservatives, we should be pretty stagnant till the next election.

 

OK I will try to address these on a point by point basis

This is your opinion and I cant address your opinion.

He has stated that he will allow a free vote in the house. That?s it. Nothing more.

A Free vote is democracy. And that?s what Canada is based on. The liberals did not allow a free vote. The liberals and the NDP had a Whipped vote, and that?s not Democratic. If the Free vote remains the same then nothing changes, however if the free vote decides to revert the definition of marriage to 1 man and 1 women, then Harper has pledged that all rights and privileges will remain unchanged including all legal and tax rights of same sex spouses, simply the term will revert, which in a free vote will be the will of the people.

You wont ever get a choice in weather or not they get the same rights as you under the law. They get the same rights period. And Harper has stated that. What you will get a choice in is the definition of the term. Its just a word.

This is my personal favorite. Stephen Harper has stated categorically that he will not and I stress NOT revisit this issue. The only people who ever mentioned this was the liberals. I am afraid that you have been the victim of Fear Mongering.

Yes he will.
I have opinions on that myself, but they would require a whole thread on their own. Ask me if it matters to you, I have specific insight in this area.

Harper is against the Kyoto accord.
A few facts about the Kyoto Accord. The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases ?

carbon dioxide, (Humans and mammals produce this by breathing, Plants need this to live)
methane, (Marshes and cows produce this organically)
nitrous oxide, (less than 0.01% of our atmosphere)
sulfur hexafluoride, (less than 0.01% of our atmosphere)
HFCs, (Banned in Canada for years)and
PFCs (Produced by smelting Aluminum for things like pop cans)

These 6 gasses account for less than 1% of earths atmosphere. 1 has been banned for years, 1 is produced by human breathing, 1 by cows farting, 1 by making aluminum, and the other 2 are so small as to be statistically non existent.

The USA who refused to sign on to Kyoto has made far far greater advances in every area than Canada has. Reducing some of the greenhouse gasses (Not carbon dioxide) is a good goal, but simply singing on to Kyoto will not fix things.
Kyoto allows a country to buy clean air credits from other countries, and appear to be meeting their targets without ever doing anything. In fact they can pollute MORE! As long as they buy credits from other countries.

Kyoto does not address actual Pollutants in the air. There are several initiatives out there which really do.

Yes he

 

Even though Harper has stated that all rights and privileges of same sex marriage couples will remain, I don?t think that will be true if the definition of marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman. By defining marriage as such I think it will open up a huge can of worms for same sex couples.

A free vote in parliament is never a free vote. There will always be backroom bartering. The only true free vote is a country wide vote with every citizen voting. Since this is not practical all the time we elect people to represent us in parliament. If we think they do a bad job representing us then we can kick them out in the next election.

For the missile defense I guess we have differing opinions but I personally do not want them to revisit it.

As I said before the Kyoto accord is not perfect but I think it is wrong to opt out of it.
If Harper says we are going to exceed the standards set by the Kyoto accord then why not stay in and show the other countries how much better we can do it?

If the US also says they can do better then they should also have no fear in joining the Kyoto accord.

The only reason to not join is if you cannot meet those goals.

Have no problem with Belinda wanting power. I think she will do a good job. I would vote for her no matter what party she represents.

 

What you seem to be saying here is that you do not believe the words that are comming out of Harpers mouth. That is your decision to make. Personally, I have no reason to doubt his word ...... yet

You are correct here, however I will say this. Harper made it perfectly clear that he would do this. He stated day 1 of the campagin that he would do this. People voted in a Conservative government while he was saying he would do this. I believe that the people who voted for him and his party knew that he would do this ...... Sounds a lot like democracy to me.

How interested are you in this topic?

Because Harper has not said that he will exceed Kyoto standards, He has said that the Kyoto premis is flawed. If you are interested, take a look at this site http://www.friendsofscience.org/
This is a group of Ontario Scientists and professors and climatologists who explain why it is flawed.

That is sort of true. The USA have not met the Goals, but neither has canada, and it is not the USA who say they are doing better than canada, it is scientists all over the world, including Canada who say the USA is doing far far better than canada. But the end result is that neither country has met the Kyoto goals. The difference is that Canada is now obliged to spend billions of dollars buying "Clean air credits" from other countries who have smaller industrial machines. thus increasing our taxes and leaving less money to actually meet the kyoto goals. The USA has to pay nothing to anyone, leaving more money to meet the goals.

I believe that the Values of the Conservative party, and the Liberal party are vastly different. I further believe that a polatician should represent the values of the party .... My values. I do not believe that Belinda's values could have changed so drastically so quickly. When Belinda ran for the conservative party, she seemed to agree with the conservative value system, in fact she stated that she did. Now she seems to agree with the values of the Liberal party, and she says that she does. I am therefore forced to conclude that she was either lying as a Conservative, or she is now lying as a Liberal, and the only value she holds ia a wish to hold power.

That of course is just my opinion.


[/quote]

 

Just one thing from me... if the definition of marriage is to be defined as 1 man and 1 woman... that would imediately mean that same sex marriage is not recognized... and that means Harper and his party are against the idea of same sex marriage... no matter how he tried to make it sound better... it's pretty clear... the same sex marriages would not be recognized...

 

If a "Homosexual" man wanted his right to be called "Heterosexual" would you object?

Weather you call it "Married" or something else it amounts to the same thing. Couples (Regardless of sex) have the exact same rights in Canada, and Harper has stated categorically it will not change.

Its just a word, nothing else.

Quite frankly, Harper has never lied to me (Or at least I haven?t caught him) When he says that same sex couples will retain all rights and privileges that they have now (That opposite sex couples also have) I have no reason to disbelieve him. If you have a specific reason that I should disbelieve him please let me know.

 

Keep in mind that marriage and commonlaw are not the same thing... One has far more meaning to the individuals that take that pledge... what you're saying is that Apples and Oranges are the same thing... they are both fruits after all...

 

Im going to stay away from the apples and oranges thing. But what I will say is that, Stephen Harper will not allow anyone to loose rights under canadian law, and the definition of a word is not a right. That is also the answer to one of the questions I was asked.

If someone feels that they are diminished because they are not allowed to use a particular word (Married) to refer to themselves, I am sorry that they feel that way, but I refer you to my previous statement. Why would a Homosexual man want to call himself Heterosexual? It ammounts to exactly the same thing. Married is a term that refers to a sexual bias, as is Heterosexual.

But I remind you, the first statement was "Stephen Harper will take away the right to Gay marriage" and the answer was, Stephen harper will not take away any rights. Gays will still have every right non gays have, the definition of a word is all he is questioning, and he will allow democracy to decide.

 

Minder posted:

What you seem to be saying here is that you do not believe the words that are comming out of Harpers mouth. That is your decision to make. Personally, I have no reason to doubt his word ...... yet


No I do not trust what he is saying. Obviously you trust him and that is your choice.

Minder posted:

You are correct here, however I will say this. Harper made it perfectly clear that he would do this. He stated day 1 of the campagin that he would do this. People voted in a Conservative government while he was saying he would do this. I believe that the people who voted for him and his party knew that he would do this ...... Sounds a lot like democracy to me.


Now that he has only a minority government this is one of those hot issues that could bring down a government. Is he willing to risk his government on this subject? Time will tell if he does bring in the vote. His goal now is to try andd gain the trust of those who had doubts about him. It is a 2 edges sword. If he brings in a controversial vote people will jump all over him. If he does not bring in the vote people will say he is breaking his promise. Most likely he will put this subject on the back burner and not revisit it until near the end of his term. This will be his out for not bringing in the vote.

Minder posted:

How interested are you in this topic?


Not very.

Minder posted:

Because Harper has not said that he will exceed Kyoto standards, He has said that the Kyoto premis is flawed. If you are interested, take a look at this site http://www.friendsofscience.org/
This is a group of Ontario Scientists and professors and climatologists who explain why it is flawed.


A lot of people think it is flawed. A lot for people agree with it. I agree with it.

Minder posted:

That is sort of true. The USA have not met the Goals, but neither has canada, and it is not the USA who say they are doing better than canada, it is scientists all over the world, including Canada who say the USA is doing far far better than canada. But the end result is that neither country has met the Kyoto goals. The difference is that Canada is now obliged to spend billions of dollars buying "Clean air credits" from other countries who have smaller industrial machines. thus increasing our taxes and leaving less money to actually meet the kyoto goals. The USA has to pay nothing to anyone, leaving more money to meet the goals.


I have no doubt that US is doing better then us. If Canada would get their act together with the government leading the way then we would not need to buy â??Clean Air Creditsâ??

To say trying to meet the goals will hurt our economy I think is a cop out. I pay taxes that go to schools, health care, education, transit system etc. Stuff I donâ??t use. A lot of our tax dollars also go to other provinces who arenâ??t as wealthy as us. Should I be saying I should not be paying taxes because I do not use those services or I donâ??t want my money going to less wealthy provinces? No I still pay my taxes because it is good for our society to have a good health and education system.

By the same token If I have to sacrifice some for a cleaner earth in the future I will not mind.


Minder posted:

I believe that the Values of the Conservative party, and the Liberal party are vastly different. I further believe that a polatician should represent the values of the party .... My values. I do not believe that Belinda's values could have changed so drastically so quickly. When Belinda ran for the conservative party, she seemed to agree with the conservative value system, in fact she stated that she did. Now she seems to agree with the values of the Liberal party, and she says that she does. I am therefore forced to conclude that she was either lying as a Conservative, or she is now lying as a Liberal, and the only value she holds ia a wish to hold power.

That of course is just my opinion.


I of course see it differently and think she has outstanding values that she was not allowe

 

May I ask what exactly he has done that is dishonest? What has he done to earn your distrust?

This is certainly possible but we elected him knowing that he would do this. I don?t see how we could get upset at a politician for actually keeping a promise.

Since you are not really interested in this, I will be brief. The Defense plan is necessary, and Free. There is no valid reason to not join it.

Ummmm, Cant really argue with that logic.

I did not say that trying to meet their goals would hurt our economy. (It will but I didn?t say that)
I said that meeting their goals will not clean up any of the pollution in our air. I said that meeting their goals would not have any effect on global temperatures.
I further said that signing on to Kyoto does not mean that we will be better environmentalists than the countries who refused to sign on, and the USA is living proof of that.
I believe that Kyoto is harmful to the atmosphere, because it diverts peoples attention from the real pollution problems, and it does nothing to actually make anyone reduce greenhouse gasses, it simply redistributes wealth (Through clean air credits) and I do not believe that this helps the atmosphere.

The Conservative and Li

 

just a quick note on Belinda since i don't have much time here.

There is such a thing as a moderate conservative.

Minder what you seem to forget is not everyone who is conservative believes in everything the conservatives believe in.

Think about it, if everyone who was conservative believed everything the conservatives said, and everyone who was liberal believed everything the liberals said we would have next to zero vote switching.

The moderates are the way elections are won, because they are the ones swayed by either party. This is a major reason why Belinda was able to switch parties and still win. When running as a conservative she got the die hard conservative vote as well as the moderate vote. When as a liberal she got the die hard liberal vote and still held onto the moderate vote.

Personally i'm liberal because i believe strongly in public health care, public education, good enviomental policy. However i do like some conservative policys such as a better military, because i think the one we have now makes Canada an international joke, as well as their support for Israel.

Everything is not black and white, there are many shades of gray that make the political scene much more interesting!

 

Minder posted:

May I ask what exactly he has done that is dishonest? What has he done to earn your distrust?

It is a gut feeling from all the various information I have read.

Styrofoam_Guy posted:

Minder posted:

This is certainly possible but we elected him knowing that he would do this. I don?t see how we could get upset at a politician for actually keeping a promise.

Those who voted him in should have no problem with him keeping his promises. Kudos for him if he keeps his promise but there are some subjects I do not want him to visit. Hence one of the reasons I didn?t vote for him.



Minder posted:

Since you are not really interested in this, I will be brief. The Defense plan is necessary, and Free. There is no valid reason to not join it.

I don?t think it is necessary and things are never free.

Minder posted:

The Conservative and Liberal parties are vastly different, with Vastly different values. The fact that Belinda wants to be leader of one of them, and has made it clear that she does not care which one it is, tells me that she has no values. If she had Liberal Values she would not have run for Conservative leadership, and If she had Conservative Values she would not be a Liberal now. The fact that she wants power no matter what party it is in, tells me she has 1 value ?. Power.



You are describing power as if it is something evil. Harper has power now. Does that mean he is also evil? You also seem to dwell on the fact that she switched parties. I believe she switched because she felt she could not be an asset to the party the way it was.

I am sure you are aware that Harper left Parliament in1997 after a falling out with Manning to lead the NCC. By your definition that would make him power hungry too. What does it show of his values if he would leave the party as Belinda did?

 

Listen im not trying to anger you here, but isnt that a bit of a cop out? I dont like him and I dont know why, I think he is dishonest and I dont know why. I think he keeps a Dragon in his shed but I dont know why ...... Wait a sec, that was a Rick Mercer commercial.

You are correct, however I cant see how that would get him kicked out since the people who elected him are still in Canada, and knew he was going to do it.

Do you have some information that I dont? If so please tell me, because I am always looking for more information.

I am not saying that Power is evil, I am saying that a lack of values is inherently bad. Harper was a conservative (small c) who had a problem and left, he is now (9 years later) the leader of the same party. His values never changed, and they certainly didn?t change in under 6 months like Belinda seems to have. Harper was true to the conservative values even in the face of personal difficulties with the party leader. He didn?t run for the leadership of the liberal party. He was clear that he wanted to be leader of a Conservative party with Conservative values. He didn?t reverse his value set in 6 months.

Yes I dwell on the fact that she switched parties, but it is not just that, its that she went from Staunch and Uber conservative leadership candidate to Staunch and uber Liberal leadership hopeful in an amazingly short time. Sort of a conversion on the mountain kind of affair, and that is something that I cant believe, and that is why I think she is dishonest.

I should be clear on something here. I think that a person CAN change their value beliefs, and I have no real problem with this. But from Leadership of one to leadership of the other in such a short time, THIS I cannot believe.

If you can cite an example like this about Stephen Harper, then perhaps I may change my mind about him.

 

Not going to get into these other issues, but wanted to touch on Kyoto because I am very environmentally conscious. Kyoto does nothing for the environment whatsoever. An admirable sentiment, yes, but all it does is allow the rich countries who are polluting to pollute even more.

 

Wolf

I just saw your post.

You have a point, and I pretty much agree with what you are saying. My problem arises from the quick switch from 1 to the other. If she was simply a party member who saw the liberal light, and switched over, I wouldn?t have nearly the problem with it. But Leader of 1 to leader of the other is my problem.

I believe that a leader needs to be the example for all others to look up to. (I?m a Military man) and I view a leader who abandons her people to vie for power in the opposing forces as nothing more than opportunistic. She had a chance at a cabinet post (And leadership) and she took it, with no thoughts of her stated value system.

To be clear, I would say the same of anyone who switched leadership campaigns as she did.

 

Minder do you believe then it is impossible to have someone who is a moderate leading a party? In the end it is not party ideals which a politician must believe in but their own ideals and how they either clash or compliment the ideals of those which are governed.

Since most democracies are in fact divided between, i use the generic canadian terms, Liberal and conservative, then i believe a moderate being in power is in fact best for the country. While perhaps they will not satisfy the extremes of society they do in general make the majority happy.

 

Arent you suggesting a new party tho??

That would seem logical to me.

 

Styrofoam_Guy posted:


Minder posted:

Listen im not trying to anger you here, but isnt that a bit of a cop out? I dont like him and I dont know why, I think he is dishonest and I dont know why. I think he keeps a Dragon in his shed but I dont know why ...... Wait a sec, that was a Rick Mercer commercial.


A gut feeling is just that. Sometimes it cannot be explained logically. I guess you can call it a cop out.





Minder posted:

You are correct, however I cant see how that would get him kicked out since the people who elected him are still in Canada, and knew he was going to do it.


True but the majority of people who did not vote for him are also still in Canada. If every non-Conservative voted against it then it would not pass.





Minder posted:

Do you have some information that I dont? If so please tell me, because I am always looking for more information.


I am to assume that this defense is for an attack from either Russia or China. Aren?t these people our allies now? I know it is a grey line but China is more concerned about becoming an economic power house that they have no reason to send missiles over the North Pole. Russia has more problems worrying about their economy and the various environmental problems in their country that I do not see a benefit for them sending missiles.

The proposed missile defense has so far proved to be a failure. They have had to send targets with beacons for the defense missile to come close to hitting their targets. The missile defense is also outdated and is based on old ICBMs and not newer ones with multiple warheads and defensive capabilities.

This is like the Patriot missile system that was a complete failure during the first Iraq war. They are spending money on a defense system for a cold war long over.

The money would be better spent on other counter terrorist measures.

I also do not like the current claim by the US that they think they can travel our northern territories as they please.

First it is the missile defiance. What next? Sending our troops to Iraq? This is a war I do not agree with but I understand Harper was willing to endorse.


Belinda was never the leader of the Conservative or Liberal Party. If she became leader of the Conservative party and then switched parties then I would be concerned.


Going back to the Kyoto accord I am not an expert or know the finer detail of the specifications. I agree there are flaws in it but my argument is for what it represents. The accord represents the ability of countries to get together and move towards a common goal. This accord is an admission that there are problems with the world and that a global effort is needed to fix it. This co-operation could lead to better things. If the accord is a success it gives each country something to cling to so that they can show that it is possible to work together for the long term goals of a better world instead of short term political goals.

 

You are correct, and he had made this admission also, this is part of the reason he has stipulated a ?Free Vote? to ensure that Democracy is maintained. The previous vote was ?Whipped? and therefore Democracy was circumvented.

If it is defeated, then that?s the end if it.

Unfortunately you cannot make this assumption. Right now North Korea has the capability for long range delivery of munitions, and if they, or any one of a dozen other nations advances their technology then there could be direct threats to our shores. Also, History has shown us far too many times that we cannot anticipate every attack, and if we are unprepared then we pay the price, and that price is peoples lives.

These and others form compelling reasons to have some sort of system of defense. The alternative is unthinkable.

You are mostly correct here, however we are not being asked to finance this. The USA is financing this effort, and that is their decision to make not ours. Also, (And this can draw some direct parallels with your Kyoto argument) the fact that it does not work yet, is not a reason to reject it. We have been asked to participate ?When they get it working?, and if they never get it working then we will never participate. (The difference with Kyoto is that Kyoto thinks they have it working, and this is now in dispute)

It is also useful here to define what our participation will include. Basically, our participation means having a Canadian military commander in the room and having input into what is classed as a threat, and what response to mount against that threat. This is the extent of what we have been asked to do. (We may have been asked to provide some land in the North, however this is currently designated Military use for the ?Dew Line? project, and is not useful for any other purpose, and I am not clear if this was in fact requested) If we refuse to participate, they will go ahead without us using all American personal and land, and Canada will be cut out of all decisions.

Now when we realize that Canada and the US militaries are already involved in Joint surveillance of the north, you understand that we are already in the same room together watching for these targets. If Canada refuses to participate, then the Canadians will be asked to step out of the room when ever a target is located, and the Americans will then make all decisions as to threat and response.

This is a separate subject, and I believe that Harpers response to this was the right one. ?Canada will decide her own matters of sovereignty, and no one else?

 

Whoops! A slight misunderstanding here. I think that preserving the environment should be one of our top priorities as Canadians. In fact, that's how I made my voting decision.

I don't necessarily agree with Canada backing out of Kyoto, because even misguided, at least the global community is attempting to do something :S All I'm saying is that IMO Kyoto is ineffective at actually decreasing environmental pollution.

 

Lelila

What I meant was. With the goal in mind of cleaning up the atmosphere ...... there are much better ways to go about it than Kyoto.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

However, at least if Canada is a part of Kyoto it is 1) showing the Canadian people that the enviroment is a priority and 2) it actually forces the Canadian government to follow through with enviroment policies because it is being watched by the global community.

Let me also give you this example.

It is alot easier to change the parameters rather than create something entirely new. Basically if you have an essay due, it is alot easier to change your topic rather than scrap the essay completly. If you change the topic, you are still under the obligation to do something by a certain time.

I would much rather Canada work with the global community to alter Kyoto to make it more effective than to go gungho and be in it for only Canada.

Hell in the end Canada alone reducing it's polutants won't do much. We should be the leaders of the world for improvement and the first place we should start is Kyoto.

 

Wolf, unfortunately this is only the case if you control the inputs to the process, and in this case Canada does not. History shows us that the creator of the process (Kyoto) will defend their position even though that position should be fatally flawed as Kyoto is.

In fact Kyoto does more harm than good and thousands of scientists have proven this. Kyoto directs resources into areas which will not achieve the goals of cleaning up the environment, and fools the public into thinking that they are doing some good, thereby building an apathy for real change.

If it was possible to change Kyoto, then we would have already changed it. But it is not possible, therefore Kyoto must be scrapped and something better must be put in place.