Canadian Elections

[Snoopy]

Although the Canadian elections are not coming around any time soon, I decided to post this anyway. Parties are:

Liberals: Changes opinion constantly, only party that is now against the war in Afghanistan.

NDP: Big taxes, but lots of schools and hospitals and *wink wink* tour ships that sink.

Conservitives: Bush wanabies.

Green Party: The name should explain it.

Libertarian: Less goverment. No hope of winning due to being small, but has some good ideas.

Marijuana Party: Wants to legallize drugs like pot so that druggies don't go on rampages.

Rhino Party: We are party animals! RAWR!!!

BBQ: Quebec people. Not much info.

As you can see, the choices are either:

(A) Bad parties that will most likely win.

(B) Good parties with no hope of winning

(C) Party Animals (RAWR!!!)

[National Socialite]

I lived in Canada for a little ago, and I support Steven Harper. He supports the soldiers.

[Feliks]

Although the Canadian elections are not coming around any time soon, I decided to post this anyway. Parties are:

Liberals: Changes opinion constantly, only party that is now against the war in Afghanistan.

Did you mean Iraq? Even some of the most liberal Americans still support the war in Afghanistan. They did actually support the guys who attacked the United States after all.

[Snoopy]

Did you mean Iraq? Even some of the most liberal Americans still support the war in Afghanistan. They did actually support the guys who attacked the United States after all.

Its a different situation in Canada. No one, not even Conservitive, support Iraq. Afghanistan is a split fight.

[Tecumseh]

I dislike most of the political parties of Canada, but if I had to choose I would choose the Liberals. For all their "corruption" and supposed evilness, they actually know how to run the country properly and balance a budget. The other parties are just "ideal" parties, and don't actually have good, realistic policies.

If I were to vote based on ideals, I'd vote NDP or Green(who may have a decent chance in my riding some time in the future), but I wouldn't vote for them to run the country.

Liberals did a good job in getting rid of Martin, whose crappy leadership skills didn't make up for his sweaty and nervous demeanor, and need to get rid of Dion too(too quiet/poor english). I will vote Liberal in the next election, even with Dion as their leader.

It'd be perfect if somebody like Layton was the leader of the Liberals.

[ErikinWest]

Conservatives doing well so far. I love political gridlock, stops the government from doing much.

Erik

[Falconius]

Conservatives doing well so far. I love political gridlock, stops the government from doing much.

Erik

Hear Hear!

Anyways about the liberals. They were the ones to originally pushed and sent the troops to Afghanistan, however as soon as the lost the government they flipped saying that we should pull out and associating it with the war in Iraq to try and get more lefties onboard. There is now, in Canada with regards to Afghanistan, the same association among many leftist, that leftist in America have regarding Iraq.

Also saying that no one supports the war in Iraq is quite wrong. For instance I thought it was a good idea to go in and kick Saddam out. Im glad it happened. I just think they went about it wrong and with no clear goals. As for government support, given that the majority of Canadians felt it was a silly war its quite understandable they didn't sign up. Nor would Canada really have the ability to commit since the requirements of Afghanistan were already stretching our military resources.

The Conservatives are really the best option of the bunch though. However they're just as dirty as all the other Canadian politicians, and that is not a good thing. The Green Party is filled with extreme environmentalist. I hadn’t even known there was a libertarian party in Canada so they must be small. The NDP is a bunch of communist and Layton is a slimly piece of ****. The Marijuana party has rather limited scope (). And the only province where the Block matters is Quebec. Never heard of the Rhino party.

The real problem in Canada isn't the parties it how the government is set up and its ever burgeoning power and budget. If they have a surplus budget the immediate question asked is "What can we find to spend it on?" rather then "hmm maybe we should lower taxes, or fix the already dilapidated programs we have in place". They view all taxes as a natural entitlement and view all cash coming in as their personal endowment with which to do as they please. OH right and if they ever need more they have no need to balance the budget, they can simply increase taxes. This problem is not dependant on the party.

[National Socialite]

It'd be perfect if somebody like Layton was the leader of the Liberals.

Jack Layton is a stupid communist. Anyone who supports the left are dumb, because they want to help weak pathetic lowlifes who only collect welfare.

[Eric]

Jack Layton is a stupid communist. Anyone who supports the left are dumb, because they want to help weak pathetic lowlifes who only collect welfare.

The purpose of welfare is to ensue that people can continue to live, not live well, but have food, clothing and housing. Yes, it is misused sometimes, but it's still better than abandoning people to their fate.

The purpose of a government is too take care of their citizens. The government is supposed to have their citizen's best interests in mind at all time. I don't think abandoning people due to some unfortunate happenings in their life is entirely fair.

No, the NDP is not communist. They are socialist. Socialism and Communism are both on the Political Left, but communism is far more despotic, tyrannic and extreme than Socialism. The Purpose of Socialism is social programs to improve the lives of citizens in the country. It is to help people.

I personally prefer socialism to your political leanings, which seem more than a little bit heartless for my taste. I support the idea of Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, but we should still help those who may not have the same privileges as we do. It is an obligation that every human being should have, to help those weaker than him.

[ErikinWest]

The purpose of welfare is to ensue that people can continue to live, not live well, but have food, clothing and housing. Yes, it is misused sometimes, but it's still better than abandoning people to their fate.

My god! People controlling their own fate! Such a scandalous statement.

Erik

[Eric]

No, you misinterpret. What I meant was that a government should try to provide their citizens with money enough to live. The bare essentials, medicine, food, clothing, etc. Beyond that, a person's fate is for them to decide. Socialism just makes sure that they won't die during the process of decision, and if they don't have the education for what they wish to do, we can provide it for them.

In socialism, the idea is that people can control their own destiny with free trade and the like, but government support ensures that if misfortune should strike their enterprises, those people won't be abandoned to live on the street.

[LSJ]

My opinions of the parties:

Libs: They don't achieve anything...
NDP: They'll make me pay too many taxes for things I don't want, while not spending money on things we really need, like planes to move our vehicles without the need to *shudder* rent.
Green: I don't see what good they will accomplish, although they seem to be the only party that will achieve the Kyoto accord's goals right now.
Conservatives: They seem okay so far, but I am for some things they are opposed to.
Rhino: Defunct, but was pretty funny while it lasted.
Bloc: They seem too focused on "preserving Quebec's culture". Its not Canada vs Quebec - Quebec is part of Canada. Quebec culture is a big part of Canadian culture.

For some reason the conservatives treat the whole year like election day. They like to put anti-Liberal ads on TV that I find really repetitive and dumb. Maybe one day they will learn that those ads don't accomplish anything. More people seem to prefer to hear what good the party will do, not what bad the opposition will do.

[ErikinWest]

No, you misinterpret. What I meant was that a government should try to provide their citizens with money enough to live. The bare essentials, medicine, food, clothing, etc. Beyond that, a person's fate is for them to decide. Socialism just makes sure that they won't die during the process of decision, and if they don't have the education for what they wish to do, we can provide it for them.

The problem is you get the free rider problem. Where people can live off the work of other people. Not only that, but when government starts to try to redistribute wealth, special interest groups always get involved and muck it up. The free enterprise system could cure 99% of poverty. For the unfortunate 1%, there will always be charity and the good will of a moral and affluent society.

In socialism, the idea is that people can control their own destiny with free trade and the like, but government support ensures that if misfortune should strike their enterprises, those people won't be abandoned to live on the street.

Oddly enough, it's always the socialist parties that oppose free trade.

Erik

[C.M.]

BBQ: Quebec people. Not much info.

this is a BBQ:



The BQ (Bloc Québecois) is basically a separatist party that wants for Quebec to secede from canada. They also pretend to defend Quebec's interests, even though they mostly defend their own and try to get as many of their candidates elected.

They're a provincial party on the federal scene, presenting candidates only in Quebec.


Edit: I don't know what that thing next to the chicken is, but it looks good.

[NaptownKnight]

I support the Marijuana Party

[Eric]

That is very weird. 'Cause I live in Canada, and we have both free trade AND socialism. And i'm pretty sure the Scandinavian countries have free trade as well.

Erikinwest: Moral AND affluent society? That's asking a little much. I have a theory you see. Poor people are usually polite and kind. Why? Because if they're poor, they can't afford to be rude. And rich people, having all that money, can afford to be decadent, immoral, cynical and rude. I still prefer the idea of the Strong helping the Weak, rather than this crazed idea of being both moral and rich. Because greed always ******s that up.

[Romanos]

I hate Harper so much as a PM, even if the liberals where corrupt under Paul Martin I still give my props to Jean Chrétien, he was one of the best.

[ErikinWest]

That is very weird. 'Cause I live in Canada, and we have both free trade AND socialism. And i'm pretty sure the Scandinavian countries have free trade as well.

Oddly enough I live in Canada as well. I'd hardly call our current government socialist. My provincial government isn't very socialist either. But I still ask why it is that the NDP is the party opposed to free trade (seeing as they are socialist).

Erikinwest: Moral AND affluent society?

How is it asking much? People are generous by nature. The more government taxes people, the less generous they become. It's been scientifically proven by generosity indexes that the higher taxes there are, the less generosity there is.

That's asking a little much. I have a theory you see. Poor people are usually polite and kind. Why? Because if they're poor, they can't afford to be rude. And rich people, having all that money, can afford to be decadent, immoral, cynical and rude. I still prefer the idea of the Strong helping the Weak, rather than this crazed idea of being both moral and rich. Because greed always ******s that up.

Of course the strong helping the week is great idea, and it’s called charity. Most of these government programs that are designed to help people end up doing the opposite. Please explain to me how it benefits the poor that Canadians have to pay double the world price for dairy products. Why is this? Because socialist policies put in place import quotas which raise the price of goods.

Or take the post secondary education system. Talks about a total rip off for the poor. Most poor people don't go to university, but they still have to pay for the middle class kids to go. This is probably one of the largest transfers of wealth from the poor to the middle class.

Or take the CBC. Talk about a poor rip-off. Subsidizing artsy things for the middle class to enjoy and the expense of the poor.

Or minimum wage laws (put in place by socialist policies) which end up putting the most disadvantaged out of work.

I could go on, but I'll stop,
Erik

[Snoopy]

I have to go for Liberal, since NDP is socialist, and socialism doesn't work. Look at the USSR and see how well they did.

Conservitive supports Bush somewhat, therefore, they are a no no.

Libertarian is small.

Green is overly radical.

Rhino party, is the Rhino party (note: rhino party is basically a joke. If they got voted in, they would turn parliament into a big party, and invite world leaders to join.)

Everyone else is overly small.

[Feliks]

I mean not to offend my brothers to the north, but to be honest when I first saw this thread I my mind turned once again to that old analogy of the Special Olympics.