Canpol: Election Imminent?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Do we have any Liberals on this board?

Apparently none that are willing to defend their party.

Maybe it was just a dream I had, but I seem to remember a Conservative Party convention not too long ago where the issues of gay marriage and abortion (among other, admittedly more mundane things) were brought up for a vote to the consternation of the more moderate members of the party.

As I would expect at any party convention. Moderates dueling with the extremes.

I also seem to recall that while the anti-aborition vote didn't pass, the anti-gay marriage one did. That, I would assume, is what determines party policy.

A valid position. This atheist supports the traditional definition of marriage.

Tack on some more socially conservative members, have another vote and let's see where the chips fall.

The implication being that these members were not in the party at the time of the last convention. I suspect they already voted (and as you point out - lost).

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Wezil
Surely you are not saying the federal Liberals are in any way a "good government"?

Aside from being too happy to give up our sovereignity to the US -- John Manley should be indicted over certain things and Anne McLellan needs to grow a spine and tell the US where they can shove their anti-terror hysteria -- they've been a fantastic government. We are finally forging ahead with some decent social programs, cities may soon get the funds that they need, the budget is balanced, the deficit is being reduced, and the economy is in a great shape.

Scandal-wise, the Maher Arar thing has been very shameful, but the inquiry into that is proceeding at a decent enough pace and hopefully the RCMP will be appropriately chastised.

As in cancelling opposition days to avoid losing a confidence vote. Real fair that.

Stonewalling parliament into ineffecacy just because you aren't getting your precious confidence vote doesn't strike me as classy either.

We all know Paul Martin was reluctant to take the position. Hell, it took ten years to convince him. What a silly argument to try to make.

Paul Martin's a slimy bastard, but for me that's tied directly to him being on the right wing of the Liberal party. It's hard to imagine that going even more right-wing in search of Prime Ministers would make things better.

Kontiki - Do we assume the other parties support the positions of ALL their candidates? What does the PARTY platform say? This would be a more useful debate.

What's the Conservative platform?

[Wezil]

I won't even begin on the good government claim. I know another poster here (infrequent) is preparing a list of the Liberal legacy. When he finally posts it we can have this debate in detail.

If you think Maher Arar is the only scandal this government is responsible for, you just haven't been paying attention.

As for stonewalling parliament - What should the Commons do when they have no confidence in the government yet the government refuses to let it come to a vote? Carry on and pretend everything's AOK?

So we agree on Martin's character. Good. You don't want someone more to the 'right' of him? Fair enough. That is a political position, not an ethical one.

I'm sure the Conservative platform can be found online. I'm not a Conservative and can't be arsed looking for it.

I can appreciate your concern about social conservatism, and I share those concerns to some extent. Thus far the extremes have not controlled policy and as more members join the party I suspect their platform will moderate even more. It would be safe to assume the 'extremists' are already at their maximum influence in the party. It isn't as if the 'social conservatives' are hiding out in other parties at the moment waiting to flood to the Conservatives - they are already there.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Wezil
A valid position. This atheist supports the traditional definition of marriage.

Bully for you. I assume you realize it is a socially conservative position.

The implication being that these members were not in the party at the time of the last convention. I suspect they already voted (and as you point out - lost).

From the article:

"And now that the government has decided to redefine marriage, faith leaders have been forced to urge their congregations to mobilize politically, Dr. McVety said.

As a result, they "are typically signing up as members of political parties, some of them for the first time in their lives. Many of them even signing up for political parties that they've never voted for in their lives before."

[Wezil]

Kontiki:

I don't care if it is a socially conservative position. I think they are correct on this issue and I support the position (although probably for different reasons). I also agree with the 'left' on a good number of issues but would rather be tarred and feathered before calling myself an NDP'er. See?

As to the article - Sure, they will gain some new members but let's be honest. The politically active are already in the party. Quite frankly you are engaging in the fear mongering. A central canadian newspaper spouts the fear message and you repeat it. Why no concern over the 'kooks' in other parties? The NDP is choc-a-bloc with them.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Do we have any Liberals on this board?

Politically I'm pretty centrist. I can see good in some left wing and some right wing policies and issues. So I guess that would put me in line with the Liberals.

But there is no way I can support these Liberals. Gomery aside, their arrogance I think is only rivaled by that of the Bush administration... but even Bush is starting to tone down a bit. The Liberals on the other hand are having their collective egos inflated on a daily basis. But I guess its not their fault if they never lose...

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Wezil
Kontiki:

I don't care if it is a socially conservative position. I think they are correct on this issue and I support the position (although probably for different reasons). I also agree with the 'left' on a good number of issues but would rather be tarred and feathered before calling myself an NDP'er. See?

As to the article - Sure, they will gain some new members but let's be honest. The politically active are already in the party. Quite frankly you are engaging in the fear mongering. A central canadian newspaper spouts the fear message and you repeat it. Why no concern over the 'kooks' in other parties? The NDP is choc-a-bloc with them.

Getting a bit defensive, aren't we? I could care less what your personal position on gay marriage is - I'm not looking for a debate on it. But the reality is that it is a socially conservative position, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch if people look at the CPC as socially conservative - or at least moreso than the other major parties.

And the NDP is about as likely to form even a minority federal government as the Yogic Flying Party (are they still around?), so there's not much point worrying about the kooks there. To which I can predict your reply 'well, they sure seem to be having alot of influence on the Liberals', to which I'd reply 'what fringe views of the NDP in particular are the Liberals adopting? '

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Wezil
Does it matter in the end? Nope. As you can tell from the posters here, ethics and morality in government are not something the Canadian public expects or are prepared to insist upon.

We also look at competence, class, sense of fair play, and maybe even policies. And right now it looks like Harper just really, really, really, really, really wants to be Prime Minister. That sort of thing tends to set off alarm bells.

But isn't that essentially the opposition's job? People vote for candidates assuming they are going to pursue forming a government.

But I do see what you mean.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Getting a bit defensive, aren't we? I could care less what your personal position on gay marriage is - I'm not looking for a debate on it.

Defensive? Not at all. I wasn't looking for a debate on it either. We (at ACS) have been there and done that.

But the reality is that it is a socially conservative position, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch if people look at the CPC as socially conservative - or at least moreso than the other major parties.

I already said it was a socially conservative position. So what? I'm just not going to get scared by the Globe and Mail. I (unlike my fellow canadians apparently) don't scare that easy.

And the NDP is about as likely to form even a minority federal government as the Yogic Flying Party (are they still around?), so there's not much point worrying about the kooks there. To which I can predict your reply 'well, they sure seem to be having alot of influence on the Liberals', to which I'd reply 'what fringe views of the NDP in particular are the Liberals adopting? '

Good point. Conservatives have little chance either, though I will grant they have a slightly better chance than the NDP. How about the Liberal kooks? No shortage there either and they ARE the government.

Jimmy - You get it. Thank you. I am at a loss how anyone can support the current government. If people don't like the alternatives then None Of The Above should be the runaway winner in the polls. The current Liberal party should not be an option or alternative either.

[Kontiki]

You're really hung up on this "fear" thing, aren't you? You seem to think people like me are of the opinion that if the Conservatives are elected, they'll immediately turn the country into a fundamentalist theocracy. That there's this massive, unfounded paranoia out there. But you know what? I DO think that there should be gay marriage, and I DON'T think that abortion should even enter the debate (funny - I remember Harper saying during the election that the abortion issue has been settled and isn't even a point of discussion. Apparently his party disagrees with him). Is the evil Liberal media lying when they report that the CPC voted against gay marriage and had a vigorous debate about abortion? 'Cause if not, I'm not sure why my "fears" would be unfounded.

[Wezil]

No, the Canadian public is hung up on this "fear" thing. Listen to what the 'man on the street' is saying. It is all to common to hear them talking about how they "fear" Conservative policies and that they find Harper "scary". Explain it to them, not me. I have no fear of a theocracy being formed or any kind of irreversible damage being done (unlike that being caused by the Liberals - see integrity, national unity, etc).

If you support non-conservative positions, great. I don't have a problem with that as we are all free to disagree on matters of policy. I'm sorry you think some matters should not be mentioned however. Can you provide me with the list of "acceptable" policy debate items?

No, Harper's party does not disagree with him. They voted to support his positions on many issues at the policy convention. Some in the party disagree with the decisions taken but that is true of ALL parties.

"I'm not sure why my "fears" would be unfounded." - In plain language are you scared or not? You seem to imply you aren't and you are in a single post.

[Kontiki]

I'm "scared" that they might legislate in accordance with their official position. Crazy, I know. I'm also getting worried that you don't seem to understand anything I'm saying.

As for acceptable debate topics, pick whatever you want. Just don't whine about it when it's reported what you debated.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm "scared" that they might legislate in accordance with their official position. Crazy, I know. I'm also getting worried that you don't seem to understand anything I'm saying.

When you are clear I understand. When you contradict yourself, I do not understand.

For example:

As for acceptable debate topics, pick whatever you want.

When you previously stated:

I DON'T think that abortion should even enter the debate

Be consistant please.

Just don't whine about it when it's reported what you debated

The media weren't reporting on my debate. I'm not a Conservative and was not at the convention to be part of the debate.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Wezil
The media weren't reporting on my debate. I'm not a Conservative and was not at the convention to be part of the debate.

The fact that you would say this suggests that there's not much hope of you understanding what I'm saying, so perhaps it's best if I stopped trying.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kontiki


The fact that you would say this suggests that there's not much hope of you understanding what I'm saying, so perhaps it's best if I stopped trying.

Please do.