The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[CrONoS]

There will be the french speaking debate tonight at 20h00!

Is there any other polytubbies who will listen to it?

I'll post my impression after the debates

[Asher]

I don't speak French and I hate listening to all of them talk. I'll pass.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't speak French and I hate listening to all of them talk. I'll pass.

Who cares about what you think ?

[Asher]

You, because you asked.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Asher
You, because you asked.

YOU should have assumed that I wasn't talking to YOU!!

[Asher]

I win this French-language debate.

[Asher]

Ontario could totally make it on its own. Its funny how Alberta and NFLD want to keep their oil money in-province but didn't hesitate to strtch their hands out to Ontario back when. They better watch out, because the wells will dry up. They are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with the tar sands. I say McGuinty for PM. Ontario's PM. Atleast someone is watching out for us.

Hey Flubber, this might be news to you. Did you know that we've almost run out of oil in the tar sands?

There are apparently a ton of Ontario separatists now. McGuinty seems to be recruiting a small arm. I hope they're serious.

It would actually be fun to see Ontario separate right as they become a have-not province, as is predicted in a few years. Sweet justice.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're insane, Ben. I would never, ever vote for Stockwell Day's party but I would vote for the PC.

Fair enough. The question is whether there are more folks like you out there or more folks like me.

Moving to the left is necessary for Harper, but not to the point where he starts losing more voters then he gains.

I'd vote Liberal over Day's party. You assume if you eliminate PC you'd get a majority, in actuality you'd lose progressives such as myself to the other party.

Good riddance. I really don't see what self proclaimed progressives like you have contributed to the Conservative party. Harper needs his base here in BC to get a majority. That means free trade, no lumber tariff, no carbon tax and social conservativism.

The problem isn't that the progressives cannot be accommodated, the problem is that the so called progressives are unwilling to compromise. I'm willing to buy into fiscal conservativism even if it means cutting funding to things like the military in order to run a balanced budget in order to get other social conservative ideas.

I don't see why it's crazy to have a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives together. Let the progressives sit in the progressive parties like the Liberals and the NDP.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good riddance. I really don't see what self proclaimed progressives like you have contributed to the Conservative party.

The ability to govern? Duh?

I don't see why it's crazy to have a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives together. Let the progressives sit in the progressive parties like the Liberals and the NDP.

"fiscal conservatives" like me tend to be libertarian more than anything else. You are authoritarian.

You're part of the absolutely ****ed up demographic that like to think you don't like "big government", then you ********* enact "big government" to push your social agenda. More intelligent people recognize that if you're not a fan of "big government", that applies to social laws as well. Who are you to dictate who I marry, for instance.

"progressive conservatives" are merely fiscal conservatives as well as social libertarians. This is more common in Canada than religious zealots wishing to push their ideologies on others, which is the demographic you belong to. If you want that, move to Texas (oh wait? hah.)

[Ben Kenobi]

The ability to govern? Duh?

So only progressives can be prime minister?

"fiscal conservatives" like me tend to be libertarian more than anything else. You are authoritarian.

According to political compass I consistantly score more libertarian then authoritarian.

I may be less libertarian then you, but that doesn't mean that I am authoritarian by any means.

You're part of the absolutely ****ed up demographic that like to think you don't like "big government",

I don't like big government. I want to see more tax cuts and more program cuts and more debt repayment.

then you ********* enact "big government" to push your social agenda.

Ok. Our social agenda is no public funds for abortion and no gay marriage. Why would that have any effect whatsoever on the balance sheet? The result of both would be a net positive.

Why should a so-called libertarian want to see an expansion of social programs like you are calling for by having abortion publicly funded and making it so that everyone who calls themselves a couple gets marriage benefits? I don't see why either position is at all fiscally conservative, quite the opposite really.

A true libertarian would want the government to stop paying for abortions and would want the government to cut marriage benefits rather then expand them.

More intelligent people recognize that if you're not a fan of "big government", that applies to social laws as well. Who are you to dictate who I marry, for instance.

Quite the opposite. It means you can't claim marriage benefits. Why should the state have any say into the recognition of marriage at all? You should be opposed to the increased burden on the state rather then supporting it.

"progressive conservatives" are merely fiscal conservatives as well as social libertarians.

Then they ought to be willing to compromise on their social liberalism and embrace fiscal conservativism. I don't see any indication that so called progressive conservatives are anything different then liberals. I've never once seen them say, hey we ought to compromise.

This is more common in Canada than religious zealots wishing to push their ideologies on others, which is the demographic you belong to. If you want that, move to Texas (oh wait? hah.)

Which is why gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners? I don't see any bibles in the public schools.

The only one who is forcing their ideology on anybody are the social liberals. All the progressive conservatives have to be willing to check their social liberalism at the door and embrace fiscal conservativism if they wish to be a conservative. The same for us social conservatives, ought to be willing to see program cuts in areas like the military, in exchange for social conservative policies.

Instead, what you want is everything in the conservative party to agree with you and not trade on anything, which is ridiculous.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Fair enough. The question is whether there are more folks like you out there or more folks like me.

Moving to the left is necessary for Harper, but not to the point where he starts losing more voters then he gains.

Remember a vote you take from the opposition is worth as much as two that just stay home.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So only progressives can be prime minister?

You'll never get enough votes to get a prime minister with a social conservative platform in Canada. It just will never happen.

According to political compass I consistantly score more libertarian then authoritarian.

If that were true, you wouldn't be trying to govern my private life with your black book of values.

I don't like big government.

So you don't think the government should get involved in consensual adults getting married, or in a woman's choice for an abortion?

You say you don't like big government, but that's not true. You love big government when it serves your interests, you hate it when it takes your money. You want it both ways, but you can't do that.

Ok. Our social agenda is no public funds for abortion and no gay marriage.

Why do you mix social and finance? Why the **** are abortion/gay marriage financial issues for you? What the **** is wrong with you.

Why should a so-called libertarian want to see an expansion of social programs like you are calling for by having abortion publicly funded and making it so that everyone who calls themselves a couple gets marriage benefits? I don't see why either position is at all fiscally conservative, quite the opposite really.

I've never said anything about publicly funded abortion, you ****ing liar. You're getting me started again, you ****ing liar. Stop ****ing lying, you ****ing liar.

A true libertarian would want the government to stop paying for abortions and would want the government to cut marriage benefits rather then expand them.

I agree, and thanks for enumerating my position even though you're pretending like it's not my position.

Quite the opposite. It means you can't claim marriage benefits. Why should the state have any say into the recognition of marriage at all? You should be opposed to the increased burden on the state rather then supporting it.

Absolutely. The state should have no role at all in marriages. I wish that would happen. But until it does, I want to see gays have the same rights as straights. Ideally, marriage would be completely independent of government. Thanks again for identifying my position without you even realizing it, you ****ing liar.

Then they ought to be willing to compromise on their social liberalism and embrace fiscal conservativism.

There's no ****ing way that will happen. I will not give up my personal freedoms to save 2% on income tax. Sorry, you'll never get your way in Canada...you best accept that and move on.

Which is why gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners? I don't see any bibles in the public schools.

Gay marriage isn't being taught to kindergartners, you ****ing liar.

The only one who is forcing their ideology on anybody are the social liberals.

No they aren't, you ****ing liar.

All the progressive conservatives have to be willing to check their social liberalism at the door and embrace fiscal conservativism if they wish to be a conservative.

It's clearly the other way around. Look at Harper, he's playing you religious nutters like idiots and you don't even know it. He promises to make gay marriage a vote in parliament, he does, and he knows it'd be upheld, and it was. He lets "private member bills" be proposed pertaining to abortion, but he knows they'll never get passed, and they don't.

The religious right in Canada -- thankfully -- is sufficiently small and sufficiently stupid that they can be played like idiots, which is what's happening. You've got it all backwards. If you want fiscal conservatism, YOU need to accept social liberties as well.

Accept it, or move the **** out.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And get over the Green Shift. Alberta will pay because some industries in Alberta are dripping with windfall gains and the Liberals think they can get away with a tax grab on them.

Fixed.

And I don't disagree with the sentiment that I assume is at the heart of Dion's plan (the need for the feds to find a way into a share of the windfall). The price of oil has been to places nobody rational ever thought we'd see in the short term.

My concern would be with a ham-handed, inflexible tax that could help drive the industry out of business with large and inflexible levies when the price of oil tanks again, which it will.

[CrONoS]

I watched the debate for 1h30....


I should have study...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CrONoS
There will be the french speaking debate tonight at 20h00!

Is there any other polytubbies who will listen to it?

I'll post my impression after the debates

I'm watching the aftermath right now.

Only comment is that May is a hose bag of massive proportions. 'My daughter and his daughter, and as a father he should be ashamed of...'

I was planning on looking at each candidate in my riding and voting for the best one, regardless of party even if a dipper.

The Green candidate just picked up a handicap.