Election '06 - The home stretch

[Jagger]

Shawnski,

I'll be joining you in the 40 club this June. Where the heck does time go?

I have a different political background than most of you I expect. I was brought up in the UK and was one of the so called "Thatcher's children". I was brought up to despise everything that Maggie stood for. My dad, god rest his soul, had a Maggie Thatcher punching bag which lasted about 15 minutes. (I kid you not!) He was a died in the wool left wing Labourite of the worst kind. Tony Benn, in case anyone knows of him, was a hero to him. Can you imagine the shock and horror when he found out that I fully support a conservative party out here? I'm not sure he ever fully understood how a son of his could support anything but a socialist party no matter how much I tried to explain it to him.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I've really appreciated reading your input on this coming election.

[Sparks]

Some one call the cops... we have a hit and run here... suspect is known by the handle "sparks"....

Shawnski, look at my post count, man. I'm clearly not here 24/7.

Well Sparks, perhaps you can enlighten us why you feel scared?

I didn't think I needed to elaborate. That dead horse has been beaten to death enough on these forums, and anyway, there is pretty much no chance that I am going to change your mind and vice versa. For the most part, these forums seem to consist of a pat-each-other-on-the-back/Liberal name calling party for Conservative fans, which is fine, but a bit of a waste of time for us opponents to attempt to sway opinion.

I just felt I should express my support for the Liberals, if only to show that there is a difference of opinion, and that it's more than just the usual suspects that share an opposing view.

You asked though, and so, I have to run with it now. Before I start, I have to give genuine credit to Harper. His team has run an excelent campaign - certainly head and shoulders above the pathetic campaign run by the Liberals. Not only that, but I've watched Harper quite a bit on TV (for example, on CBC's "Your Turn" segments) and have been really impressed with how he handles himself. Quite honestly, I don't mind the guy nearly as much now, and think he could (will?) make quite a decent PM.

That having been said, many question marks about the CCP still have me worried. I'm pretty much the exact opposite of a Social Conservative, and it's that aspect of his party that goes against my views of what Canada is and what it should strive to be. I'm very much a supporter of hot-button issues which have been supported by the Liberals, such as same-sex marriage, gun control, public health care, Kyoto, less punitive ways of dealing with drug use offences, and so on. I don't feel that the Conservatives share my feelings on those issues.

I also worry about many of the fringe candidates on the Conservative roster advancing certain agendas (such as religious influence on government). Eg:

“There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow. Men, on the other hand, had to be called.”
- David Sweet, Conservative Candidate

"I think every Christian's under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values. Different Christians are going to try to change different laws, according to the call God gives them."
- Darrel Reid, Conservative Candidate

Before you jump on me over this, I know that these are fringe candidates, and that there are crazies in every party. But the Conservatives seem to collect old Reform Party extreme right-wing types, and to even give them any influence on anything at all worries me, because I disagree with their positions. (Not because I'm against freedom of speech, obviously. Please don't suggest that).

Foreign policy is another issue where I don't trust the Conservatives. We all know that Stephen Harper advocated sending Canadians to Iraq. I believe that we certainly would have, had he been PM at the time. Since I am a fierce opponent of the Bush Administration (whole other topic), I do not support efforts to cooperate with sketchy parts of their so-called "War on Terror." Closer ties with the US? I don't even want to get into that one.

What else have I missed so far...? Kyoto. There have been plenty of arguments on this issue here on Calgarypuck, and I don't really understand the position of those who oppose it. Let's look at the facts: we are seriously poluting the environment. That is a very poor state of affairs, regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, or CO2 is at fault, or whatever reason is popular this month. All of that, in my opinion, is absolutely irrelevant. Any solution that forces Canada to aggressively cut down on emmisions and develop cleaner technologies is a fantastic step forward - and we have the unique opportunity to be a leader in this department. Add to that the fact that Kyoto is a multinational solution. It strengthens our ties with other countries and shows that Canada is dedicated to finding and supporting international efforts to reduce polution. That's my opinion on the topic and I feel that the Conservatives do not favour Kyoto, and therefore, just adds to my reasons for fearing, and opposing, the Conservatives.

As for gun control, although the program has been a financial disaster, I passionately support most forms of gun control. I don't like the Liberals handling of the gun registry - it's been absolutely putrid - but I worry that the Conservatives will simply eliminate the program and not replace it with a new, aggressive plan. Too much of the Conservatives' support comes from areas like rural Alberta and BC where gun ownership is more common. Just like the others, this is obviously a very complex issue and I'm not even scratching the surface. I appreciate what the Conservatives are doing with regards to hand guns, but wonder what their position will be on rifles and other firearms after they eliminate the gun registry.

Well, there are a few reasons off the top of my head, on why I fear the Conservatives. There are other issues where I disagree (eg. Child care), but I'm not even going to go there.

However it goes, it's going to be an interesting night tonight. There is definitely one thing about the evening we can both agree on - Go Flames!!

[transplant99]

Closer ties with the US? I don't even want to get into that one.

Yeah it's a bad idea to have a good relationship with a trading partner whom you do $1.5 BILLION a day in business with.

What else have I missed so far...? Kyoto. There have been plenty of arguments on this issue here on Calgarypuck, and I don't really understand the position of those who oppose it. Let's look at the facts: we are seriously poluting the environment. That is a very poor state of affairs, regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, or CO2 is at fault, or whatever reason is popular this month. All of that, in my opinion, is absolutely irrelevant.

Because the BIGGEST offenders in the world, are the ones that WOULDN'T be subject to the same emission restrictions. It is the stupidest accord/agreement that's come down the pipe in eons.

As for gun control, although the program has been a financial disaster, I passionately support most forms of gun control. I don't like the Liberals handling of the gun registry - it's been absolutely putrid - but I worry that the Conservatives will simply eliminate the program and not replace it with a new, aggressive plan.

That's because it doesn't work...never has and never will.

Who ever thought that a gun registry would somehow stop the criminals from obtaining their illegal weapons, baffles me to this day. This was another Liberal tax grab gone horribly wrong.

Too much of the Conservatives' support comes from areas like rural Alberta and BC where gun ownership is more common

Yet has some of the lowest gun death rates going. Go figure. ( And as a note, I abhor guns with a passion personally, but im certainly not agaisnt those who want them ) You already have to prove you are allowed to own a gun in Canada before purchasing one, so what the hell was the point again?

There is nothing to "fear" from the Cons with these particular issues. Thier intent is to make them more effective or at least enforceable.

As for the social issues...i wont get into that for umpteenth time, but suffice to say, nothing will change as far as rights go for anyone. There may be a "wording" change for same sex couples.....yeah...run away!!

Hope the crooks get clobbered tonight...they have earned it.

[ManitobaFlame75]

Anyone know of any website that carry Election results on the web b4 they air on TV. I don't have satellite...

[calculoso]

The thing I don't get about Kyoto... How does buying emissions credits from another country help solve the problem? There has to be a better way.

[peter12]

If Mr. Harper wins, we will have a UofC alumni in 24 Sussex Drive.

[Shawnski]

Before I begin, thanks Jagger, a few of us will be looking forward to your B-day, if only to ensure we have more grey hairs on these forums!!!

Originally Posted by Sparks

For the most part, these forums seem to consist of a pat-each-other-on-the-back/Liberal name calling party for Conservative fans, which is fine, but a bit of a waste of time for us opponents to attempt to sway opinion.

I think that MarchHare has recently posted that is not the case with myself.... whom was the one you are responding to. Thus that is not an excuse.

Originally Posted by Sparks

I'm very much a supporter of hot-button issues which have been supported by the Liberals, such as same-sex marriage, gun control, public health care, Kyoto, less punitive ways of dealing with drug use offences, and so on. I don't feel that the Conservatives share my feelings on those issues.

Fine. I would be happy to debate each and every one of those issues with you via PM if you wish. Although the SSM one is not a hot button issue in my mind, and the only issue here is one word and a free vote (i.e. not whipped) at stake. IF that actually went through, then finally, the Supreme Court of Canada would have something to rule on, which to date, they have not.

Originally Posted by Sparks

I also worry about many of the fringe candidates on the Conservative roster advancing certain agendas (such as religious influence on government). Eg:

“There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow. Men, on the other hand, had to be called.”
- David Sweet, Conservative Candidate

"I think every Christian's under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values. Different Christians are going to try to change different laws, according to the call God gives them."
- Darrel Reid, Conservative Candidate

Before you jump on me over this, I know that these are fringe candidates, and that there are crazies in every party. But the Conservatives seem to collect old Reform Party extreme right-wing types, and to even give them any influence on anything at all worries me, because I disagree with their positions. (Not because I'm against freedom of speech, obviously. Please don't suggest that).

Yawn... non-issue. You wasted typing (or copying and pasting those lines). Extreme right wing has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in describing Canadian politics. Extreme might describe some leaders like the one from Iran, or North Korea, or many others in history. If you buy into that description of "extreme" in respect to Harper and Co., I truly pity your understanding of how Canadians position in world events. Absolute fearmongering. NOTHING LESS.

Originally Posted by Sparks

Foreign policy is another issue where I don't trust the Conservatives. We all know that Stephen Harper advocated sending Canadians to Iraq. I believe that we certainly would have, had he been PM at the time. Since I am a fierce opponent of the Bush Administration (whole other topic), I do not support efforts to cooperate with sketchy parts of their so-called "War on Terror." Closer ties with the US? I don't even want to get into that one.

What troops would have been sent there? We had NONE available! The whole point was to not only support our neighbour, but to support Britain (whom has a leftist government) and other coalition members in the war on terror. THAT aspect seems to be lost on many. Let alone PMPM discounted troups that were actually already in Iraq due to exchange programs.

Originally Posted by Sparks

What else have I missed so far...? Kyoto. There have been plenty of arguments on this issue here on Calgarypuck, and I don't really understand the position of those who oppose it. Let's look at the facts: we are seriously poluting the environment. That is a very poor state of affairs, regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, or CO2 is at fault, or whatever reason is popular this month. All of that, in my opinion, is absolutely irrelevant. Any solution that forces Canada to aggressively cut down on emmisions and develop cleaner technologies is a fantastic step forward - and we have the unique opportunity to be a leader in this department. Add to that the fact that Kyoto is a multinational solution. It strengthens our ties with other countries and shows that Canada is dedicated to finding and supporting international efforts to reduce polution. That's my opinion on the topic and I feel that the Conservatives do not favour Kyoto, and therefore, just adds to my reasons for fearing, and opposing, the Conservatives.

And here, you need to really understand Kyoto. We Canadians could do absolutely NOTHING environmentally under that accord, and still be OK. All we have to do is shell out monies to other countries to buy their credits. Wow.... nice system. The largest polluters have not signed onto it.

The CPC supports to GOALS of it, not the methodology. What is the problem with that? Would you not like to see the goals met, but the cash staying HERE in order to accomplish it? I can't believe Canada signed on without the support of the provinces... and considering Martin has been flounting that the provinces signed onto Child Care, that it was accepted as a program.

Originally Posted by Sparks

As for gun control, although the program has been a financial disaster, I passionately support most forms of gun control. I don't like the Liberals handling of the gun registry - it's been absolutely putrid - but I worry that the Conservatives will simply eliminate the program and not replace it with a new, aggressive plan. Too much of the Conservatives' support comes from areas like rural Alberta and BC where gun ownership is more common. Just like the others, this is obviously a very complex issue and I'm not even scratching the surface. I appreciate what the Conservatives are doing with regards to hand guns, but wonder what their position will be on rifles and other firearms after they eliminate the gun registry.

Hand guns have been effectively banned for decades. The Liberals have not added anything practical to the concept. The gun registery has been an albatros. PERIOD!!! Give me $2 billion, and I could have easily addressed the frequency and results of actual gun crime. Another albatros.

Originally Posted by Sparks

Well, there are a few reasons off the top of my head, on why I fear the Conservatives. There are other issues where I disagree (eg. Child care), but I'm not even going to go there.

However it goes, it's going to be an interesting night tonight. There is definitely one thing about the evening we can both agree on - Go Flames!!

I consider your views, for the most part, ill-informed. I do not blame you for that. When ones head is in the sand reading only that is directly in your eyes, you have little opportunity to look around and see all the other information at hand.

[Sparks]

Shawnski:

I think that MarchHare has recently posted that is not the case with myself.... whom was the one you are responding to. Thus that is not an excuse.

I was referring to the forum in general. I was saying that that was the reason why I didn't elaborate originally, before you replied to me.

Although the SSM one is not a hot button issue in my mind, and the only issue here is one word and a free vote (i.e. not whipped) at stake. IF that actually went through, then finally, the Supreme Court of Canada would have something to rule on, which to date, they have not.

Yeah, you're right. Particularly since we've ended up with a minority government, it's really doubtful that same-sex marriage will be a serious issue. I was disgusted with what I heard coming from the Conservative camp on the issue over the past few years, however, and it is difficult for me to not hold that against them. I think this would have been a bigger issue if the Conservatives had gotten a majority.

If you buy into that description of "extreme" in respect to Harper and Co., I truly pity your understanding of how Canadians position in world events. Absolute fearmongering. NOTHING LESS.

Perhaps I was a little unclear in what I wrote. I was not painting all of the conservatives (or indeed, anywhere near a majority) with the same brush. I was talking about fringe candidates with extreme views. For the record, of those I quoted, David Sweet won his seat, Darrel Reid almost won his, and others (eg. Myron Thompson) also won theirs. These guys will be sitting in the house of commons, and their extreme views, as you said, have no place in Canadian politics. Under the Conservative banner, they are there. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, despite how little influence they will ultimately have.

I'll concede that it's a minor point, much more so than the others I put forward, but I figured it was worth a mention.

What troops would have been sent there? We had NONE available! The whole point was to not only support our neighbour, but to support Britain (whom has a leftist government) and other coalition members in the war on terror. THAT aspect seems to be lost on many. Let alone PMPM discounted troups that were actually already in Iraq due to exchange programs.

Of course; our troops are already tied up in more important work, such as in Afghanistan. I felt that it was important, however, to make clear that Canada did not support Bush's war in Iraq, ideologically (also in line with public opinion).

We Canadians could do absolutely NOTHING environmentally under that accord, and still be OK. All we have to do is shell out monies to other countries to buy their credits. Wow.... nice system.

Is it hard to see that we now have a clear, short-term, tangible motivation for meeting Kyoto goals, because, when we don't, we have to pay $$$? I'd rather the money stay here in Canada as well - so, I guess we're going to have to meet those targets, aren't we? If I was convinced that the Conservative plan was far more aggressive (or at least as aggressive), than I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think we both know that isn't the case.

The largest polluters have not signed onto it.

I saw a group of people littering. So, why should I bother throwing things into the garbage? I mean, the biggest litterers haven't "signed on." Do we get out of a moral responsibility just because a bigger group of others disregard it?

Hand guns have been effectively banned for decades. The Liberals have not added anything practical to the concept. The gun registery has been an albatros. PERIOD!!! Give me $2 billion, and I could have easily addressed the frequency and results of actual gun crime. Another albatros.

I had hoped my post would be clearer. I don't believe that the Conservatives are strong supporters of gun control. I am. Therefore, it follows that I don't trust the Conservatives on this issue. You asked why I fear them, and this is one reason. They certainly have the opportunity to prove me wrong, and I would be very happy for it.

I consider your views, for the most part, ill-informed. I do not blame you for that. When ones head is in the sand reading only that is directly in your eyes, you have little opportunity to look around and see all the other information at hand.

We both know that a difference in opinion isn't tantamount to having "one's head in the sand." Unless, of course, you truly believe I'm ignorant; if you can establish that from two brief posts on a message board, you're a better man than I.

--
Tranny:

Yeah it's a bad idea to have a good relationship with a trading partner whom you do $1.5 BILLION a day in business with.

No, it's a terribly good idea. But, it's even better to have a good relationship with a country that doesn't see you as its pawn to play around with. The States clearly don't have any respect for the many NAFTA rulings on the softwood lumber issue, for example. I would like to see an equal partnership between the two countries, which is based on mutual respect, and an understanding that differences in opinion (such as on Iraq, SSM, drug legislation, etc) are to be expected and respected.

Conservatives, from what I've read and from my personal experience, seem more concerned with pleasing the Americans at all cost, tending to discount the fact that we are a distinct sovereign country, and are allowed to have a difference of opinion on many issues, just as the Americans do. It comes down to $$, and sometimes we will lose out financially (such as the oil contracts in Iraq) in exchange for standing up for our values (in this case, the values of the majority of Canadians). I believe that the Conservatives would be more inclined to go for the money, and "good relations." In my opinion, that type of "good relations" is pretty much the same as being the US's puppet.

Because the BIGGEST offenders in the world, are the ones that WOULDN'T be subject to the same emission restrictions. It is the stupidest accord/agreement that's come down the pipe in eons.

See my reply to Shawnski.

That's because it doesn't work...never has and never will.

I can't really respond to that without knowing if you're talking about gun control in general, or the gun registry in particular.

Who ever thought that a gun registry would somehow stop the criminals from obtaining their illegal weapons, baffles me to this day.

If only human behaviour was simple enough to believe that no homicides would ever be committed by previously law-abiding gun owners, and only by "criminals." Not to mention, it should at least reduce the number of firearms in Canada, which could then be sold/stolen/etc. Obviously, there is a serious issue with regards to handguns being imported from the US, but that issue will have to be addressed with our foreign policy and border patrols/etc. I agree that the registry won't stop illegal handguns from the USA, but I don't think that was the point of it in the first place.

With reference to a high prevalence of guns in Alberta:

Yet has some of the lowest gun death rates going.

Internationally, quite possibly. (I don't know) Within Canada, however, Alberta tends to consistently rank among the highest in Canada for gun deaths (behind the north and New Brunswick), and certainly above the national average. (More info can be found pretty much anywhere on Statistics Canada's website, but one example is at http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/82...df/16-4-04.pdf).

The fewer the guns the better, in my opinion. For example, the chance of a family member being the victim of a homicide involving guns has been shown to positively correlate with the number of guns in a household. In addition, the chance of suicide has been shown to increase by almost 500% when one or more firearms are in the home. (Source: guncontrol.ca) Obviously, take those two findings with a grain of salt, as with all correlational research. I just don't have several hours to look through academic journals to support gun control, particularly because I don't think that's our main disagreement.

As I explained above (to Shawnski), I'm strongly in favour of gun control, and if the Conservatives can do a better job, I'm all for it. I'm not just convinced, at this point, that they're up for the task.

edit: removed a bit of a tangent I went on