2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Cowboy89]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1985768/

Cue the rhapsodizing from big labour, which loves the Layton plan and apparently believes that the CPP Investment Board has discovered a magic formula for Profits! Without Risk! But if you read the proposals carefully, you’ll notice a bizarre contradiction. Layton’s union pals think RSPs or other private investment vehicles are no answer because, as the financial crisis proved, stocks are too risky for ordinary folk. Instead, says Canadian Labour Congress head honcho Ken Georgetti, they should rely on the “solid, secure returns” provided by the CPPIB—which has more than half of its money in stocks and took a bath during the crash just like everyone else.

Yet another example of unintended consequences of NDP policy!

[Slava]

I think that one of the policies of the NDP is abolition of the stock market? Maybe its in their actual policies somewhere but not their platform? Either way I'm jot impressed....which would surprise no one who knows me.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Azure

Believe me, I want all 3 of them gone too.

But the only way Harper and Iggy are gone is if Layton wins big. And I hope to God that doesn't happen.

You really think the conservatives would want Harper to stay on if he only won another minority govt? iggy will be gone if he doesn't win a minority. Jack just looks like he is getting too old for this kind of thing.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

evman150 is more ignorant than CalgaryBorn, I've decided. Or maybe just more irritating.

I would love to hear, by the way, how our system is supposed to work without disposing the facts through normative moralism.

And doesn't it just grind your gears that we're the only two regs around these threads that have philosophy degrees? (As far as I know anyway)

I'm just curious peter12, if you had to name one or two papers or works that had the most influence on you philosophically, what would they be?

[V]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That being said I'm glad our riding's conservative canadate professes Christianity and does attend services regularly.

As someone who appears to so vehemently opposed to pro-abortion laws, I find it surprising that you're satisfied with the fact that your Conservative PM is so vehemently pro-abortion. It seems to be one of those ideals that you wouldn't compromise on.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Azure

People, if Shazam says this, it really shows that Layton is out to lunch.

Because me and him(Shazam) disagree on 99% of everything we ever talk about, but we agree here.

Jeez.

Me and Azure are actually paid by CP to "pretend" to disagree to drive traffic to the website.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Me and Azure are actually paid by CP to "pretend" to disagree to drive traffic to the website.

Some of us do that same thing for free!

[Julio]

If you want to hear some of the messages of the 'alternative parties', click on this link:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ at about 9:50 Calgary time...the minor parties had some free time political time just before 9 here in Calgary, so assume they would be doing the same at about 8:50 BC time...

Of the three I heard, one wants a $16 min wage, the 2nd an allowance so a parent can stay @ home, paid for by the drop in EI because everybody who wanted one would have a job, and the 3rd's policies on the Bank of Canada reminded me a whole lot of Bible Bill from Calgary in the 30's.

Bonus points if you can name them before their messages are broadcast.

[Slava]

Maybe there isn't a lot of common ground on the issues, but here is an election related website where you can vote for the sexiest candidates. Its down to the final four for both men and women....if nothing else I can already hear some of vitriol about one of the candidates in the race! There is a full bracket link on that page as well if you wanted to see who they beat out to get to the finals.

http://swingcatproductions.com/blog/...didate-finals/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

And doesn't it just grind your gears that we're the only two regs around these threads that have philosophy degrees? (As far as I know anyway)

I'm just curious peter12, if you had to name one or two papers or works that had the most influence on you philosophically, what would they be?

Hey evman, I just want to be clear that there was no spite intended. It's just harmless boasting on my part, and I was obviously trying to antagonize you. So please, it's not personal at all.

Two thinkers... hmmm... or perhaps books?

Plato's Republic, and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Perhaps, Strauss' On Tyranny as well, especially the Kojeve bits.

I'm really not much of a neoliberal at all.

EDIT: Selections from Rousseau's Emile, and Letter to M. D'Alembert as well.

Clearly, quite radical, and I definitely see a massive gap in my understanding of Aristotle. But I also lean far towards classical and continental thought. I take it you do more analytical?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hey evman, I just want to be clear that there was no spite intended. It's just harmless boasting on my part, and I was obviously trying to antagonize you. So please, it's not personal at all.

Two thinkers... hmmm... or perhaps books?

Plato's Republic, and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Perhaps, Strauss' On Tyranny as well, especially the Kojeve bits.

I'm really not much of a neoliberal at all.

EDIT: Selections from Rousseau's Emile, and Letter to M. D'Alembert as well.

Clearly, quite radical, and I definitely see a massive gap in my understanding of Aristotle. But I also lean far towards classical and continental thought. I take it you do more analytical?

[peter12]

I wish I had that much hair. A man with hair gets stuff done, and he gets RESPECT dammit.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by V

As someone who appears to so vehemently opposed to pro-abortion laws, I find it surprising that you're satisfied with the fact that your Conservative PM is so vehemently pro-abortion. It seems to be one of those ideals that you wouldn't compromise on.

I think to change the abortion laws one would first have to change the hearts of the majority of Canadians. That can only be done by not letting the topic rest and not letting the pro-abortion crowd white-wash what they do. When Canadians are ready a leader will arise that will move them forward.

Just look at what it took for blacks in the States to be looked upon as equals with whites. Really it didn't occur until the sixties. Kennedy changed the law but, was he leading the nation or following the nation? I think he was following the will of the majority of Americans. Their hearts had changed because a few ordinary Americans wouldn't accept the status quo. They continued the conversation when most Americans didn't want to hear it.

[transplant99]

I see the Liberals are sabre rattling again about Harper prorogueing parliament.

I will simply ask this....were you as up in arms about it when Chretian did the same thing....4 times...including once to prevent the auditor generals release of her report on AdScam?

Or were you equally "disgusted" with Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he prorogued parliament 11 times?

And since those who opposed the coalition because it was wrong were hit over the head repeatedly with "but its legal and how the system can work", how is prorogueing not allowed to fall under that same banner?

It may come as a shock to some (it did to me), but the Parliament of Canada has been prorogued over 100 times since it's inception. Admittedly the reasons for them vary and were never quite the same as either of Harpers, but again its a perfectly legitimate part of the Parliamentary system

But hey...lets take Harper to task on it shall we? He is bad, he is evil and facts be damned, he must pay for it even though its completely legal!

[burn_this_city]

Its ok when we do it, its horrible when someone else does. - The Liberal motto.

[FlamesAddiction]

Most people here despise Trudeau, so using him as a defense for something Harper did shouldn't win too many votes. After Chretien did it, the Liberals paid for it in the next election. He was heavily criticized for it.

The issue people have with Harper was that he did it deliberately to avoid a Commons vote that would have most likely destroyed him. Other Prime Ministers (heck, even our 1st Prime Minister) used the tactic to take heat off themselves while they were being investigated, but none ever did to avoid losing power and forcing an election. To me, that seems a little worse.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Most people here despise Trudeau, so using him as a defense for something Harper did shouldn't win too many votes. After Chretien did it, the Liberals paid for it in the next election. He was heavily criticized for it.

The issue people have with Harper was that he did it deliberately to avoid a Commons vote that would have most likely destroyed him. Other Prime Ministers (heck, even our 1st Prime Minister) used the tactic to take heat off themselves while they were being investigated, but none ever did to avoid losing power and forcing an election. To me, that seems a little worse.

He did it to avoid a coalition that Canadians simply did not want...by any measure.

He also avoided a seperatist party from having power in the say of the country.

If you see that as a "worse" reason that's fine, but a majority of Canadians disagreed and that's what our elected officials are there for afterall, to look out for and act on behalf of the people.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

its ok when we do it, its horrible when someone else does. - every party's motto.

fyp

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Most people here despise Trudeau, so using him as a defense for something Harper did shouldn't win too many votes. After Chretien did it, the Liberals paid for it in the next election. He was heavily criticized for it.

The issue people have with Harper was that he did it deliberately to avoid a Commons vote that would have most likely destroyed him. Other Prime Ministers (heck, even our 1st Prime Minister) used the tactic to take heat off themselves while they were being investigated, but none ever did to avoid losing power and forcing an election. To me, that seems a little worse.

He won more seats!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by peter12

He won more seats!

I'm pretty sure after Chretien did it, he stepped down shortly after and then the Liberals had a minority in the next election.

Proroguing parliament to hold onto power seems pretty low. Whether it was to avoid a coalition or an election (couldn't the GG have decided either?), I don't think it matters.