English Language debates:

[Shawnski]

Starting again RIGHT NOW....

http://www.cpac.ca/asx/cpac2e.asx

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I really want to see one debate with the old stlye format so we can actually see some sparring, and maybe a knockout punch or two, but I doubt we'll ever see the Liberal's agreeing to this because Martin would take a three way beatdown.

That's pretty much what it was anyway. Nearly every time one of the other 3 were asked a question, their answer had "Liberals, blah, blah" in it. They should be able to sell themselves on their own virtue - but I guess that is expected. This is the best chance any of the parties have to bring down the Liberal party.

[Shawnski]

Very good post, FA (edit.. the one you replied to me... )

I think the civility question was a really good one. I did get a chance to watch a lot of HOC debates this year, and I was, for the most part, ashamed. It is obviously called "Question Period" as it certainly isn't "Answer Period". Almost think they have to adopt a more court room diploma, whereby you DO have to answer questions, but once you have, then the opposition can't ask them again ("asked and answered" if objected to...).

The one thing that can be said about the childcare response from Martin is that he believes that the government should tax people to create a national daycare program, and that the Tory position of leaving the money in the taxpayers pockets to make their own decisions is wrong....

Yet... he then vehemontly flipped around and said that it was "best" to leave the money in tax payers pockets "to make their own decisions" when it came to income tax cuts. Found that an odd statement, and upon a quick review of the thread, I see that flamingchina also picked up on it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Starting again RIGHT NOW....

http://www.cpac.ca/asx/cpac2e.asx

Dammit! I'm still at work!

[Shawnski]

One question just came to mind.....

If the SSM argument is really about one word, marriage, as all other aspects/rights are the same... why is it that I always hear people involved in SSM use the word "partner" and not "husband" and/or "wife"?

Food for thought.

Edit.... Jebus.... could that be a "work around" in the SSM debate that might NOT require a NWC/ Charter debate?

What IF the wording was not that marriage is a union "between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" but was "between husband and wife to the exclusion of all others"? Would that satisfy both sides?

Hmmm.... hey bf, YOU the wife....

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

One question just came to mind.....

If the SSM argument is really about one word, marriage, as all other aspects/rights are the same... why is it that I always hear people involved in SSM use the word "partner" and not "husband" and/or "wife"?

Food for thought.

I think it's because "partner" is the currently used word for a gay/lesbians persons significant other, and perhaps the cultural meaning behind the two words? (I suppose as a man saying my husband is at home, does that make you a wife?)

[The Goon]

This is the second election now where I'm continually being impressed by Gilles Duceppe. He was the most statesman-like of the four leaders, and his answer regarding gay marriage, "A country isn't free until all of its citizens are free", had me applauding.

Sadly, I don't agree with him about Quebec sovereignty. I wish he could get bumped on the head and become a federalist.

The most frustrating part of the debates for me was just having to deal with the canned answers.

Also, Mr. Layton, two points: a) stop talking after your mic has been cut, and b) stop mentioning Ed Broadbent.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by flamingchina

I think it's because "partner" is the currently used word for a gay/lesbians persons significant other, and perhaps the cultural meaning behind the two words? (I suppose as a man saying my husband is at home, does that make you a wife?)

Isn't that the irony though? Check my editted post...

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Isn't that the irony though? Check my editted post...

I agree I found irony in it as well.
Realistically it comes down to what do the words mean, and are we willing to change what the words mean.

[Shawnski]

Some feedback from CTV...

The major federal party leaders found a way around a tight new debating format Friday, going over the heads of 10,000 Canadians who submitted questions to fire stinging queries of their own back and forth at one another.

No kidding... many questions went completely unanswered or the time was used to address thoughts outside of what the voter questioned.

all four missed some golden opportunities, notably when Duceppe -- speaking on same-sex marriage -- said Canada has already decided and can't have a vote every six months on the issue. No one asked Duceppe why, if that's the case, Quebec should keep having referendums.

Great point!! Missed that one myself....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ion2006&no_ads=

[pope04]

Thank you for the GDT, flamingchina!! Awesome recap! The debate was on during supper with my three small boys so I had a heckuva time hearing.

[Shawnski]

You know what was blantantly missing in both the French and English debates so far?

Never once did I hear the word "homeless". Perhaps they haven't gone totally wireless and thus were not able to e-mail their questions via their CrackBerry's.

[MarchHare]

The one thing that can be said about the childcare response from Martin is that he believes that the government should tax people to create a national daycare program, and that the Tory position of leaving the money in the taxpayers pockets to make their own decisions is wrong....

You're misunderstanding the Tory position then. They're not leaving money in the hands of taxpayers, but they are giving some money back to certain taxpayers. As a Canadian without any children, both the Liberal and CPC programs are going to be paid for by my tax dollars, but as I said in the other thread (although I didn't use the phrase "beer and popcorn") at least under the Liberal proposal the money will be spent on childcare services, whereas the Conservative proposal offers no checks and assurances to the appropriate spending of the money given to parents carte blanche. Moreover, $25/week barely dents the cost of daycare service...or as a poster on another board put it, "Harper's proposal won't even cover the price of gas to drive my kids to daycare."

[Shawnski]

Oh come on March, I am a non-parent too. I understand the difference between the government sanctioned child care system and the leaving the money in the pockets of the "parents" to make their own decisions. There is still a hypocracy between his two statements.

Is THAT better? Either way, taxpayers pay.

And as for the statement:

"Harper's proposal won't even cover the price of gas to drive my kids to daycare."

Get real. First, is that not even close to being true, and secondly, that doesn't even touch the 47% of families that chose to have a STAY HOME parent, that are sacrificing a job to keep one parent at home. NOR does the Liberal policy address the small town issues, nor off-hours issues faced by parents.

Get off the Liberal bandwagon dude.

[MarchHare]

I fully grant you that the CPC position is better for stay-at-home parents. However, I fail to see how it's better for the majority of Canadian parents (53% according to your own figures) who put their children in daycare. As I mentioned in the other thread, I really have no idea how much daycare costs, but I'm damn sure it's a heck of a lot more than $25 dollars per week. In fact, it's likely more than $25 per day. Harper's proposal does next to nothing for them.

Interesting poll results (sorry for not giving a link; I read it in the Globe last week):
A slim majority of men (around 55%) prefer the Conservative childcare plan. By that same margin, women prefer the Liberal plan. Young parents (20-36) prefer the Liberal proposal, while older Canadians prefer the Conservative position.

What I make of that is this: for young career-oriented women, staying at home is not an option, and the Liberal position seems to better address their daycare needs.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I fully grant you that the CPC position is better for stay-at-home parents. However, I fail to see how it's better for the majority of Canadian parents (53% according to your own figures) who put their children in daycare.

Don't twist my words, please, sir.

47% have at least one stay at home parent (CBC National stat from a couple nights ago). This does NOT translate into 53% who use daycare. There are still a large contingent that use other family members/friends to do that care or have other baby sitting options.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a Canadian without any children, both the Liberal and CPC programs are going to be paid for by my tax dollars, but as I said in the other thread (although I didn't use the phrase "beer and popcorn") at least under the Liberal proposal the money will be spent on childcare services, whereas the Conservative proposal offers no checks and assurances to the appropriate spending of the money given to parents carte blanche.

I thought it was funny when an official Liberal Party spokesman implied that Canadian parents care more about their beer than their kids. Politically, that was pretty stupid of him, so the statement was (of course) retracted very quickly.

But now, you come right out and agree with him. So, despite the fact that the "official" statement has been retracted, it's pretty clear that you Libs really do feel superior to everyone else, even though you try to pretend to be the defenders of Canadian families. I really have to wonder why you feel so superior that you're the only ones qualified to actually spend other people's money? Again, this isn't about ALLOCATING money--both parties have already committed to allocate a HUGE amount of YOUR money to parents--this is about who actually gets the spend the stuff.

As I said in the aforementioned other thread, no matter which party forms the next government, YOUR tax dollars are going to be taken from you no matter what. A certain number of those dollars are going to allocated to help out parents, which I presume you'll never be. I really have to question why you'd prefer that a corrupt party spend your money instead of the actual parents themselves. Really...who's better qualified to assess their child care needs than the parents of children? Why should you have any say in the allocation of the money if you're not a parent?

No, I'm not a parent...I'm just against big government.

As a side note...I really think Harper missed the boat on the "vision" question. If he were well-prepared, he could have hit that question out of the ballpark just by describing a country that has the social conscience of Canada, and the economic performance of the US. Those are not mutually exclusive, although Canadians seem to think it is.

This post has not been edited for for redundancy.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What I make of that is this: for young career-oriented women, staying at home is not an option, and the Liberal position seems to better address their daycare needs.

Here I will also disagree. At the bear minimum, these ladies have some extra funds to help out in their needs, especially if they are not the 9-5 workers.

For those that are in the 9-5 bracket, now they also have an avenue to pool funds (within a company) to have on-site care as they require, with a company funded portion potentially negotiated into their contracts.

Not only can they visit their children throughout the day, but they have the piece of mind that should anything happen, they are close at hand.

I see no reason that a "dump and chase" (dump kids, chase profession) works anywhere other than in Flames hockey.

Edit.. Cube, wow, great comments.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I fully grant you that the CPC position is better for stay-at-home parents. However, I fail to see how it's better for the majority of Canadian parents (53% according to your own figures) who put their children in daycare. As I mentioned in the other thread, I really have no idea how much daycare costs, but I'm damn sure it's a heck of a lot more than $25 dollars per week. In fact, it's likely more than $25 per day. Harper's proposal does next to nothing for them.

Interesting poll results (sorry for not giving a link; I read it in the Globe last week):
A slim majority of men (around 55%) prefer the Conservative childcare plan. By that same margin, women prefer the Liberal plan. Young parents (20-36) prefer the Liberal proposal, while older Canadians prefer the Conservative position.

What I make of that is this: for young career-oriented women, staying at home is not an option, and the Liberal position seems to better address their daycare needs.

Even if 53% put their children in daycare, do all of those 53% work government hours? No. So you still have a situation whereby you need either early morning care, or afternoon care. Or evening care in some cases.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Don't twist my words, please, sir.

47% have at least one stay at home parent (CBC National stat from a couple nights ago). This does NOT translate into 53% who use daycare. There are still a large contingent that use other family members/friends to do that care or have other baby sitting options.

I must contest the CBC's statement that 47% of Canadian parents have one stay-at-home parent. Did they have a source for that figure? According to Statscan, only 14% of children were cared for at home by a relative in 2001. Meanwhile, a majority of Canadian children were in some childcare service, although only 25% were enrolled in a daycare centre.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...5/04605_04.htm

More than one-half of Canadian children aged six months to five years were in some form of child care in 2000/01, and one-quarter of them were enrolled in a day-care centre.

[...]

Meanwhile, the proportion of children who were looked after in their own home by a relative rose from 8% to 14%.

Emphasis mine.

Note that Statscan defines 'childcare' as "care a child received that was not from their mother, father or guardian." So my original statement stands; a majority of Canadian parents use childcare services as opposed to having one parent stay at home.