B
bizorky
Guest
I'm glad you beat me to it with your post, spmarshall.
Comparing Trudeau to Harper can done far more easily with respect to opposing points of view. That's pretty much it.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'm glad you beat me to it with your post, spmarshall.
Comparing Trudeau to Harper can done far more easily with respect to opposing points of view. That's pretty much it.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Bob Rae is suggesting the Liberals should for against the softwood lumber deal regardless of whether or not it is a confidence motion. Hopefully the Liberal party gets some spine and doesn't let Harper run the government like he has a majority.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Unlikely with this present group of Liberals. Harper can't wait to have an election, while the Libs and likely BQ are terrified it will come too soon. Layton's NDP is the only opp. party that may gain in the next election. I like Layton myself, as he's always stood up for his principles and doesn't waiver on policy due to polls and speculation. I don't agree with his politics, but do respect his integrity.Hopefully the Liberal party gets some spine and doesn't let Harper run the government like he has a majority.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Whatever for the Liberals and the BQ; my real concern is for the country as a whole. I am concerned that a Conservative majority will bring the social conservative aspect of the party out of the woodwork. I don't think it is beyond the pale to think that this is a government that would prefer to see same sex marriages go away, to see abortion rights vanish, and would like to see a greater emphasis on religion in daily political affairs. Conservatives, particularly social conservatives, like to view themselves as getting government off people's backs, all the while shoving government down people's throats.
Internationally, when I see Harper promoting Canada as an energy super power, I feel very unimpressed. Who really cares? It is hardly a status that benefits the country as a whole, and if it is a status, it is one that is earned only through selling the maximum amount of oil to the United States. We derive no non-monetary powers from this status. It is meaningless.
In terms of international diplomacy, when I hear Harper stating that Isreal is completely justified in its excessive attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, I have to wonder if he actually cares in the long term about what is going on in other parts of the world. Big conntribution he's made there. It will be something that comes back to bite us in the ass.
Funny that even in terms of economic policy, the conservatives to the south have generated massive unfunded funture liabilities on programs while giving out massive tax cuts to the wealthy. Remember, these are the same conservatives who once preached financial responsibility and living within ones' means, and so on. Then I look at Haper's so called tax policy, one in which he cuts a progressive consumption tax as a means to reducing taxes to satisfy a party mantra. And who benefits? Low income earners? Nope; they have little income to spend in the first place. High income earners benefit the most; the people with the maximum disposable income. I have to wonder how long it will be before we are either back in deficit under a Haper majority, or how long it will take before he preaches the dimantling of government programs to make up for potential excesses.
As for spending, Harper can't point fingers at previous governments anymore. He's doing pretty good at spending the billions himself. There is, on so many fronts, nothing to see in terms of "refreshing" with respect to this government. They are stale on arrival.
Internationally, when I see Harper promoting Canada as an energy super power, I feel very unimpressed. Who really cares? It is hardly a status that benefits the country as a whole, and if it is a status, it is one that is earned only through selling the maximum amount of oil to the United States. We derive no non-monetary powers from this status. It is meaningless.
In terms of international diplomacy, when I hear Harper stating that Isreal is completely justified in its excessive attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, I have to wonder if he actually cares in the long term about what is going on in other parts of the world. Big conntribution he's made there. It will be something that comes back to bite us in the ass.
Funny that even in terms of economic policy, the conservatives to the south have generated massive unfunded funture liabilities on programs while giving out massive tax cuts to the wealthy. Remember, these are the same conservatives who once preached financial responsibility and living within ones' means, and so on. Then I look at Haper's so called tax policy, one in which he cuts a progressive consumption tax as a means to reducing taxes to satisfy a party mantra. And who benefits? Low income earners? Nope; they have little income to spend in the first place. High income earners benefit the most; the people with the maximum disposable income. I have to wonder how long it will be before we are either back in deficit under a Haper majority, or how long it will take before he preaches the dimantling of government programs to make up for potential excesses.
As for spending, Harper can't point fingers at previous governments anymore. He's doing pretty good at spending the billions himself. There is, on so many fronts, nothing to see in terms of "refreshing" with respect to this government. They are stale on arrival.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Biz, if Canadians share your fear for no-limits abortions, gay marriage and anti-poor/pro-rich taxation policies then I imagine the Conservatives will be thrown out of office.
I'm no pro-lifer, nor do I want to control others, but the idea of late term abortions does disturb me. During the births of my two children I saw the small pre-mature babies, born only after on 7-8 months gestation, struggling for life with a host of medical staff trying to keep them alive, and couldn't help thinking that in some other part of the same hospital someone is terminating another 7 month old fetus, with another group of medical staff trying to ensure the termination. Again, those are just my feelings of the time, I'm not suggesting gov't policy on abortion, but I can understand why some feel very strongly about the issue (from both sides). That said, I think it is VERY unlikely that the conservatives will touch abortion, since Harper has himself said they would not, and it's a landmine that no leader who wants to maintain power would want to touch.
I'm no pro-lifer, nor do I want to control others, but the idea of late term abortions does disturb me. During the births of my two children I saw the small pre-mature babies, born only after on 7-8 months gestation, struggling for life with a host of medical staff trying to keep them alive, and couldn't help thinking that in some other part of the same hospital someone is terminating another 7 month old fetus, with another group of medical staff trying to ensure the termination. Again, those are just my feelings of the time, I'm not suggesting gov't policy on abortion, but I can understand why some feel very strongly about the issue (from both sides). That said, I think it is VERY unlikely that the conservatives will touch abortion, since Harper has himself said they would not, and it's a landmine that no leader who wants to maintain power would want to touch.
B
bizorky
Guest
I had no intention of getting into a debate about abortion, my view is that people must have choice regardless. Considering the importance of such a decision, I don't see what role government should have.
You would say very unlikely, and I view that as possible - particularly with social conservatives who will argue on the basis of their beliefs, and not on the basis of reason or the respect of contrary points of view.
You would say very unlikely, and I view that as possible - particularly with social conservatives who will argue on the basis of their beliefs, and not on the basis of reason or the respect of contrary points of view.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Well, I doubt the Liberals much care or respected contrary points of view when in 1982 they moved legislative and constitutional oversight and final word from Parliament to the Courts. I imagine the Liberals simply said these are our beliefs, and this is what we're going to do, and to heck with any opposing views. "Just watch me" was the mantra of the day I believe.You would say very unlikely, and I view that as possible - particularly with social conservatives who will argue on the basis of their beliefs, and not on the basis of reason or the respect of contrary points of view.
That said, I still believe that the CPC will not touch abortion. If they win a majority, it will not be due to the social conservative voters, but more so due to disenfranchised former Liberal and BQ voters. The CPC will know that these folks care little about abortion, and in fact fear the socon message, and thus Harper will ignore the abortion issue. Besides, the socons have no one else to vote for, so Harper is wasting time and effort trying to pander to these folks.
B
bizorky
Guest
but more so due to disenfranchised former Liberal and BQ voters.
How can they be disenfranchised if they are voters? They have not been deprived of their rights as citizens.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Perhaps he meant disenchanted...
B
bizorky
Guest
Ah, I see now.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Sorry, got my English vocab mixed up.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Happens to all of us now and then.