|
The Canadian politics thread (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
+1
If only Mike Harris was still premier :( |
what wonderful days those were :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
what wonderful days those were :rolleyes: |
Mike Harris > Dalton McGuinty > Bob Rae
Just IMO :) |
|
|
| Pett |
Dion is unelectable, hes such a soft douche.
Hes got an unlikeable french swagger, Chretien had it right |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
I just hear about somebody might propose a law that'd ban smoking inside cars with kids in them.
More govt regulates people's lives, less freedom people have! |
ive seen it coming for a long time. And its only going to keep getting worse until we put a stop to it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
harper isnt perfect. But hes kept most of his promises and has made a lot of beneficial changes. Ive seen more impact from harper in 2 years than i did from 13 years of liberal "dont worry be happy" do nothing policy.
The debt is being paid down. We have significant tax savings. And we dont have excessive new wastful largesse socialist programs that the liberals were promising. Remember socialized (ist) daycare? What a disaster that would have been. Also, We finally have a treasurer who can foreshadow a recession without actually triggering it. He also got us out of kyoto which most people dont see is actually nothing more than a way to transfer money from rich country to poor country. Kyoto used the environment as a scape goat to mask it's true intentions.
Lets see. Dion said at one point hed raise the GST back to 7%, NOT pay down our debt and bring in a carbon tax. Yes Dion, that's a great way to keep Canada out of a recession!! |
|
|
| Yohan |
So we have Parti Quebecois, who knows that another referendum is a political suicide, so they just pretend that Quebec is already independent and if they're elected, run Quebec as such.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
PQ prefers 'conversation' to referendum
Sovereigntists want to act like province is independent rather than hold plebiscite
TU THANH HA
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
March 5, 2008 at 8:24 PM EST
MONTREAL — The Parti Québécois is asking members to free the party from its obligation to hold a referendum during the first term of its next government.
Instead, the party executive wants to replace the referendum pledge by a commitment to act as much as possible as if Quebec were independent within Canada.
Borrowing a phrase from Scottish politics, Leader Pauline Marois said the PQ will initiate a “national conversation” to promote Quebec independence, drafting a manifesto touting the benefits of sovereignty.
“We'll move on all fronts … we'll go to the limits of what can be done in the current system,” Ms. Marois told reporters yesterday.
Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois responds to media questions in this Sept. 25, 2007 file photo.
Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois responds to media questions in this Sept. 25, 2007 file photo. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press)
The Globe and Mail
Part of 242 resolutions to be debated at a national council meeting in two weeks, the proposal is a tightrope act by Ms. Marois to placate hard-liners while unshackling her from a referendum that could be political suicide.
Last amended in 2005, the PQ program commits the party to a referendum as soon as possible in its next turn in government.
Yesterday's proposal doesn't mean, however, that Ms. Marois wouldn't hold a plebiscite if circumstances suit her. “I got myself out of an obligation, I'm not going to create for myself another one,” she said.
If elected, the PQ will enact Quebec's own constitution and bestow Quebec citizenship. It would also toughen language laws and change the way history is taught in school to fit a “national framework.”
In a nod to some riding members who want to nationalize the sale of water, the executive also wants to declare water a “national asset.”
Resolutions adopted by the national council's 500 delegates become PQ policy, although the party program won't be formally amended until the 2009 convention.
Party president Monique Richard said policies have to be updated in case of an election, given that Premier Jean Charest has a minority government.
Ms. Marois brushed off reporters' suggestions that her brainchild is a gradualist approach similar to ill-fated past initiatives such as the stepwise étapisme strategy or Pierre-Marc Johnson's “national affirmation” within Canada.
The expression “national conversation” comes from the Scottish National Party. However, the idea also reflects the widely held belief that the PQ spends too much time talking about a referendum timetable rather than the benefits of independence.
“The idea is to take the time we need to regroup around our nation-building project,” Ms. Marois said.
The provincial Liberals reacted with suspicion. “It's a document to set up a secession process,” said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier.
Playing the nationalism card while shying from separation has been a key to the success of Mario Dumont's Action démocratique du Québec, whose party vaulted ahead of the PQ in last year's election.
“When a party doesn't know where it's going, it has conversations,” Mr. Dumont said, mocking the PQ's “national conversation.”
The proposals are also an internal test of Ms. Marois's leadership.
Marc Laviolette, the president of SPQ Libre, a left-wing club within the party, showed little enthusiasm for the expression “national conversation.”
“I don't find the expression very appropriate,” he chuckled. “It's rather odd.”
But he said his group would meet Monday to decide on a more detailed reaction.
Other militants, such as former union leader Gérald Larose, praised the emphasis on promoting independence.
The other resolutions released yesterday outlined what Ms. Marois called “an updated approach to social democracy.”
One resolution from the party executive said a PQ government would cut corporate taxes, while at the same time investing massively in education and job training.
Ms. Marois said Quebec citizenship would be granted after an examination testing the applicant's knowledge of Quebec matters – although the party has dropped its controversial idea to make the ability to run for public office conditional on French-language fluency.
Several resolutions proposed scrapping the office of the Lieutenant-Governor, while another called for mandatory dubbing in Quebec of French-language movie soundtracks.
|
|
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
harper isnt perfect. But hes kept most of his promises and has made a lot of beneficial changes. Ive seen more impact from harper in 2 years than i did from 13 years of liberal "dont worry be happy" do nothing policy.
The debt is being paid down. We have significant tax savings. And we dont have excessive new wastful largesse socialist programs that the liberals were promising. Remember socialized (ist) daycare? What a disaster that would have been. Also, We finally have a treasurer who can foreshadow a recession without actually triggering it. He also got us out of kyoto which most people dont see is actually nothing more than a way to transfer money from rich country to poor country. Kyoto used the environment as a scape goat to mask it's true intentions.
Lets see. Dion said at one point hed raise the GST back to 7%, NOT pay down our debt and bring in a carbon tax. Yes Dion, that's a great way to keep Canada out of a recession!! |
Basically what he said. The Conservatives, unlike the Liberals, have actually done something worthwhile in this country. Yea they screwed up, but that's politics. The Liberals got away with much worse and ran this country into the ground when they were in power. |
|
|
| capo tutti di |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
I just hear about somebody might propose a law that'd ban smoking inside cars with kids in them.
More govt regulates people's lives, less freedom people have! |
Ya..because 2nd hand smoke isn't harmful, especially to children who have no freedoms basically...you are right we need more freedom, why should the gov't tell me I can't drink a 26er while driving...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by capo tutti di
Ya..because 2nd hand smoke isn't harmful, especially to children who have no freedoms basically...you are right we need more freedom, why should the gov't tell me I can't drink a 26er while driving...:rolleyes: |
If you're stupid enough to drink a 26er while driving, your balls should be cut off to preventing you from polluting the gene pool.\
Likewise, if you have to be told that second hand smoking is bad for your kids, you fail as parents and don't deserve to be one |
|
|
| capo tutti di |
Yohan
Thats not a insult to you really, just i think a weak case of freedom.
I see it as a step in the right direction. We can't have cars on the roads that fail emission standards, we cannot smoke in restaurants as that is harmful to non smoking and smoking patrons and so on.
I can see if your theory is that this move is a baby step into taking away such freedoms as speech and thought. But your comment at your face value, is not valid IMO.
And again no personal offence to you. |
|
|
| Orko |
Good job on starting this thread, I was about to myself actually!
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
The Liberals are claiming to be waiting for the right moment and when they are ready to bring down the Conservatives. I'm wondering when that will ever be, as every month goes by, more the Conservatives solidify their hold on the government, and the Canadian public to get used to that Harper isn't the ultra right wing nutjob that the Liberals tried to paint him as. |
The truth is, as much as defined liberals want to hate on the conservatives (me included), they have been doing a good job. To try and bring down the gov on the budget would have been idiotic. It was a pretty decent budget especially considering the weird economic future ahead.
The budget gets a big OK from me.
| quote: | Originally posted by Pett
Dion is unelectable, hes such a soft douche. |
That is the whole problem. Dion is an idiot, nobody can understand him, and he just is not picking the right battles. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by capo tutti di
Yohan
Thats not a insult to you really, just i think a weak case of freedom.
I see it as a step in the right direction. We can't have cars on the roads that fail emission standards, we cannot smoke in restaurants as that is harmful to non smoking and smoking patrons and so on.
I can see if your theory is that this move is a baby step into taking away such freedoms as speech and thought. But your comment at your face value, is not valid IMO.
And again no personal offence to you. |
None taken :)
I guess the basis of my rant is that already, we are being told what we can and cannot do by the govt unnecessarily.
I read it somewhere that if there is so many laws that a citizen cannot remember all of them, then there are too many laws.
Simple common sense exercised by every individual citizen in a society would mean so many laws are not necessarily. Unfortunately, humanity is dumb I suppose.
My philosophy about law is that a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants, or within a group by mutual consent as long as they are not harming others that don't want to be harmed.
Also, a law has to be enforceable regularly and effectively.
So, the car emissions law makes sense because an individual can harm others and others cannot avoid cars with too much emissions, and the law can be effectively enforced (if the govt chose to)
But the smoking in restaurant law I disagree with, because an individual can make a choice whether to eat in a restaurant that permits smoking or not. If a restaurant wants business from non smokers, they'd choose non smoking.
So, this child in car smoking law, yes, it can harm others, but I fail to see how this law can be effectively enforced.
Another reason is that once there are so many laws, the concept of law loses weight as people become no longer scared by the law.
I really don't think it's necessary for the govt to tell me what I already know to use common sense to not smoke in cars with a kid in it. (On flipside, if the rationale behind smoking free restaurant is for public health reasons, does this mean next law will be no one can smoke in cars with other passengers for health reasons?) |
|
|
|
|
