look ... they aren't remotely close to being the same ... again - you are welcome to vote for conservatives but they are two very different parties ...
Well, sure, let's concede the point that they're different. I maintain that you magnify the degree of differences more than others might, though. There is a world of difference between moving to a purely private system and the Conservatives' view of how the system should run.
sure ... living in a city where there is no affordable day care spots - it sure is an election issue ... in any case - can either of you show me the cons and libs are the same?
If you can't afford daycare, you know what is really cheap, birth control. People who have kids already get an insane amount of tax breaks and benefits.
Everyone else agrees with you, because of how political ideologies on this board are skewed.
And sorry, I do not consider the Libs to be progressive overall. They are a centrist party. I think the only thing in their platform that could be taken that way is the Green Plan.
Also, I'd be curious as to the motives of those who vote Bloc. Political progressives, or just hating English Canada? I don't know. Cozying up to the Bloc does not come easy to me. If they shed the sovereignty agenda, I'd concede that point.
well ... you take it however you like ...
did you read their platform? ... a carbon tax is about as progressive as an agenda as you get ... they believe in equal health care access for all - that is progressive ...
look at what duceppe said last nite - he talked about kyoto ... that's how important that issue is to quebecers and to the greens, ndp and libs and we elected a gov't that will do nothing (actually they are doing worse than nothing but interfering with talks internationally) ...
If you can't afford daycare, you know what is really cheap, birth control. People who have kids already get an insane amount of tax breaks and benefits.
I'd also add that daycare alone is not a good solution to the issue of adequete childcare. I prefer approaches that better enable at least one parent to care for the kids, at least when they are young.
If you can't afford daycare, you know what is really cheap, birth control. People who have kids already get an insane amount of tax breaks and benefits.
again - if that is your opinion - YOU SHOULD vote conservative ... i'm not saying you shouldn't ... that is your perogative ... my only point is that saying the libs and cons are the same in this particular election is false ...
If you can't afford daycare, you know what is really cheap, birth control. People who have kids already get an insane amount of tax breaks and benefits.
sorry man but i don't agree with this. its like saying if you can't afford university then drop out os highschool.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I'd also add that daycare alone is not a good solution to the issue of adequete childcare. I prefer approaches that better enable at least one parent to care for the kids, at least when they are young.
harper's plan is nothing but another cutting on services for the sake of tax cuts ... NO ONE related to early child learning or day care support the conservative plan ...
$1.60 a day to help care for a child so parents can work is useless ...
did you read their platform? ... a carbon tax is about as progressive as an agenda as you get ... they believe in equal health care access for all - that is progressive ...
look at what duceppe said last nite - he talked about kyoto ... that's how important that issue is to quebecers and to the greens, ndp and libs and we elected a gov't that will do nothing (actually they are doing worse than nothing but interfering with talks internationally) ...
I think you know that from years of discussing issues/arguing with me on the board, that I a) support a good solution to the climate change issue but b) believe that Kyoto is ineffective. The data for Canada support my view of Kyoto. Duceppe is good at focusing people's emotions on ineffective solutions to real-world issues. Is that what progressive means? If so, 62% of Canada's population is misguided. I support solutions that work, not meaningless treaties. Harper is off the mark with regards to climate change, and always has been. But Kyoto is not a magic bullet. We signed it, right? Has anything changed since we did so?
harper's plan is nothing but another cutting on services for the sake of tax cuts ... NO ONE related to early child learning or day care support the conservative plan ...
$1.60 a day to help care for a child so parents can work is useless ...
Agreed. This is an issue where I feel that both so-called major parties are off the mark.
I think you know that from years of discussing issues/arguing with me on the board, that I a) support a good solution to the climate change issue but b) believe that Kyoto is ineffective. The data for Canada support my view of Kyoto. Duceppe is good at focusing people's emotions on ineffective solutions to real-world issues. Is that what progressive means? If so, 62% of Canada's population is misguided. I support solutions that work, not meaningless treaties. Harper is off the mark with regards to climate change, and always has been. But Kyoto is not a magic bullet. We signed it, right? Has anything changed since we did so?
i only mention kyoto because duceppe said it ... the only point there is that he believes climate change is a significant issue that needs action ...
again - a carbon tax has been implemented in various countries with significant success ...
well - like i said before, i wasn't favourable to the liberal party but they did way more than what the conservatives want to do ... consider this: they talked proudly prior to the previous election of having a made in canada solution and yet with 2 years in power with a parliament that was in fear of going to another election - they can't get any action passed on it?? ... why is that? ... it's because they never wanted to act on climate change and their actions at international meetings is further proof of that ... we are a disgrace on that front whereas before we were leaders ...
in any case - can anyone tell me that proportional representation is bad for canada? ... and that the current system does NOT favour the conservatives?
Just sayin' ... There is not a robust link between education and how people vote in this country. Everyone in Toronto votes Liberal, time after time, no matter who leads the party, because they are better educated than everyone else?
Educational credentials in school is not an automatic guarantee of being able to see through what we are told in the media. The potential is definitely there, but a rather large disconnect exists due to what people digest on TV and do not fully question, or take the time to really look into it aside from clicking to another channel. This requires time and effort, and research (reading) to get the complete picture. No matter how many degrees someone may have, they are not going to get a full unbiased historical synopsis from a newscast.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
in any case - can anyone tell me that proportional representation is bad for canada? ... and that the current system does NOT favour the conservatives?
i don't want to say that the current system does not favour the con. but i still believe that people vote for teh party that they like and it is not teh fault of the system that people don't like teh liberals i blame teh liberals.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
in any case - can anyone tell me that proportional representation is bad for canada? ... and that the current system does NOT favour the conservatives?
Sure, at least with regards to the second issue. The current system does not favour the Cons a priori. It did on this occasion only because Harper enjoyed a plurality of support this time around. If anything, one could argue that because (historically) the current system has led to a huge preponderence of Lib governments, there may be something about the current system that favours the latter party. I woudn't argue this, but one could ... I think at the end of the day, the current system selects whichever dog leads the race, and that's what it is intended to do.
I also do not really understand why you are arguing for a prop. rep. system because of the outcome of this election ... Your issue seems to be that all these other parties are "progressive" ... The issue is not therefore the system itself. If all these merry progressives decided to band together to form one giant party, they'd win the next election easily. Its not the system you seem to have a beef with ... Its the current party structure. Am I wrong? I have also assessed a lot of folks today, my brain's fried ... Please explain to me how exactly a prop. rep. system would have led to a different outcome here?
i don't want to say that the current system does not favour the con. but i still believe that people vote for teh party that they like and it is not teh fault of the system that people don't like teh liberals i blame teh liberals.
???
this has nothing to do with getting the liberals in party ... it's about having a gov't that reflects the values of all canadians ...
Educational credentials in school is not an automatic guarantee of being able to see through what we are told in the media. The potential is definitely there, but a rather large disconnect exists due to what people digest on TV and do not fully question, or take the time to really look into it aside from clicking to another channel. This requires time and effort, and research (reading) to get the complete picture. No matter how many degrees someone may have, they are not going to get a full unbiased historical synopsis from a newscast.
wow Roland i agree with you on this one, but i woudl say that we don't just need teh news to report this stuff what we need is to get out more.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
i don't want to say that the current system does not favour the con. but i still believe that people vote for teh party that they like and it is not teh fault of the system that people don't like teh liberals i blame teh liberals.
It has nothing to do with what I believe. Situations are what they are set forth from "historical realities" that have taken place. If people still think Canada under Harper is not going to take the same path in the war on terror (and everything that path entail)s, then I think there's going to be a dramatic change in Canada's future despite what people watch on TV and think they really know.[/quote
sorry just wanted to add some some "" to your post.
Recorded and factual historical events in various parts of the world are not real to you?
Ok. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that if anything.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Sure, at least with regards to the second issue. The current system does not favour the Cons a priori. It did on this occasion only because Harper enjoyed a plurality of support this time around. If anything, one could argue that because (historically) the current system has led to a huge preponderence of Lib governments, there may be something about the current system that favours the latter party. I woudn't argue this, but one could ... I think at the end of the day, the current system selects whichever dog leads the race, and that's what it is intended to do.
I also do not really understand why you are arguing for a prop. rep. system because of the outcome of this election ... Your issue seems to be that all these other parties are "progressive" ... The issue is not therefore the system itself. If all these merry progressives decided to band together to form one giant party, they'd win the next election easily. Its not the system you seem to have a beef with ... Its the current party structure. Am I wrong? I have also assessed a lot of folks today, my brain's fried ... Please explain to me how exactly a prop. rep. system would have led to a different outcome here?
no ... i wouldn't want the ndp'ers and/or greens to compromise their values like the progressive conservatives did ...
the current conservative party runs as a dictatorship and i won't support a party that governs as such ...
i believe a minority gov't with a progressive agenda is best for canada - that is harder to obtain with our crrent electoral system ...
i don't have a problem with the current party structures except for the fact the electoral system favours the conservatives now ...
wow Roland i agree with you on this one, but i woudl say that we don't just need teh news to report this stuff what we need is to get out more.
The media when controlled by a select few (which it is) can be used, and is often used as an apparatus to control people's daily thoughts and realities. An individual can travel the world all they like, but if the water is tainted and exported and linked to various other international depots i.e. media outlets, it's not going to make much of an overall change unless tomorrow everyone started traveling the globe learning about other cultures first hand. And as a limiting factor, I'm not sure how many are comfortable with heading in to war zones to actually see for themselves. Most veterans speak out against the war, and wind up homeless and broken in the head because of it. The adage politicians start wars not people comes to mind, and they have to sell a war (using lies and deceit via the media) on top of it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
All Canadians do not share the same values! Why do you think there are four so-called progressive parties instead of one?
exactly!! ... with proportional representation we would get those voices heard ... right now - we are going to have a large majority of the population not being heard ...
i remember once someone saying something along teh lines of the winners write history. kindof believe that.
Victors write the history books, which becomes mainstream ideology taught in schools and broadcast by the media. It's at the level now where people who question it are labeled either stupid or crazy, or both. However many are beginning to realize that repeating patterns are emerging across generations. Most of what is going on now is becoming predictable. See Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein. None of what is going on right now is new. It's a refined formula taken from past failed democracies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
exactly!! ... with proportional representation we would get those voices heard ... right now - we are going to have a large majority of the population not being heard ...
I don't know how much to believe them, but the Cons have been the party who has been most vocal about democratic reforms.
As for the issue of not being heard ... I believe that even under a prop. rep. system, we'd STILL have a Harper minority government. I still take odds with the view that the Libs and Bloc represent a good agenda for Canadians, but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues (sovereignty of Quebec, how to manage the corporate sector in Canada, extent of taxation, etc. etc.).
, but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues
The thing is though it is not 62% of Canadians, it is 62% of Canadians who voted, which based on the percentage of people who voted is actually only around 35%, the other 65% of eligible voters are either happy with what they got, or don't care.
The thing is though it is not 62% of Canadians, it is 62% of Canadians who voted, which based on the percentage of people who voted is actually only around 35%, the other 65% of eligible voters are either happy with what they got, or don't care.
Possible, yes. I was just using that figure because polaris did. One could question the validity of the 62% figure in other ways, too. Did all those people vote the way they did because they support a progressive agenda, or do they want Quebec to split, or did they buy into Danny Williams' rhetoric about Harper (I love how he's willing to "get past" the dispute but he still has to get his potshots in, the guy just comes off as a douchebag lately), or did they just buy into the fearmongering that surrounds the Tories every election? Who really knows?
One could of course make the same sorts of arguments about the Con voters too.
harper's plan is nothing but another cutting on services for the sake of tax cuts ... NO ONE related to early child learning or day care support the conservative plan ...
$1.60 a day to help care for a child so parents can work is useless ...
I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.
I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.
it's a social service ... like community programs ... the idea being that by subsidizing child care (and that's what we're talking about) - it will allow parents (single or otherwise) the opportunity to work and thus be able to live and not potentially work off other programs ...
Comments
Well, sure, let's concede the point that they're different. I maintain that you magnify the degree of differences more than others might, though. There is a world of difference between moving to a purely private system and the Conservatives' view of how the system should run.
If you can't afford daycare, you know what is really cheap, birth control. People who have kids already get an insane amount of tax breaks and benefits.
well ... you take it however you like ...
did you read their platform? ... a carbon tax is about as progressive as an agenda as you get ... they believe in equal health care access for all - that is progressive ...
look at what duceppe said last nite - he talked about kyoto ... that's how important that issue is to quebecers and to the greens, ndp and libs and we elected a gov't that will do nothing (actually they are doing worse than nothing but interfering with talks internationally) ...
I'd also add that daycare alone is not a good solution to the issue of adequete childcare. I prefer approaches that better enable at least one parent to care for the kids, at least when they are young.
again - if that is your opinion - YOU SHOULD vote conservative ... i'm not saying you shouldn't ... that is your perogative ... my only point is that saying the libs and cons are the same in this particular election is false ...
sorry man but i don't agree with this. its like saying if you can't afford university then drop out os highschool.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
harper's plan is nothing but another cutting on services for the sake of tax cuts ... NO ONE related to early child learning or day care support the conservative plan ...
$1.60 a day to help care for a child so parents can work is useless ...
I think you know that from years of discussing issues/arguing with me on the board, that I a) support a good solution to the climate change issue but b) believe that Kyoto is ineffective. The data for Canada support my view of Kyoto. Duceppe is good at focusing people's emotions on ineffective solutions to real-world issues. Is that what progressive means? If so, 62% of Canada's population is misguided. I support solutions that work, not meaningless treaties. Harper is off the mark with regards to climate change, and always has been. But Kyoto is not a magic bullet. We signed it, right? Has anything changed since we did so?
Agreed. This is an issue where I feel that both so-called major parties are off the mark.
i only mention kyoto because duceppe said it ... the only point there is that he believes climate change is a significant issue that needs action ...
again - a carbon tax has been implemented in various countries with significant success ...
well - like i said before, i wasn't favourable to the liberal party but they did way more than what the conservatives want to do ... consider this: they talked proudly prior to the previous election of having a made in canada solution and yet with 2 years in power with a parliament that was in fear of going to another election - they can't get any action passed on it?? ... why is that? ... it's because they never wanted to act on climate change and their actions at international meetings is further proof of that ... we are a disgrace on that front whereas before we were leaders ...
Educational credentials in school is not an automatic guarantee of being able to see through what we are told in the media. The potential is definitely there, but a rather large disconnect exists due to what people digest on TV and do not fully question, or take the time to really look into it aside from clicking to another channel. This requires time and effort, and research (reading) to get the complete picture. No matter how many degrees someone may have, they are not going to get a full unbiased historical synopsis from a newscast.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i don't want to say that the current system does not favour the con. but i still believe that people vote for teh party that they like and it is not teh fault of the system that people don't like teh liberals i blame teh liberals.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Sure, at least with regards to the second issue. The current system does not favour the Cons a priori. It did on this occasion only because Harper enjoyed a plurality of support this time around. If anything, one could argue that because (historically) the current system has led to a huge preponderence of Lib governments, there may be something about the current system that favours the latter party. I woudn't argue this, but one could ... I think at the end of the day, the current system selects whichever dog leads the race, and that's what it is intended to do.
I also do not really understand why you are arguing for a prop. rep. system because of the outcome of this election ... Your issue seems to be that all these other parties are "progressive" ... The issue is not therefore the system itself. If all these merry progressives decided to band together to form one giant party, they'd win the next election easily. Its not the system you seem to have a beef with ... Its the current party structure. Am I wrong? I have also assessed a lot of folks today, my brain's fried ... Please explain to me how exactly a prop. rep. system would have led to a different outcome here?
???
this has nothing to do with getting the liberals in party ... it's about having a gov't that reflects the values of all canadians ...
wow Roland i agree with you on this one, but i woudl say that we don't just need teh news to report this stuff what we need is to get out more.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Bingo.
All Canadians do not share the same values! Why do you think there are four so-called progressive parties instead of one?
Recorded and factual historical events in various parts of the world are not real to you?
Ok. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that if anything.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i remember once someone saying something along teh lines of the winners write history. kindof believe that.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
no ... i wouldn't want the ndp'ers and/or greens to compromise their values like the progressive conservatives did ...
the current conservative party runs as a dictatorship and i won't support a party that governs as such ...
i believe a minority gov't with a progressive agenda is best for canada - that is harder to obtain with our crrent electoral system ...
i don't have a problem with the current party structures except for the fact the electoral system favours the conservatives now ...
The media when controlled by a select few (which it is) can be used, and is often used as an apparatus to control people's daily thoughts and realities. An individual can travel the world all they like, but if the water is tainted and exported and linked to various other international depots i.e. media outlets, it's not going to make much of an overall change unless tomorrow everyone started traveling the globe learning about other cultures first hand. And as a limiting factor, I'm not sure how many are comfortable with heading in to war zones to actually see for themselves. Most veterans speak out against the war, and wind up homeless and broken in the head because of it. The adage politicians start wars not people comes to mind, and they have to sell a war (using lies and deceit via the media) on top of it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
exactly!! ... with proportional representation we would get those voices heard ... right now - we are going to have a large majority of the population not being heard ...
Victors write the history books, which becomes mainstream ideology taught in schools and broadcast by the media. It's at the level now where people who question it are labeled either stupid or crazy, or both. However many are beginning to realize that repeating patterns are emerging across generations. Most of what is going on now is becoming predictable. See Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein. None of what is going on right now is new. It's a refined formula taken from past failed democracies.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't know how much to believe them, but the Cons have been the party who has been most vocal about democratic reforms.
As for the issue of not being heard ... I believe that even under a prop. rep. system, we'd STILL have a Harper minority government. I still take odds with the view that the Libs and Bloc represent a good agenda for Canadians, but even assuming that's true, you'd have to get these people together, on the same page, for this 62% of Canadians to get their way on environmental issues. Again, the issue is that there are many opinions in Canada, such that this 62%, while they may like a carbon tax, still cannot agree on other issues (sovereignty of Quebec, how to manage the corporate sector in Canada, extent of taxation, etc. etc.).
The thing is though it is not 62% of Canadians, it is 62% of Canadians who voted, which based on the percentage of people who voted is actually only around 35%, the other 65% of eligible voters are either happy with what they got, or don't care.
Possible, yes. I was just using that figure because polaris did. One could question the validity of the 62% figure in other ways, too. Did all those people vote the way they did because they support a progressive agenda, or do they want Quebec to split, or did they buy into Danny Williams' rhetoric about Harper (I love how he's willing to "get past" the dispute but he still has to get his potshots in, the guy just comes off as a douchebag lately), or did they just buy into the fearmongering that surrounds the Tories every election? Who really knows?
One could of course make the same sorts of arguments about the Con voters too.
I never really understood at what point daycare became the equivalent of health care in that it should be something the government should pay for. I mean eventually everyone will need a doctor in a lot of ways getting sick or getting hurt is totally out of a person’s control. Having a baby on the other hand is something that is pretty easy to control, so if you can make a choice to have a kid, why should you expect the government to pay for its daycare (on top of all the other tax breaks you get for having a kid). I chose to buy a new car last year, should I expect the government to make my car payments? I would happily take $100 month if they wanted to give it to me, but I don’t expect it.
it's a social service ... like community programs ... the idea being that by subsidizing child care (and that's what we're talking about) - it will allow parents (single or otherwise) the opportunity to work and thus be able to live and not potentially work off other programs ...