Infanteer said:
Well, the Liberals haven't been much better. I don't know what's worse, preening to the US or suckholeing France because your son-in-law is a major shareholder in their largest petroleum consortium - Bush or Desmarais, you lose either way, no?
I look at which approach is likeliest to get myself and other CF members killed over idiotic, political non-sequiturs and then pick the other one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against war when it's necessary, I'd just rather not get my stomach spilled all over the ground because some idiot in Ottawa with a fetish for all things south of the 49th parallel decided solidarity with idiots was more important than sensical policy... call me selfish, but that's my view.
The Liberals are the worst, but all parties really bother me with their ideas on Health Care because they all pander to the easy "more money" option. I don't mind two-tiered health care as it already exists and it will help to show us how our antiquated Kim-Jong Il delivery system is no good. I consider it an agent for positive change; as long as universal coverage is maintained (and a healthy balance is brought to management of health care) I could care less who is delivering it.
The problem, as I see it, is that the public system would suffer. I agree our system needs serious reforms, but I suspect the introduction of a private tier would only drive it further into the ground.
Why not. I think we've established that jail isn't a deterrent, but that's not what tough sentencing needs to be for. Bruce Monkhouse babysits these assholes everyday; listen to him. We are not dealing with these people in the manner that we should. Story the other day was about a guy with 42 counts that were all tied to sexual indecency and children moving to a community that didn't want him and was at risk to re-offend. Guy with 15 prior counts of car-theft kills a family man while outrunning the cops in a stolen vehicle. Karla Holmolka takes part in the brutal rape, torture and slaying of two teenage girls and we let her out?
Firstly, because I don't believe dangerous offender status is something that should be handed out on a standardized basis, the ad-hoc/individualized consideration that's currently in place seems more appropriate, given the extremity of the repercussions of such a label. As for 14 year olds in adult court, I don't see how giving a kid an adult record and sentence for juvenile offences before he can even drive a car is going to help things - all you're doing is ensuring the kid never snaps out of it by dropping a yoke around his neck that will follow him for the rest of his life. If it's a serious offence like murder or rape, fine, but doing it over a fistfights (read: violent offence) is idiotic. Teenagers will fight, especially the male ones, and having laws which ignore this reality, as well as idiotic zero-tolerance policies in schools, does nothing but make sure teenage boys are saddled with records and prison/juvie time for stuff they would have received a stern talking-to about 30 years ago.
Agree with you here - definitely an eye-scab or whatever you mentioned earlier; this smells of pushing us into bed with
these kinds of people. Oh well, at least the Conservative Party will allow me to possess copious amounts of firearms so I can keep them off my property.
Indeed, and maybe we'll be so lucky as to have religious decrees posted all around our government buildings. Perhaps they'll be good enough to outlaw abortion and, if we dare to dream, outlaw gay people! Then maybe we can get some of that sweet sweet lynching I've heard was so popular down south... just imagine - we could have our very own pogroms. Harper seems like an open-minded guy - maybe he'll take a few pointers from 'down under' and get us some of that Muslim-free immigration policy that Wes is saying has become so popular with the Aussies. :
If I want the neo-Na..er... National Citizens Coalition as my PM's think-tank, I'll vote Harper. But until I get the call from Ghandi that flying pigs have been spotted over a frozen hell, I'll stay away from old Hit...um... Harper.
Disagree; what's wrong with taking the politics out of election dates? We have this in BC right now and it isn't that big of a deal, but if we are going to tool around with parliamentary democracy, it has got to be thourough and not just tinkering. I want to see the Senate fixed, Quebec addressed, the nature of the PMO and the GG addressed.
Why mess with what ain't broke? Flexible dates are just that - flexible. It's one of the advantages of incumbency, there's nothing unfair about it. While we're at it, why don't we remove the unfair "advantage" of executive addresses to the public? As for the senate, I agree to some extent. I don't mind its appointed status so much, but the issue of western representation needs to be addressed ASAP. How exactly would we go about "addressing" Quebec? What are your issues with the PMO and GG?
Tax cuts don't bother me.
It's corporate subsidies he wants to cut, not taxes. I don't disagree universally with reducing corporate subsidies, but one has to factor in small businesses. Cutting subsidies to IBM or DuPont is one thing, cutting them to small businesses which may actually need them is another.
Disagree - university isn't that expensive; I paid for it through working for the military (just as you are). Canada's students seem to be a big pack of whiners. Why should it be free (or near free)?
See, where you ask "why", I ask "why not"? I guess it's a fundamental difference between commie bastards like me and heartless neo-cons like you. ;D I think that the growing importance (indeed, necessity) of university for an increasing number of jobs is one reason why it should be cheap. I'm not saying free, necessarily, but affordable to the overwhelming majority of the populous. It's not just tuition that has to be factored into the equation, it's also the living expenses vs. time available to work. An ex-girlfriend of mine went to Queen's poli-sci (undergrad) on OSAP and worked her arse off, both in and out of school, through the entirety of her degree. Now she's saddled with god knows how many tens of thousands of dollars in student debt which it will take her years upon years to pay off. A well-educated populous is in the best interests of society.
So they can sit around in undergrad for another couple years because they just like being a student and don't want to get out into the real world? I remember taking part in varsity athletics in one of the countries largest universities and going to small colleges in the US and seeing how real funding makes a difference. I'm all for making people earn their education - even if it be through a short period of service like the US GI Bill.
As much as I find university badminton to be enthralling in the extreme, I don't think it's a legitimate argument for more expensive higher education. As for "earning their education", I agree - academically. Should people have to "earn" their primary and secondary educations? Maybe we should privatize the whole education system, that way we can have a well-educated bourgeoisie and an illiterate, servile proletariat.
Hyperbole, I know.
As for "sitting around in undergrad", most schools have a maximum time allotment for an undergrad degree - 4 years generally, methinks. If university is just another way to delay "get[ing] out into the real world" (as you put it), why did you go?
Agreed. That's just silly.
Indeed, and scary when one takes into account the degree of Ameriphilia that must plague the Conservative Party's policy makers to drive them to such pathetic extremes of kowtowing.
Problem is, I could find a list just as long for the Liberals, and to me there are some even more disturbing implications.
That may be, but until I they surpass the Cons, in my mind, they'll continue to be my preference.
I'm still hoping for a Conservative minority. It will give them a shot at governing and yet keep them honest.
Bah, government will never be honest. If a government was honest, it wouldn't last the month. People are largely idiots when it comes to government and if they were told all that needed to be done, and was done, to keep the country running and the government operating, they'd cry bloody murder and riot in the streets. Then when the government actually operated according to what the majority thought was "right", things would be even worse than before and people would still be blaming the government.
By the way, you ARE going infantry officer, no?