Michael Moore is currently in production on his next movie. As an avid lover of all things Canadian, he has issued the following statement regarding Canada's upcoming election on Monday:
Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't. You give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens. Wow, that is intense! Only Canadians could pull off a hat trick of humor like that. My hat's off to you.
Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But you have a parliamentary system (I'll bet you didn't know that -- see, that's why you need Americans telling you things!). There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.
But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.
Michael Moore
(Mr. Moore is not available for interviews because he now needs to address the situation in Azerbaijan. But he could be talked into it for a couple of tickets to a Leaf's game.)
"Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do."
That's right, so shut the f*** up you fat bastard! :)
classicman2
01-22-06, 12:06 PM
Do you believe Moore understands the difference between the conservative party in Canada than conservatives in the U. S.?
OldDude
01-22-06, 12:15 PM
From his website:
"Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do."
That's right, so shut the f*** up you fat bastard! :)
:lol: You may recall several Canadians were glad to help us with advice on who to vote for in our last election. Hint - it wasn't the winner.
sjrab16
01-22-06, 12:17 PM
I always thought the conservative party in Canada was more like moderates in both parties in the US.
Also I like the crack about electing a man that would take away from the indengenous people. If he is talking about the US, I believe both parties are equal in the amount they have screwed over Native Americans.
eXcentris
01-22-06, 12:21 PM
Do you believe Moore understands the difference between the conservative party in Canada than conservatives in the U. S.?
Heard a Liberal radio ad today; it said don't let Bush win by voting Conservative... :lol:
p.s.: Welcome to Ottawa, PM Harper
solipsta
01-22-06, 12:39 PM
I always thought the conservative party in Canada was more like moderates in both parties in the US.
They used to be. Then they merged with a very right wing (for Canada) party and they've slid over that way more. While they're not as right wing as Republicans, they're probably the most right wing government we'll have.
While I won't be voting Conservative, I'm glad the Liberals will be gone and there will be a change. Because that's what we need here....a change. I hope that a good chunk of NDPers are voted in so give a little bit of balance to the equation...
As for Moore...whatever...he doesn't know what he's talking about.
solipsta
01-22-06, 12:43 PM
Heard a Liberal radio ad today; it said don't let Bush win by voting Conservative... :lol:
p.s.: Welcome to Ottawa, PM Harper
Some of the Liberal ads were so stupid. Check this one out: http://www.liberal.ca/multimedia_e.aspx?id=70
Go to the Washington Times one...
The Liberals just need to be decimated.
MartinBlank
01-22-06, 01:14 PM
Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do.
So educate us here. What are the issues in Canada that have the public riled up enough that they want to switch parties?
solipsta
01-22-06, 03:36 PM
I wonder what he means by that?
The Liberals have been involved in some scandals in the past few years, the least of which being the Sponsorship scandal. Some time back, in an effort to make Quebecers want to stay Canadian, the govt set up a program to advertise Canada in Quebec and (supposedly) around the country. What happened was that all of the contracts went to friends of the Liberal party and in addition, barely any work was done. Also, money that was paid in govt funds for these projects was then kicked back to the Liberal party by special arrangement. That's the big one...the one that basically created this election.
There's others, as well. I think the big thing is that a lot of Canadians think that the Libs have just gotten too comfortable...they think they're entitled to do whatever they want. From what I can see, a lot of people are still a little cautious about Stephen Harper, but they just don't want the Liberals back...
Corleone
01-22-06, 03:39 PM
I am voting Conservative but I am from Alberta so that is no big surprise.
Joe Molotov
01-22-06, 03:57 PM
OMG, it's the domino theory in action! Conservatism is spreading all across North America! Europe needs to step in and invade the U.S. before communist Cuba falls to the conservative movement!
sjrab16
01-22-06, 04:12 PM
I am voting Conservative but I am from Alberta so that is no big surprise.
Go Oilers!
eXcentris
01-22-06, 04:37 PM
So educate us here. What are the issues in Canada that have the public riled up enough that they want to switch parties?
See solipsta's post. The Liberals have been screwing people over long enough. I expect a minority conservative government to be elected. I also expect that government to be a center-right government, certainly not a far right government because one, a minority government won't allow that, and two, Harper knows he'll be elected because Canadians had enough of the Liberals, not because Canadians suddenly felt a longing for a more conservative agenda.
Nutter
01-22-06, 04:47 PM
The conservatives and liberals in Canada are actually surprisingly similar. Liberals have been borrowing fiscal strategies from the conservatives for years. They claim to have adopted some conservative attitudes towards electoral reform, but they haven't done squat about it to date. Conservatives have had to moderate their views on gay-marriage, etc. a bit towards the center in order to compete with the liberals. Long story short, Canada isn't going to suddenly turn into a big northern american state if the Conservatives win a majority. If the Conservatives win only a minority, which is entirely likely, they're definately not going to rock the boat and risk bringing the government down in another six months.
Harper has said he is willing to re-evaluate Canada's non-participation in the U.S. missile defence plans *if* the U.S. raises the issue first and provides compelling new evidence that it can be made to work. The U.S. probably won't even bother raising the issue however, since they know they have nothing new to bring to the table. Harper has said he might revisit the issue of gay-marriage with a free vote. Worst case scenario, the house of commons wastes a bit of time. If a majority of Canadians support gay-marriage it's not going to be banned in a free vote. Harper is said to be pro-private-health-care, but Paul Martin already goes to private clinics, so we'll call that a tie, only Harper is at least honest about it.
The Liberals, thanks to their corruption finally catching up with them right in the middle of an election, face an "anyone-but-the-liberals" popular movement. Their only hope is to smear the only other party capable of replacing them with fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's not working. The Liberals like to claim they are a national party while the Conservatives are just a regional hick party from out West, but which party is actually likely to have seats in a larger portion of the country this election? It isn't the liberals. They're the regional party now.
Personally, I'm in a riding where the Conservative candidate could be a lump of radioactive goo and he'd still win. (He's not far off, actually...) It doesn't help matters that the NDP candidate is a 19-year old poli-sci student (Hey! Thanks for trying Jack!), the Green party candidate is a 23-year-old technical school graduate, and the Liberal candidate... well... This is Alberta. In any other province a Liberal might have a chance if she ran a really good campaign here, but Trudeau's legacy lives on in Alberta like some high-powered form of herpes. The only reason for Martin's single 6-hour stop in Alberta this election was to *look* like he's running a national campaign to voters in other provinces where the liberals have a hope of getting a single seat.
If being ignored wasn't bad enough, Paul Martin made one of the most disgusting remarks I've ever heard in Candian politics this week to a Halifax paper this week. He claimed that a Conservative government would not represent Nova Scotia since it would be run by a "Calgary cabal". Seriously, I know it's par for the course to bash the West out East, but can you imagine the reaction any Federal leader would receive if he claimed a political party could not be trusted since it's cabinet was a "Montreal cabal", or a "Toronto Cabal"?
Another election with no real choice. Joy!
Jason
01-22-06, 05:12 PM
I always thought the conservative party in Canada was more like moderates in both parties in the US.
Yeah, I just can't see Canadians putting up with assheads like O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.
kvrdave
01-22-06, 10:12 PM
The conservatives and liberals in Canada are actually surprisingly similar.
Though a lot of party faithful would hate to admit it, it is the same in the USA.
As for Moore, I am more and more convinced that at some point down the road he will let us all in on the fact that it was a joke. He makes wild movies pandering to people that hate Bush and conservatives, and it pays him very well. He has trusts set up to protect his money from taxes, and in them owns a lot of stocks with big companies that he complains about. He goes to Canada to save money when shooting a movie and uses tactics to keep his workers from forming a union. Despite what comes out of his mouth, I believe he has only had 1 person who was not white as a producer in any of his movies, or in any position that matters. He needs conservatives in power and he needs people riled up so he can keep making money.
He used to just be against all politicians, but when it looked like Gore had a chance, he threw his support to him and helped him lose.
Moore is just about money and making it by telling people what they want to be true.
kvrdave
01-22-06, 10:14 PM
Yeah, I just can't see Canadians putting up with assheads like O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.
Again with O'Reilly being a conservative? He is just a blowhard that floats between the sides. He is for the legalization of medical marijuana and believes in the dangers of Global Warming. Yeah, he's an asshead, but he has some very liberal views as well. But then again, he is on FOX, so he must be conservative, I suppose. :lol:
solipsta
01-22-06, 10:17 PM
Personally, I'm in a riding where the Conservative candidate could be a lump of radioactive goo and he'd still win. (He's not far off, actually...) It doesn't help matters that the NDP candidate is a 19-year old poli-sci student (Hey! Thanks for trying Jack!), the Green party candidate is a 23-year-old technical school graduate, and the Liberal candidate... well...
Too funny. That almost exactly describes my riding. I'm in Randy White's former riding and so it's pretty much a lock for the Conservatives. Ed Fast doesn't really have to do anything and he'll win. The Liberal candidate tried to bribe the NDP candidate to drop out and was dropped from the Liberals because of it. The NDP candidate is a 23 year old who ran for council and lost and the Green candidate is a 20 year old college student.
My vote is basically worthless other than the monies it might bring to a minor party...
Nighthawk
01-23-06, 12:49 AM
I'll be voting NDP. The NDP had a very strong role in anything that happened in the last government and since it looks like nobody is going to get a majority they will probably have quite a bit of control over this one as well. I honestly do have to question whether the conservatives will be able to carry out their "plan" without creating a huge deficit.
classicman2
01-23-06, 06:23 AM
Yeah, I just can't see Canadians putting up with assheads like O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.
Probably not. But, on the other hand, can you see them putting up with an asshat like Howard Dean in charge of one of their major parties?
wendersfan
01-23-06, 07:29 AM
I'll be voting NDP.Why, you dirty socialist, you.
;)
bhk
01-23-06, 08:47 AM
Our media in the US is going to be wearing black in mourning tomorrow.
Yeah, I just can't see Canadians putting up with assheads like O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.
Just remember, they're responsible for Celine Deon.
Nutter
01-23-06, 09:56 AM
Our media in the US is going to be wearing black in mourning tomorrow.
Just remember, they're responsible for Celine Deon.
Why do you think we sent her to Vegas?
RayChuang
01-23-06, 10:00 AM
Who cares what Michael Moore says nowadays. -rolleyes-
In fact, I can almost confidently say that Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 actually caused more Americans to vote for President Bush in 2004 because Moore's elitist and condescending attitude turned off WAY too many Americans. :down:
sjrab16
01-23-06, 10:17 AM
Who cares what Michael Moore says nowadays. -rolleyes-
In fact, I can almost confidently say that Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 actually caused more Americans to vote for President Bush in 2004 because Moore's elitist and condescending attitude turned off WAY too many Americans. :down:
Just like Dean is going to cause people to vote Republican in the 2008 election. Whatever the outcome it would be good if Bush actually tried to care about our neighbors to the north.
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Canadian political leaders on Sunday made one last cross-country dash on the eve of an election expected to oust the ruling Liberals, move Canada to the right and improve ties with the United States.
With polls showing a steady lead of 7 to 12 percentage points, the Conservatives sounded increasingly confident, though it looked like they would fall short of a majority in Parliament and have to depend on other parties.
"After 13 years and four failed mandates, the era of Liberal arrogance is ending," local candidate Michael Smith told a Winnipeg rally as he introduced Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who made stops in Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia on Sunday.
It is the second election in just 18 months and the third since late 2000. The Liberals -- who took power in late 1993 -- campaigned on their fiscal record, reminding people the economy was booming and trying to portray Harper as an extremist who wanted to scrap gay marriage and abortion.
But Prime Minister Paul Martin, who spent Sunday in British Columbia before flying to his home province of Quebec, seems likely to fall victim to voter fatigue with the Liberals and a major kickback scandal that hit his government shortly after he took power in December 2003.
"Only a new government can turn the page on the past 13 years of scandal and inaction and get on with addressing the real concerns of ordinary working people," Harper said. "We have an opportunity with a new government, and only a new government, to bring together East and West, English and French, city and country, new and old Canadians."
Some polls suggest the Liberals will get their lowest percentage of votes in any election since independence in 1867, even lower than the 28 percent they collected in 1984.
If Harper wins, it will be his reward for uniting Canada's two fractious right-wing parties at the end of 2003 and creating the Conservative Party.
Harper would be the first prime minister to have spent most of his life in the conservative Western province of Alberta. He promises to lower taxes, clamp down on crime, clean up government, cut health waiting times and return some power from the federal government to Canada's 10 provinces.
EASE TENSIONS WITH WASHINGTON
He also wants to ease tensions with Washington. Martin has consistently attacked the United States over a softwood lumber trade dispute and often says Canada must shun what he calls "American-style" health care. Continued ...
eXcentris
01-23-06, 12:07 PM
Canadians realize they do need the US.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why most Canadians will be voting conservative. :lol:
Myster X
01-23-06, 03:45 PM
Yeah, I'm sure that's why most Canadians will be voting conservative. :lol:
Laugh all you want. You know Canadians are getting de facto missile defense from the US. :lol:
bhk
01-23-06, 03:47 PM
Laugh all you want. You know Canadians are getting de facto missile defense from the US.
Leave him alone, dude, today's depressing enough for him.
lordwow
01-23-06, 03:52 PM
Man, I hope Moore keeps pushing people not to vote a certain way. It seems to work well ;)
Nutter
01-23-06, 04:01 PM
Actually, Paul Martin did do quite well a few months ago with his stand over soft-wood lumber. Most Canadians feel that we've been given a raw deal in that area, and it was about time someone in Ottawa showed some backbone. He was doing great in the polls back then. However, Martin royally messed it up by taking it so far that he was seen as grand-standing to boost Liberal support for this election and draw attention away from the adscam scandal. Standing up to the U.S. to get them to honor their trade agreements = good. Bashing the U.S. when they've already stopped listening for personal political gain = Bad. (with a capital B) Martin would probably be a few points ahead in the polls of where he is now if he'd only known when to shut up.
That being said, Harper is not going to be able to let the U.S. off the hook when it comes to their trade obligations. The media and house of commons will shred him without mercy if he does. However, my guess is that he'll try to take a more non-combative tack and get chummy with Bush. Martin's histrionics sure made for a good show, but everybody knows you get more done over a game of golf in Texas than you do shouting rhetoric at newspaper reporters in Ottawa.
I do predict that Harper and Bush will get along better than Martin and Bush did. Martin probably didn't get along with Bush because that's what Chretien had done. (Martin has never been particularily original.) Chretien and Bush didn't like each other for obvious reasons. Bush was born with a silver-spoon in his mouth while Chretien was born into poverty and is, almost literally, a street-fighter. (No offense to americans, but Chretien would have steam-rolled Bush in under 5 seconds in a fair fight.) Harper is an Albertan, which is as close to Texas as you get in Canada. Harper seems smart enough to make nice with Bush regardless of what he thinks of him anyways.
So bottom line, I do think relations between the PMO and White House will improve after this election.
Of course, this assumes Martin doesn't pull some crazy stunt and bribe the NDP or BQ into forming a coalition government to keep a conservative minority government from taking office. Say what you will about Martin, he loves power and has proven time and time again he'll do almost anything to keep it. I won't be the least bit surprised if manages to scam his way back into power even if he "loses" the election.
eXcentris
01-23-06, 04:12 PM
Leave him alone, dude, today's depressing enough for him.
Errr... I voted conservative.
Of course, I don't expect most Americans, who see everything in black and white and vote along party lines regardless of issues and candidates, to understand. :p
eXcentris
01-23-06, 04:15 PM
Laugh all you want. You know Canadians are getting de facto missile defense from the US. :lol:
Heck we're gonna get that no matter who we vote for. :)
Nutter
01-23-06, 04:18 PM
Laugh all you want. You know Canadians are getting de facto missile defense from the US. :lol:
Actually, the popular position in Canada is that the U.S. shouldn't even get permission to launch interceptor missiles in Canadian airspace. Let's face it, nobody's going to be aiming nukes at Canada before the U.S. is devoid of viable targets that aren't already glassy plains. To make matters worse, those interceptor missiles are as likely as not to miss their target and land where precisely? Canada. And those that do hit their targets? Yes, let's blow up radioactive payloads in high orbit over Canada. Of course, it's not like they can actually hit incomming nukes reliably anyways...
At least, this is the popular perception... Bottom line, the U.S. has some serious spinning to do before any Canadian politician is going to have much hope of opening up Canadian airspace to U.S. interceptors, let alone green-lighting active participation in the project.
sjrab16
01-23-06, 04:47 PM
Actually, the popular position in Canada is that the U.S. shouldn't even get permission to launch interceptor missiles in Canadian airspace. Let's face it, nobody's going to be aiming nukes at Canada before the U.S. is devoid of viable targets that aren't already glassy plains. To make matters worse, those interceptor missiles are as likely as not to miss their target and land where precisely? Canada. And those that do hit their targets? Yes, let's blow up radioactive payloads in high orbit over Canada. Of course, it's not like they can actually hit incomming nukes reliably anyways...
At least, this is the popular perception... Bottom line, the U.S. has some serious spinning to do before any Canadian politician is going to have much hope of opening up Canadian airspace to U.S. interceptors, let alone green-lighting active participation in the project.
True Canada does not have any viable targets. However I imagine the radiation poisening from all of the nukes would devastate the southern portions of Canada. All though the economic fall out would probably be worse.
bhk
01-23-06, 04:50 PM
True Canada does not have any viable targets. However I imagine the radiation poisening from all of the nukes would devastate the southern portions of Canada. All though the economic fall out would probably be worse.
Yes, but at least they will die a horrible death and still keep their principles of non-violence or something like that.
kvrdave
01-23-06, 05:14 PM
Errr... I voted conservative.
Of course, I don't expect most Americans, who see everything in black and white and vote along party lines regardless of issues and candidates, to understand. :p
Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson thank you. -wink-
Shazam
01-23-06, 05:14 PM
True Canada does not have any viable targets. However I imagine the radiation poisening from all of the nukes would devastate the southern portions of Canada. All though the economic fall out would probably be worse.Hey, we have a couple of Poutine plants that are very tactically important.
Well, I voted today. Those damned Liberals need to get out of gov't for a while. I'm not too keen on the Conservatives - Harper's an uptight square who wants to make an issue out things like gay marriage, and his taxation policies are questionable, but I'm hoping that they'll be corruption free for a little while.
eXcentris
01-23-06, 05:23 PM
At least, this is the popular perception... Bottom line, the U.S. has some serious spinning to do before any Canadian politician is going to have much hope of opening up Canadian airspace to U.S. interceptors, let alone green-lighting active participation in the project.
Correct. And Harper won't budge unless the US can prove that missile-defense would actually work. And that's going to require a hell of a lot of spinning. :)
Nutter
01-23-06, 05:46 PM
True Canada does not have any viable targets. However I imagine the radiation poisening from all of the nukes would devastate the southern portions of Canada. All though the economic fall out would probably be worse.
If a nuke explodes over a northern U.S. city, a large portion of the fissionable material will do just that. Fission into less harmful isotopes. What little floats over the Canadian border won't be nearly as bad as the fallout from a nuke that's blown up over Canadian airspace *without* triggering the nuclear warhead. All that lovely weapons-grade radioactive material will be spread out entirely over Canada. Basically, fallout from an explosion one-nation over is nowhere near as bad as what constitutes a really nasty "dirty-bomb" exploding overhead. Oh, and by the way, if the U.S. gets into a freakin' nuclear war we're not going to be worried overmuch about the economy.
So don't kid yourself. This missile-interception program, even if it did work, would not do any great favors for us Canadians. *If* it works, it'll be better for you and *worse* for us. Why do you think Bush offered to pay all the costs if we'd just give them permission to set up shop in the arctic? Personally, I'd be all for sacrificing a bit of my own safety for the sake of our american neighbors if it weren't for the fact that, if they did have a working missile defence program, they'd probably get themselves into far worse international scrapes then they do currently. While I'd like to think the next pres will be better, a man like Bush freed from the constraints of mutually assured destruction is not something I'd like to think about currently.
kvrdave
01-23-06, 06:01 PM
Correct. And Harper won't budge unless the US can prove that missile-defense would actually work. And that's going to require a hell of a lot of spinning. :)
We'll just catch him during a curling tournament and he'll be so distracted we won't have to worry. -wink-
General Zod
01-23-06, 07:26 PM
As for Moore, I am more and more convinced that at some point down the road he will let us all in on the fact that it was a joke.
Or he comes clean that he really is a closet conservative and was trying hard to piss people off at him that they'd vote the other way of whatever he said. I always found it hard to believe he thought America would rally around someone shouting "shame on you mr. president" during an award speech.
RayChuang
01-23-06, 08:13 PM
Folks,
You're all wrong if you think there are no viable targets in Canada. Don't forget that Canada has many airports with civilian runways long enough to use as recovery and dispersal bases for American strategic bombers. Vancouver International Airport and the airport at Gander, Newfoundland would also be useful as bases for maritime patrol airplanes in time of war, too. In short, during the Cold War if we had a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the USA, Canada would have been just as hard hit as the USA itself.
Nutter
01-23-06, 09:45 PM
Folks,
You're all wrong if you think there are no viable targets in Canada. Don't forget that Canada has many airports with civilian runways long enough to use as recovery and dispersal bases for American strategic bombers. Vancouver International Airport and the airport at Gander, Newfoundland would also be useful as bases for maritime patrol airplanes in time of war, too. In short, during the Cold War if we had a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the USA, Canada would have been just as hard hit as the USA itself.
A few points:
While airfields in Canada *might* have been important for strategic bombers in the 60's during the height of the cold war, modern ICBM's, bombers with increased range, tactical subs, etc. have largely made them a non-issue. I would actually argue that Canadian air-fields were only important for their ability to launch interceptor's, i.e. fighters designed to shoot down enemy bombers. ICBM's made those pretty much obsolete. However, missile defense installations in Canada *would* be targets in a full-scale nuclear war so joining a missile defense program would actually *create* Canadian targets, albeit probably so far North that most of us would never notice if they were obliterated. Regardless, airfields, etc. in Canada no longer have much, if any, strategic importance in a nuclear war and are unlikely to be targetted.
Any legitimate nation that attacks the U.S. is probably going to have a good reason. The odds of them having an equally good reason to nuke Canada at the same time are astronomically slim. Canada might not be the most powerful military nation out there, but it's very well connected diplomatically. While many nations might stand by and say "Well, the yanks had it comin'" if only the U.S. were attacked, more nations would come down hard on the attacker if Canada were also attacked at the same time. Ergo, attacking Canada in addition to the U.S. would basically be opening up a war on more fronts than necessary, which is not terribly bright.
The most likely form of nuclear attack in this century will come from rogue nations or terrorist cells. Such groups will probably have a very limited nuclear arsenal so they'll want every nuke to count, and every nuke to hit the U.S. where it hurts. That isn't Toronto, Montreal, or an air-strip at Gander, Newfoundland.
P.S. It appears Belinda Stronach managed to hold onto her riding... She is truly one of the best examples of underhanded dealing and corruption in Liberal politics of our day, and her campaign was entirely based on Harper's Conservatives having a "secret hidden agenda", which she claims was the reason why she crossed the floor. (Not the cabinet position. That was completely unrelated, of course.) Of course, despite the fact that she is now Liberal and presumeably not bound by the evil Conservative oath of silence over their secret agenda, she still can't say what, precisely this secret agenda was that prompted her to turn coat. It's so far-fetched only a total moron would have bought it, but apparently 19469 total morons currently reside in Newmarket-Aurora. And Ontario claims B.C. smokes too much pot!
ViewAskewbian
01-23-06, 10:21 PM
P.S. It appears Belinda Stronach managed to hold onto her riding... She is truly one of the best examples of underhanded dealing and corruption in Liberal politics of our day, and her campaign was entirely based on Harper's Conservatives having a "secret hidden agenda", which she claims was the reason why she crossed the floor. (Not the cabinet position. That was completely unrelated, of course.) Of course, despite the fact that she is now Liberal and presumeably not bound by the evil Conservative oath of silence over their secret agenda, she still can't say what, precisely this secret agenda was that prompted her to turn coat. It's so far-fetched only a total moron would have bought it, but apparently 19469 total morons currently reside in Newmarket-Aurora. And Ontario claims B.C. smokes too much pot!
:lol:
NDP was where I placed my X and they are cleaning up in my riding but, alas, not very well elsewhere.
Canadians elect a Conservative minority
Updated Mon. Jan. 23 2006 11:56 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Canadians awarded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper with a minority government Monday, putting an end to more than 12 years of Liberal rule.
Polls across the country are now closed and results are pouring in.
As of midnight ET, the Conservatives were in a commanding lead with 125 seats, compared to 103 for the second place Liberals.
But Harper will be denied the 155 seats he will need to lead a Tory majority.
The Bloc Quebecois has won 50 seats, while the NDP currently sits at 30.
Support for the Tories took off when the polls closed west of Atlantic Canada.
Harper, Canada's next prime minister, has been re-elected in the Alberta riding of Calgary Southwest. The Conservatives dominated in the West, taking most seats in the Prairies and sweeping all 28 seats in Alberta, as expected.
Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan could not hold on to Alberta's lone Liberal seat in Edmonton Centre. She was defeated by Tory Laurie Hawn, a former fighter pilot.
But it was in battleground Ontario where the Conservatives made a big breakthrough, with most of the polls showing they're on track to take a dozen or more seats than the 24 they won in 2004.
Canada's largest city, however, remains solidly Liberal with two exceptions: one that has fallen to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who won his Toronto-Danforth riding; another to Layton's wife Olivia Chow, who has won a seat in a Toronto riding for the New Democrats. The two have become the Commons' second husband-and-wife team.
Belinda Stronach, despite her notorious decision to cross the floor and prop up the Liberal government last year, coasted to victory in her riding north of Toronto.
In Quebec, the Conservatives seem to be making crucial gains in the province that shut them out in 2004.
Early results indicate the Tories are elected in eight ridings, while the Liberals are tied with the same number, and an independent candidate has secured one seat.
But the Tories didn't make the breakthrough they were hoping for in Atlantic Canada.
Although a late surge in the polls had the Conservative Party gaining momentum in Atlantic Canada, Paul Martin's Liberals managed to hang on to their traditional stronghold.
The Liberals won a majority in Atlantic Canada with 19 of the region's 32 seats -- compared to 10 for the Tories and three for the NDP.
Deputy Tory Leader Peter MacKay -- widely expected to get a high-profile cabinet post should the Conservatives win -- won re-election in his Nova Scotia riding of New Glasgow.
Former NDP leader Alexa McDonough was also re-elected in the Nova Scotia riding of Halifax.
Although there were concerns Liberal Public Works Minister Scott Brison could lose his Nova Scotia seat of Kings-Hants, he recaptured it easily. Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott also hung onto his Fredericton, N.B. riding.
All four major party leaders won their ridings.
Praise from a former PM
Brian Mulroney, the last man to lead the Tories to power, praised Harper on Monday for leading the Tories to victory.
"It's a tremendous tribute to Stephen Harper for what he was able to do in bringing about tonight's victory," Mulroney told CTV from West Palm Beach, Fla.
Mulroney also gave Harper kudos for engineering the merger of the old Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance -- and then devising a campaign strategy and executing it flawlessly.
"Reaching out to Peter MacKay to unify the party, then to move the party to the centre, then to devise a campaign strategy and finally to execute it flawlessly, these are marks of leadership.
"And Stephen Harper demonstrated that leadership in a great degree.''
Mulroney said he was particularly thrilled with the gains the Tories were able to make in Quebec.
Indeed, the gains allows the Tory Party to claim it's now truly a national party. But the Liberals faired better than pollsters expected.
"They're sticking around," said CTV's chief parliamentary correspondent, Craig Oliver.
"They'll be a significant opposition force, and in a good position to restore itself, to rebuild their credibility and rebuild they're party. But it'll have to do it under a new leader."
Campaign review
Martin ended up in the fight of his political life against Harper. His Liberals took a pounding in the polls with voters upset over allegations of government scandal and a rash of urban gun violence, including a brazen Boxing Day shootout that killed a 15-year-old bystander in downtown Toronto.
Harper capitalized on those concerns, promising to get tough on corruption and to crack down on gun crime with mandatory minimum sentences.
Just before the New Year, the RCMP announced an investigation into an income trust announcement by the Liberals. That's when the Grits dropped sharply in the polls and the Conservatives rose -- at one point leading the Liberals by 18 points in a Strategic Counsel survey.
In the end, Harper succeeded in convincing voters that it was, in fact, time for change.
But although Harper never suggested it himself, Conservatives were hoping a majority was in the cards. In the end, Canadians may have listened to Martin's message of caution, trimming the Tories' power and forcing them to cooperate with other parties in the next Parliament.
The Conservatives have a big challenge ahead of them. The 10 minority governments that Canada has seen have never lasted longer than two years, limited by their ability to get bills passed.
So unless the Conservatives are able to form a coalition with another party, another election could be on the horizon.
NDP gains
Layton, meanwhile, spent the final weeks of the campaign urging voters to consider his party as a legitimate third option, and that only the New Democrats will be able to protect social values from the Tories.
It seemed to have worked, with his party gaining stronger levels of support not seen since the 1980s.
Anything short of 30 seats would have been a disappointment for New Democrats after running a smooth, disciplined campaign that targeted key ridings the party lost by narrow margins in 2004.
Poor Michael Moore....he'll probably get all depressed and climb into a half-gallon of Ben & Jerry's.
kvrdave
01-23-06, 11:24 PM
Poor Michael Moore....he'll probably get all depressed and climb into a half-gallon of Ben & Jerry's.
He went to a Michael Moore farm and lost a lot of weight, I believe.
LorenzoL
01-23-06, 11:32 PM
Even though I did not vote for the Conservatives, I'm glad that they got elected with a minority government.
eXcentris
01-23-06, 11:40 PM
Results are pretty much what I expected. Minority government pretty much prevents the conservatives from doing anything stupid. I voted for them but one can never be too careful. :)
cultshock
01-23-06, 11:48 PM
Results are pretty much what I expected. Minority government pretty much prevents the conservatives from doing anything stupid. I voted for them but one can never be too careful. :)
Yeah, with the way the polls were going, it's what I expected too. And I agree that a minority government is probably the best way to go for now. Let's see how these guys do. I voted for them as well (I finally got so fed up with the Liberals, it actually got me to go out and vote for the first time in years, and I'm glad I did)
LorenzoL
01-23-06, 11:59 PM
Canadians were tired of a Liberals government and a change was necessary for the good of the country.
However, it also shows that Canadians do not trust Harper and the Conservative party yet thus giving them a minority win.
Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party won national elections Monday and ended 13 years of Liberal rule, giving Canada a leader who was expected to move the country to the right on social and economic issues and bolster ties with the United States.
Prime Minister Paul Martin conceded defeat after official results gave the challengers a near-insurmountable lead. However, it appeared likely the Conservatives's victory margin would be too narrow to avoid ruling as a minority government, making it difficult to get legislation through a divided House of Commons.
There were cheers at the Conservative Party headquarters in Calgary as the media predictions were announced. Harper was expected to give his victory speech later in the night after all the results are announced.
"We know that there is an undeniable and unstoppable sentiment for change in the country," deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay told supporters. "A change towards a new, clean, constructive attitude that will exist within a Conservative government."
Relations with the Bush administration will likely improve under Harper as his ideology runs along the same lines of many U.S. Republicans.
Harper has said he would reconsider a U.S. missile defense scheme rejected by the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. He also said he wanted to move beyond the Kyoto debate by establishing different environmental controls, spend more on the Canadian military, expand its peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Haiti and tighten security along the border with the United States in an effort to prevent terrorists and guns from crossing the frontier.
According to official results, Conservatives either had won or were leading in races for 122 seats; the Liberals had either won or were leading in races for 103 seats; the separatist Bloc Quebecois appeared to have 50 seats and the New Democratic Party was poised to gain 31 seats. The country's major media outlets called the election for the Conservatives shortly after polls closed nationwide at 10 p.m. EST.
Martin conceded defeat and said he would step down as head of the party, though remain in Parliament to represent the Montreal seat he won again. It was an unusual move to do both on the same night, but Martin appeared upbeat and eager to continue to fight the Conservatives from the opposition benches of the House.
"I have just called Stephen Harper and I've offered him my congratulations," Martin told a subdued crowd at his headquarters in Montreal. "We differ on many things, but we all share a believe in the potential and the progress of Canada."
The Conservative victory ended more than a decade of Liberal Party rule and shifted the traditionally liberal country to the right on socio-economic issues such as health care, taxation, abortion and gay marriage.
Many Canadians had grown weary of the broken promises and corruption scandals under the Liberal Party and were apparently willing to give Harper the benefit of doubt, despite fears the 46-year-old economist was too extreme in his views opposing abortion and gay marriage.
During the campaign, Harper pledged to cut the red tape in social welfare programs, lower the national sales tax from 7 percent to 5 percent and grant more autonomy and federal funding to Canada's 13 provinces and territories.
The Liberals have angered Washington in recent years, condemning the war in Iraq, refusing to join the continental anti-ballistic missile plan and criticizing President Bush for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions and enacting punitive Canadian lumber tariffs.
Martin, 67, had trumpeted eight consecutive budget surpluses and sought to paint Harper as a right-winger posing as a moderate to woo mainstream voters. He claimed Harper supports the war in Iraq, which most Canadians oppose, and would try to outlaw abortion and overturn gay marriage.
Harper denied those claims and said Sunday that Martin had failed to swing voters against him.
"Canadians can disagree, but it takes a lot to get Canadians to intensely hate something or hate somebody. And it usually involves hockey," Harper quipped.
Voters cast ballots at 60,000 polling stations amid unseasonably mild winter weather. Turnout from the country's 22.7 million registered voters was expected to be better than the 60 percent of the June 2004 election, the lowest number since 1898.
William Azaroff, 35, voted for the left-of-center New Democratic Party but conceded a Conservative government was likely to win.
"I think it's a shame," said the business manager from Vancouver, British Columbia. "I think the last government was actually quite effective for Canadians. I think a Conservative government is just a backlash against certain corruption and the sense of entitlement."
Martin's government and the 308-member House of Commons were dissolved in November after New Democrats defected from the governing coalition to support the Conservatives in a no-confidence vote amid a corruption scandal involving the misuse of funds for a national unity program in Quebec.
An investigation absolved the prime minister of wrongdoing but accused senior Liberals of taking kickbacks and misspending tens of millions of dollars in public funds.
Just as campaigning hit full swing over the Christmas holidays, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced they were investigating a possible leak by Liberal government officials that appeared to have influenced the stock market.
When the 38th Parliament was dissolved, the Liberals had 133 seats, the Conservatives had 98, the Quebec separatist party Bloc Quebecois had 53 and the New Democrats had 18. There also were four Independents and two vacancies.
solipsta
01-24-06, 12:58 AM
Happy that there was a Conservative minority, but I was hoping the NDP would hold the balance...they're just off.
As for me, I voted Green. :D I wanted to give them the extra funding for next time around. I'd like to see them have a bigger presence in the next election just to add some variety. I would have voted Conservative if the race here was closer, but it never is in my riding. The Conservatives always win here with a huge majority...I think it was 70% this time around.
Atreus
01-24-06, 01:11 AM
I'm just glad I live in Atlantic Canada so I won't be blamed when the Conservatives really turn Canada into America Jr. (no offense America Sr :D)
eXcentris
01-24-06, 02:21 AM
Results in my riding:
Bloc Québécois Maria Mourani 19,428 38.9
Conservative Étienne Morin 6,089 12.2
Green Party Lynette Tremblay 1,836 3.7
Liberal Eleni Bakopanos 18,594 37.3
Marxist-Leninist Marsha Fine 0 0.0
N.D.P. Caroline Desrosiers 3,948 7.9
Total number of valid votes: 49,895
Looks like there weren't many Marxist-Leninists in my riding. :lol:
Had I known it was going to be that close between Liberal and Bloc in my riding I might have voted Bloc. That silly Liberal woman had the nerve to call me last week to ask if she could count on my vote. I came very close to replying " unless your offering free blowjobs hell no". :)
sjrab16
01-24-06, 02:38 AM
If I was the head of the Democratic Party, I would have Michael Moore come out and say that he wants the Republican candidate to win the election. Maybe then the democrats will have a chance to win.
Tommy Ceez
01-24-06, 04:26 AM
What the hell is a riding?
classicman2
01-24-06, 06:55 AM
Yahoo News:
Canadians elect weak Conservative government
By Janet Guttsman and David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadians elected their first Conservative government in 12 years, but gave the party a far-from-decisive mandate to push through its agenda of tax cuts, extra military spending and better ties with Washington.
____________________
Notice the use of the word 'weak.' Apparently Reuters has already made a determination.
ivelostr2
01-24-06, 07:43 AM
What the hell is a riding?
I've been wondering that for 2 pages, glad someone asked, I thoguht I was just dumb...
wendersfan
01-24-06, 08:02 AM
What the hell is a riding?It's Britspeak for legislative district.
huzefa
01-24-06, 08:03 AM
I've been wondering that for 2 pages, glad someone asked, I thoguht I was just dumb...
Riding = Electoral district. It's going to be an interesting time to be Canadian..... finally! ;)
Note the interesting disproportionality between the votes received and seats won by the BQ and NDP.
wendersfan
01-24-06, 08:22 AM
But eXcentris is not a Brit. ;)Have you looked at any Canadian currency lately? :lol:
Tracer Bullet
01-24-06, 08:54 AM
The Independent party gets 0.5% of the vote and 1 seat, but the Green party gets 4.5% and no seats? How does that work?
wendersfan
01-24-06, 08:56 AM
The Independent party gets 0.5% of the vote and 1 seat, but the Green party gets 4.5% and no seats? How does that work?The Independent votes were concentrated in a few districts (ridings), while the Green vote was more spread out. Like I said, note the NDP and BQ vote/seats disproportionality.
solipsta
01-24-06, 10:00 AM
I hope that the new govt makes electoral reform somewhat of a priority. Something more proportional is definitely needed in this country.
huzefa
01-24-06, 11:04 AM
I hope that the new govt makes electoral reform somewhat of a priority. Something more proportional is definitely needed in this country.
Unless you count moving all the NDP supporters into 1 riding, I don't really see a solution to that. People will live whereever they want, and they will have to vote in that riding. The only real way to change the system is to assign a number of seats to a particular party based on the number of votes it gets nationwide, but if u do that, you've basically gotten rid of individual candidates. It's not a perfect system, but I'm OK with it for now.
wendersfan
01-24-06, 11:29 AM
Unless you count moving all the NDP supporters into 1 riding, I don't really see a solution to that. People will live whereever they want, and they will have to vote in that riding. The only real way to change the system is to assign a number of seats to a particular party based on the number of votes it gets nationwide, but if u do that, you've basically gotten rid of individual candidates. It's not a perfect system, but I'm OK with it for now.There are other ways of distributing legislative seats more in proportion with votes received, but short of some sort of groundswell of public outrage over disproportionality, there's no reason why either the Liberals nor Conservatives would change the system, since doing so would mean fewer seats for them.
cultshock
01-24-06, 12:47 PM
Yahoo News:
Canadians elect weak Conservative government
By Janet Guttsman and David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadians elected their first Conservative government in 12 years, but gave the party a far-from-decisive mandate to push through its agenda of tax cuts, extra military spending and better ties with Washington.
____________________
Notice the use of the word 'weak.' Apparently Reuters has already made a determination.
Not sure if you are serious or joking, but they are just referring to it being a minority government. :)
Breakfast with Girls
01-24-06, 12:54 PM
I watched the returns last night on CBC, and I realized a few minutes into it that I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how Canada's government works. :lol:
I did enjoy the Liberal's "soldiers in the cities" ad, however. That was classy.
Nutter
01-24-06, 01:40 PM
I watched the returns last night on CBC, and I realized a few minutes into it that I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how Canada's government works. :lol:
I did enjoy the Liberal's "soldiers in the cities" ad, however. That was classy.
While there's obviously lots of details, perhaps the most important difference between Canada's and the U.S.'s political systems is that in Canada campaign contributions from industry, etc. are capped. This means that, while campaign budgets are obviously much lower, you don't have to be a corporate schill or the heir of a billionaire to get into office. Our new PM, while far from a working class scrapper, is firmly in the middle class. He lives one neighborhood over from me, actually, in a fairly typical middle-class suburb. Or he did until last night anyways. When was the last time a middle-class president was elected in the U.S.?
Seriously, I have a lot of admiration for many aspects of the U.S. system, but this one point alone transforms it from a meritocracy, which is what any system of government, democratic or otherwise, should strive to be, into a oligarchy.
classicman2
01-24-06, 01:48 PM
When was the last time a middle-class president was elected in the U.S.?
Bill Clinton
wendersfan
01-24-06, 01:49 PM
While there's obviously lots of details, perhaps the most important difference between Canada's and the U.S.'s political systems is that in Canada campaign contributions from industry, etc. are capped.You don't think the fact that Canada has a Parliamentary system, as opposed to the Presidential system in the U.S., is maybe the most important difference?
What you just said is akin to saying the biggest difference between Ross Perot and Michael Jordan is that Perot is left-handed. :lol:
classicman2
01-24-06, 01:50 PM
You don't think the fact that Canada has a Parliamentary system, as opposed to the Presidential system in the U.S., is maybe the most important difference?
What you just said is akin to saying the biggest difference between Ross Perot and Michael Jordan is that Perot is left-handed. :lol:
:up:
wendersfan
01-24-06, 02:25 PM
BTW, the Canadian general election should be interpreted as a rejection of the <i>Liberal Party</i> as a bureaucratic entity, not a rejection of <i>liberalism</i> as an ideology. The New Democratic Party, which are social democratic in ideology and therefore well to the left of the Liberals, received 17.5% of the vote and picked up 10 seats, a 53% increase from 2004, and more than double the number of seats they had in 2000. In other words, the Liberal Party lost seats to their primary competition on the right <i>and</i> the left.
I did some analysis of the electoral system in Canada over the past three General elections. Here's what I found:
The Effective Number of Parties nationally in Canada went from 2.54 in 2000, to 3.03 in 2004, to 3.22 in 2006. This is a measure developed by the European political scientists Laakso and Taagapera, which gives a numerical approximation of how 'multiparty' a political system is. The results show that, since 2000, the power of the two major parties in Canada has decreased.
I also calculated a measure of electoral disproportionality, which represents the incongruence of votes received and seats won in the legislature. Canada, with its single-member districts and 'first past the post' electoral system, should have a relatively high level of electoral disproportionality, and it does - 13.55 in 2000, 9.86 in 2004, and 12.22 in 2006.
Nutter
01-24-06, 02:51 PM
You don't think the fact that Canada has a Parliamentary system, as opposed to the Presidential system in the U.S., is maybe the most important difference?
What you just said is akin to saying the biggest difference between Ross Perot and Michael Jordan is that Perot is left-handed. :lol:
Okay, I stand corrected on Bill Clinton. However, can anyone honestly say they believe that George W. would be in the white house if he’d been born to Bill’s parents? As for the differences between Canada’s and the U.S.’s systems, I say look at the end result, not how we get there. The accessibility to power and upwards social mobility in Canada make leaders from the middle class the rule rather than the exception.
wendersfan
01-24-06, 02:58 PM
Okay, I stand corrected on Bill Clinton. However, can anyone honestly say they believe that George W. would be in the white house if he’d been born to Bill’s parents? As for the differences between Canada’s and the U.S.’s systems, I say look at the end result, not how we get there. The accessibility to power and upwards social mobility in Canada make leaders from the middle class the rule rather than the exception.And I'll contend that it's still because of the parliamentary system instead of the presidential system. In a parliamentary system, politicians rise through the ranks to national prominence, by working within the legislature to gain power. This doesn't happen much in the US, except over exaggerated periods of time. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush would have risen to power in Canada, since each were 'provincial' executives, rather than legislators.
In a parliamentary system politicians become national leaders through the support of their legislative peers. No amount of money can buy that. In a presidential system (particularly the one here) a long, illustrious legislative career can actually be a hindrance to national power.
DVD Polizei
01-24-06, 03:29 PM
It seems like the big issue is not Conservative vs. Liberal in Canada, but Incumbent Corruption. Canadians were tired of the continued corruption of an incumbent government.
Which is why in 2008, the US will have a Democratic President. :)
sjrab16
01-24-06, 04:16 PM
It seems like the big issue is not Conservative vs. Liberal in Canada, but Incumbent Corruption. Canadians were tired of the continued corruption of an incumbent government.
Which is why in 2008, the US will have a Democratic President. :)
hahaha, that is funny. Right, that was a joke.
eXcentris
01-24-06, 04:19 PM
I'm voting for wendersfan in the next election. :)
Nutter
01-24-06, 05:34 PM
And I'll contend that it's still because of the parliamentary system instead of the presidential system. In a parliamentary system, politicians rise through the ranks to national prominence, by working within the legislature to gain power. This doesn't happen much in the US, except over exaggerated periods of time. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush would have risen to power in Canada, since each were 'provincial' executives, rather than legislators.
In a parliamentary system politicians become national leaders through the support of their legislative peers. No amount of money can buy that. In a presidential system (particularly the one here) a long, illustrious legislative career can actually be a hindrance to national power.
Well, to a certain extend I'd agree. There are exceptions. Belinda Stronach somehow managed to go from running daddy's company to a cabinet position in about a year, changing party colors in the process. If things had gone differently and she had won the leadership race for the tories we could very well have this for our PM:
Granted, she looks a lot less like hamburgler crossed with Dilbert than Harper does, but wow. Imagine how the country would be run by someone who hasn't even served a single term, dropped out of her *first-year* in university, has no real work experience other than managing daddy's company, and can't say two unscripted words in an interview! This could have been our PM!
So how did she get up so high so fast anyways? Well, dating the former leader of the old conservative party and, reportedly, helping get them together with the reformers was probably how she almost rose to the very top of the PC ranks. Fortunately, the party chose a qualified leader even though they knew Stronach probably would have been far less "scary" to skittish Eastern voters. She was relegated to the back bench to get some experience, which is precisely where a complete neophyte belongs. Anyone else in her shoes would have served out a few terms, got some experience, and tried again. Instead, she got her cabinet position by defecting to the liberals just when the tories had Martin by the balls. In the end she only delayed the election by six months, but still, from zero to cabinet in one year flat. That's bloody amazing! Arguably her money played a small role by hiring strategists and script writers to do the thinking for her, but still, her good looks and single-mom/successful-buisiness-exec image (regardless of the fact that she inherited Magna) was campaign-trail gold. Her riding ate it up.
So politicians can rise pretty high without paying their dues in Canada, but money alone can't do it. It takes sex-appeal and glamour!
Shazam
01-24-06, 07:01 PM
I'll take her instead:
http://www.helenaguergis.com/
I consider Stronach to be a bit of an anomaly. The mere fact that she's a woman helped her out considerably with the Liberal party, seeing as how they love their facade of being "inclusive", even though the whole party is run by old white guys giving each other taxpayer money hand over fist.
I'm curious with what the new Federal Accountability Act will reveal. There's talk that AdScam was merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of Liberal corruption.
BKenn01
01-26-06, 10:12 PM
Quote:
When was the last time a middle-class president was elected in the U.S.?
Bill Clinton
:wtf:
Yea, they guy who's cronies think your rich when you cross the poverty line.
News to Fat Ass Moore. You are in bad shape when Liberals cant win Canada.
BKenn01
01-26-06, 10:18 PM
Which is why in 2008, the US will have a Democratic President.
Certainly not looking good for Hillary
51% would definitley not vote for her. BTW a GALLUP poll
News to Fat Ass Moore. You are in bad shape when Liberals cant win Canada.
The Conservatives didn't win the election (except in the redneck bible belt - particularly most parts of Alberta - , where they absolutely routed all others (which, by the way, says a lot about the majority of people from there - baaa baaa)); the Liberals lost.
It is unfortunate the NDP never seems to make significant gains, but the situation strikes me as somewhat similar to the last two U.S. elections: An immobile conservative base (why else are they called conservatives? They're not open to alternatives), with the other parties fighting for the remainder, and nervous nellies staying with the Liberals. Luckily, in Canada we have a much smaller population of "from my cold, dead hands" types, so the pickings for the non-Cons are much larger. Nevertheless, the Liberals pulled the same fallacious accusatory tactic against the NDP here as the Democrats used against Nader in the States: "How dare you run for office! You are enabling the enemy".
Considering the endless scandals to befall the Liberals, Harper should find this nominal win a great humiliation. And if he tries anything unpopular (pulling out of Kyoto; signing to missile defence; abortion abrogation; abolishment of gay marriage), he won't have time to unpack in the prime minister's residence before he's out the door. If he plays it smart by being moderate, and doing things like sending truckloads of deserving cash to Ontario (to at least partially redress the $23 billion fiscal disparity) and the cities, he has a chance of surviving.
As for the Liberal leadership, Stronach would be an embarrassing mistake, and Ignatieff is the wrong choice right now. Both are far too green. Bob Rae is a possibility, but he has too much baggage. Tobin might work, but not much has been seen of him since he burst into the spotlight a decade ago. I think McKenna is the best option. He has experience, charisma, and presence, and he doesn't take any bullshit, as he proved as U.S. ambassador.
X
01-27-06, 12:37 AM
Bill ClintonI'm trying hard to refrain from calling him "No-Class".
Oops.
X
01-27-06, 12:39 AM
I'm kind of puzzled about this...
Gore accuses big oil of bankrolling Tories
Election laws only allow $1,000 corporate donations
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
Darcie Park, spokeswoman for oilsands giant Suncor Energy, said she's taken aback by Gore's remarks and hopes they don't resonate with Canadians.
"Our company just doesn't do business that way. We're really puzzled about where these comments came from," she said.
"Canadians understand how elections work in Canada and understand there are these very tight restrictions around what individuals and companies can contribute to individual parties or campaigns."
The federal Elections Act limits how much money individuals, corporations and unions can donate to political parties. Individuals are allowed to give as much as $5,000 a year, while companies and unions are capped at $1,000 a year.
In their election platform, the Conservatives promised to further limit individual donations to a maximum of $1,000 and ban all donations from corporations, unions and organizations.
Parties and candidates are required to make public any contributions exceeding $200.
While John Bennett, senior policy adviser for Sierra Club of Canada, isn't certain of how much oil companies and their executives donate to the Conservatives, he's noticed their language on Kyoto is similar.
"They've talked about the need for a made-in-Canada plan, which is exactly the terminology Stephen Harper used," Bennett said. "They've talked about targets for Kyoto being unreachable -- that's similar."
Gore warned that Harper wants to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord, which the United States signed under former president Bill Clinton, but has refused to ratify under President George W. Bush.
"Hopefully that will not happen thanks to the minority victory," Gore said of Canada's involvement in Kyoto.
Gore believes the issue of the oilsands and the sway he contends the industry holds with Harper didn't garner news coverage during the election because "media concentration has taken a toll on democratic principles around the world, and Canada is no exception."
Even if the Conservatives want to abandon Kyoto, Bennett doesn't think they will pull out because polls have shown a majority of Canadians support the agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely believed to contribute to global warming.
He expects, however, Harper will make little effort to fulfil the country's Kyoto commitment: Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990's mark by 2012. He also predicts the Tories will halt Liberal plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large industries, such as oil firms.
"They changed the messaging, but they haven't changed their opinion," Bennett said.
"I see them moving a lot closer to the Bush government. Talk a lot, but do nothing."
Gore accuses big oil of bankrolling Tories
Election laws only allow $1,000 corporate donations
Renata D'Aliesio and Katherine Monk
Calgary Herald; CanWest News Service
Thursday, January 26, 2006
CREDIT: Herald Archive, Associated Press
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," said former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
Darcie Park, spokeswoman for oilsands giant Suncor Energy, said she's taken aback by Gore's remarks and hopes they don't resonate with Canadians.
"Our company just doesn't do business that way. We're really puzzled about where these comments came from," she said.
"Canadians understand how elections work in Canada and understand there are these very tight restrictions around what individuals and companies can contribute to individual parties or campaigns."
The federal Elections Act limits how much money individuals, corporations and unions can donate to political parties. Individuals are allowed to give as much as $5,000 a year, while companies and unions are capped at $1,000 a year.
In their election platform, the Conservatives promised to further limit individual donations to a maximum of $1,000 and ban all donations from corporations, unions and organizations.
Parties and candidates are required to make public any contributions exceeding $200.
While John Bennett, senior policy adviser for Sierra Club of Canada, isn't certain of how much oil companies and their executives donate to the Conservatives, he's noticed their language on Kyoto is similar.
"They've talked about the need for a made-in-Canada plan, which is exactly the terminology Stephen Harper used," Bennett said. "They've talked about targets for Kyoto being unreachable -- that's similar."
Gore warned that Harper wants to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord, which the United States signed under former president Bill Clinton, but has refused to ratify under President George W. Bush.
"Hopefully that will not happen thanks to the minority victory," Gore said of Canada's involvement in Kyoto.
Gore believes the issue of the oilsands and the sway he contends the industry holds with Harper didn't garner news coverage during the election because "media concentration has taken a toll on democratic principles around the world, and Canada is no exception."
Even if the Conservatives want to abandon Kyoto, Bennett doesn't think they will pull out because polls have shown a majority of Canadians support the agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely believed to contribute to global warming.
He expects, however, Harper will make little effort to fulfil the country's Kyoto commitment: Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990's mark by 2012. He also predicts the Tories will halt Liberal plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large industries, such as oil firms.
"They changed the messaging, but they haven't changed their opinion," Bennett said.
"I see them moving a lot closer to the Bush government. Talk a lot, but do nothing."
Wow, Mr. Oil seems to be involved in everything. -ohbfrank-
sorry for the redundant post...when I posted this post the above post had not been posted....post.....post.
X
01-27-06, 12:52 AM
sorry for the redundant post...when I posted this post the above post had not been posted....post.....post.Yes, I've asked Matt Drudge to email me alerts so I could post some of the hundreds of stories a week that make their way here first. If it isn't posted on Drudge, it just didn't happen!
DivxGuy
01-27-06, 01:57 AM
Nope!
Heck, I'm 90% sure I'm gonna vote conservative tomorrow. :)
I voted Tory, as did my mom and my sister-in-law.
Nutter
01-27-06, 02:53 AM
The Conservatives didn't win the election (except in the redneck bible belt - particularly most parts of Alberta - , where they absolutely routed all others (which, by the way, says a lot about the majority of people from there - baaa baaa)); the Liberals lost.
It is unfortunate the NDP never seems to make significant gains, but the situation strikes me as somewhat similar to the last two U.S. elections:
While many misinformed easterners believe Alberta is staunchly pro-conservative, the NDP actually got a significant portion of the popular vote here despite running woefully inadequate candidates in many ridings. The NDP candidate in my riding was *19* years old! Any party that would run candidates who would have to break off their education just as its beginning cannot legitimately claim to be a "national" party. If the NDP wants seats in Alberta, they need to run serious candidates. The Liberals have likewise been a strictly regional party for many years now, writing off the west as a hopeless cause. Martin spent a fraction of one day campaigning in Alberta, and probably only that much because he was trying to look like he wasn't running a regional campaign to the region he had a hope of winning seats in. The evil, scary, conservatives with their "secret hidden agenda" are now less regional than the Liberals.
It's actually quite a humorous election result. For pretty much the first time ever we have a government elected by the rest of Canada rather than just Ontario. Ontario helped, but this time they didn't do it by themselves. As the population of Canada becomes less and less concentrated in Ontario this is probably going to keep happening more and more. Hopefully the west and other regions of the country that have traditionally been starved of government funding, contracts etc. will finally get some of the wealth typically spent buying votes only in Ontario and Quebec.
P.S. That "redneck bible belt" leader you love to villify, Stephen Harper, was born and raised in Ontario!
Tommy Ceez
01-27-06, 08:54 AM
Okay, I stand corrected on Bill Clinton. However, can anyone honestly say they believe that George W. would be in the white house if he’d been born to Bill’s parents?
What does this mean?
wendersfan
01-27-06, 09:00 AM
What does this mean?I would assume it means that our current president wasn't ambitious enough as a young man to have become president without family help. I would agree, but I don't mean that as a slam on President Bush. It's hard to imagine President Eisenhower as being that ambitious (politically) to become president in the way someone like Presidents Johnson, Nixon, or Clinton did.
classicman2
01-27-06, 09:17 AM
Question: What has Dwight Eisenhower got to do with Michael Moore urges Canadians not vot conservative on Monday? :D:
Thor Simpson
01-27-06, 10:16 AM
<B>Recount imminent in Canadian election</B> after confusion over which voters were booing the left wing candidates and which voters were, in fact, booing the booers. "Boo to you" punch cards will be replaced with electronic touch screens, allowing voters to more easily give the finger to the candidate they oppose.
Nutter
01-27-06, 05:14 PM
<B>Recount imminent in Canadian election</B> after confusion over which voters were booing the left wing candidates and which voters were, in fact, booing the booers. "Boo to you" punch cards will be replaced with electronic touch screens, allowing voters to more easily give the finger to the candidate they oppose.
:scratch2:
P.S. Canadian elections have never used punch cards.
X
01-27-06, 05:18 PM
P.S. Canadian elections have never used punch cards.What did they record votes on in the past? Beaver pelts?
huzefa
01-27-06, 07:18 PM
What did they record votes on in the past? Beaver pelts?
If they used all the beaver pelts for voting, what would they use to keep warm at night?
The Canadian ballot is a piece of paper with names on it (party affiliation written underneath) and a big white circle to the right of the names. Pencil an X next to the person you are voting for.
If they used all the beaver pelts for voting, what would they use to keep warm at night?
The Canadian ballot is a piece of paper with names on it (party affiliation written underneath) and a big white circle to the right of the names. Pencil an X next to the person you are voting for.
While mechanized and electronic voting systems may well be more efficient in some aspects, they are currently more prone to error and tampering. (e.g. the Diebold fiasco) In a representation system like Canada where there is, typically, one vote every four years there's no real need to automate. Eventually I think electronic voting will be adopted even in Canada, but the security needs to be both bullet-proof and open to public scrutiny. (i.e. Closed source "security through obscurity" is not acceptable for this application) To date, I haven't seen any electronic voting system even begin to approach either of these these criteria. (Diebold's most certainly included)
Bushdog
01-27-06, 10:02 PM
Results in my riding:
Bloc Québécois Maria Mourani 19,428 38.9
Conservative Étienne Morin 6,089 12.2
Green Party Lynette Tremblay 1,836 3.7
Liberal Eleni Bakopanos 18,594 37.3
Marxist-Leninist Marsha Fine 0 0.0
N.D.P. Caroline Desrosiers 3,948 7.9
Total number of valid votes: 49,895
Looks like there weren't many Marxist-Leninists in my riding. :lol:
Had I known it was going to be that close between Liberal and Bloc in my riding I might have voted Bloc. That silly Liberal woman had the nerve to call me last week to ask if she could count on my vote. I came very close to replying " unless your offering free blowjobs hell no". :) I thought that BQ did better than 40% in all of Quebec making your district less fucked up than many of the others. ;)
That's a joke I pull my paycheck from a Montreal headquarted company and have warm feelings for the Quebecois every other Friday. :wub:
Goldblum
01-27-06, 10:22 PM
What did they record votes on in the past? Beaver pelts?
:lol:
Nutter
01-27-06, 10:57 PM
I thought that BQ did better than 40% in all of Quebec making your district less fucked up than many of the others. ;)
That's a joke I pull my paycheck from a Montreal headquarted company and have warm feelings for the Quebecois every other Friday. :wub:
I've talked to more than one Quebec'er who votes Bloc but wants to stay in Canada. I just don't understand it myself. They might claim it's a protest vote, but that's bull. There's plenty of parties to vote for. Pick one that's not dedicated to breaking up the country. If you like being in Canada but can't find anyone you want to vote for, spoil your ballot as a protest ballot instead of electing a separatist. It's not rocket science.
What's up with separatists anyways? Let's compare Alberta to Quebec. Quebec has smaller riding sizes by a good 10%. That's 10% more political power per capita, just for being in Quebec. Alberta pays more to Ottawa and gets less back than any other provice. Quebec gets more than they put in. There hasn't been a PM born in Alberta since Joe Clark, and he wasn't exactly in power for long. Quebec has been the birth place of every single PM since Joe Clark. What are the odds of that happening? If a PM is born and raised in Quebec, that's the natural order of things. If he picked up a university degree in Alberta he's a scary western radical who shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of the PM's office. Alberta has a great economy thanks to abundant natural resources, low taxes and political stability. Quebec has abundant natural resources, but their economy still sucks because of all the political instability the separatists are continually stirring up. On top of that, Quebec has wheedled all sorts of concessions out of Ottawa, has it's own police force, and the rest of the country even puts up with its draconian language laws so as not to set off the separatists. What's the response of voters in these two provinces to all this? There's not one elected separatist, or even a separatist party that actually runs candidates in Alberta. "Western Alienation" is little more than a catch-phrase. Quebec on the other hand...
wendersfan
01-27-06, 11:01 PM
I've talked to more than one Quebec'er who votes Bloc but wants to stay in Canada. I just don't understand it myself. They might claim it's a protest vote, but that's bull. There's plenty of parties to vote for. Pick one that's not dedicated to breaking up the country. If you like being in Canada but can't find anyone you want to vote for, spoil your ballot as a protest ballot instead of electing a separatist. It's not rocket science.
What's up with separatists anyways? Let's compare Alberta to Quebec. Quebec has smaller riding sizes by a good 10%. That's 10% more political power per capita, just for being in Quebec. Alberta pays more to Ottawa and gets less back than any other provice. Quebec gets more than they put in. There hasn't been a PM born in Alberta since Joe Clark, and he wasn't exactly in power for long. Quebec has been the birth place of every single PM since Joe Clark. What are the odds of that happening? If a PM is born and raised in Quebec, that's the natural order of things. If he picked up a university degree in Alberta he's a scary western radical who shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of the PM's office. Alberta has a great economy thanks to abundant natural resources, low taxes and political stability. Quebec has abundant natural resources, but their economy still sucks because of all the political instability the separatists are continually stirring up. On top of that, Quebec has wheedled all sorts of concessions out of Ottawa, has it's own police force, and the rest of the country even puts up with its draconian language laws so as not to set off the separatists. What's the response of voters in these two provinces to all this? There's not one elected separatist, or even a separatist party that actually runs candidates in Alberta. "Western Alienation" is little more than a catch-phrase. Quebec on the other hand...
I don't know a lot about Canadian politics, but based on what I do know, this was an excellent summary. :up:
eXcentris
01-27-06, 11:22 PM
Quebec has abundant natural resources, but their economy still sucks because of all the political instability the separatists are continually stirring up.
I'm gonna have to file that one up into the same stereotypical category as "the scary rednecks from Alberta". The Quebec separatists haven't "stirred up" anything worth mentionning for 20 years. The state of the Quebec economy has little to nothing to do with separatists. The rest of your summary is about right although you cannot paint a comparison between quebec and any other province based strictly on economic terms. The main issue is language and culture.
Bushdog
01-27-06, 11:29 PM
Do you think Quebec is better off for being part of Canada or no? My limited understanding is that financially they get more than they give.
As for preservation of the culture or not, dangerous argument that I want no part of.
cultshock
01-28-06, 11:52 PM
The Canadian ballot is a piece of paper with names on it (party affiliation written underneath) and a big white circle to the right of the names. Pencil an X next to the person you are voting for.
I hadn't voted in years, and was surprised on Monday to find that the old "pencil an X" system was still in place. Oh well, if it ain't broke.... :lol:
bub2000
01-30-06, 08:46 PM
[QUOTE=Bushdog]Do you think Quebec is better off for being part of Canada or no? My limited understanding is that financially they get more than they give.QUOTE]
So does Toronto, but you don't see us threatening to leave.
Any ideas of a city-state are quickly ignored...
Norm de Plume
01-30-06, 08:57 PM
While many misinformed easterners believe Alberta is staunchly pro-conservative
You seem to be the misinformed one. I had a look at the vote tallies for all 300-odd ridings in the country. Alberta was the only place that elected only Cons, and where almost every riding (except for a couple in and around Edmonton, where it was slightly less lopsided) was overwhelmingly Conservative (a euphamism for Alliance/Reform). We're talking results of circa 35,000 to 5,000 for the closest competitor in many zones. That is a monolithic voting bloc. Ontario and B.C. had the most diverse results. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/electionnight/index.html
The NDP candidate in my riding was *19* years old! Any party that would run candidates who would have to break off their education just as its beginning cannot legitimately claim to be a "national" party. If the NDP wants seats in Alberta, they need to run serious candidates. The Liberals have likewise been a strictly regional party for many years now, writing off the west as a hopeless cause.
Agreed, a 19-year-old is not a serious candidate, but, given the history of the province and its people, maybe the other parties have indeed stopped bothering.
The evil, scary, conservatives with their "secret hidden agenda" are now less regional than the Liberals.
Nonsense, but the gap has closed. Harper and his people either have changed their extremist views (unlikely), a good proportion of the voters were bamboozled (partially true), or the many people who simply wanted to oust the Libs have two-party tunnelvision (partially true).
As the population of Canada becomes less and less concentrated in Ontario this is probably going to keep happening more and more. Hopefully the west and other regions of the country that have traditionally been starved of government funding, contracts etc. will finally get some of the wealth typically spent buying votes only in Ontario and Quebec.
Thumbs up to the first sentence, but the rest is utter garbage. In case you have missed watching the news in the past couple of years, Ontario and Alberta are the only two "have" (not running a deficit) provinces in the country. Yes, that self-absorbed, centre-of-the-universe, arrogant, debauched province in the middle that the rest of the country loves to hate is subsidizing the federation to the tune of $23 billion a year; which we are happy to do to some extent, but we want some of our money back. Fucking ingrates.
P.S. That "redneck bible belt" leader you love to villify, Stephen Harper, was born and raised in Ontario!
You don't say.-rolleyes- My coarse, condescending generalization of Albertans was out of line; there are many antediluvian types in Ontario as well. But Harper, although he was born and spent his childhood here, is distinctly western, and studied under far-right figures in Calgary, just as several of Bush's closest cronies were proteges of Leo Strauss.
I wonder how Harper will reconcile his anti-Canadianism with his obligation to fight the Bush government for the rights of industries in "his part of the country". Maybe he'll go on FOX again, and express his profuse apologies and blandishments, or maybe his friend Bush will do him strategic favours.
See, the tone identification takes here in Ontario is Canadian. In contrast to many parts of the country, there is never the sense that we are from a region. We belong to the country. But with the continuing disrespect and envy, that is starting to change.
Buy: