Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[bloodzombie]

First of all troll King, Martin did not cooperate with Chretien for a long time so no I dont think he was against it because I see that he plans to have the anti-nuclear missiles defense. Secondly, look at the ``sondage`` (dunno the english word) and he is in a BIG lead and when I need big it means big. Also, yes it will change them troll king because he is more liberalist than Chretien. The point I wanted to do is that most countries dont vote with their head because they dont seem implicated enough in politics.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know anything about canadian politics, but I see a weird gap in logic here... he had plans to have an anti-nuclear missile defense, therefore he supports the US invasion of iraq?

could be a language thing, or maybe I'm missing something.

[lunch3]

fuck, lost a page!

oh well, BZ, I read Mattey's link, don't understand how our people got brainwashed like that, I wasn't, although I'm sure Saddam and Al Qaeda might have discussed stuff like safe passage through Iraq or 'can i hide here?' and simple stuff like that.

I agree with you BZ, don't understand most of what Elmo writes, and lost how I translated what he says, like encrypting hyroclephics, spelled wrong?

What is Canada's red and green party, is it like our republican (right wing ie conservative) and democratic party (left wing ie liberal) or something different? Our Green Party is a small wasted vote of an independent party that is mostly just for environment. Democrats more like environmentalists than republicans are.

What is a "sondage" Elmo?

I don't know shit about Canadian politics except that their acceptance of gay marriage sparked our present politics of such here in US.

Sarien, thankyou for site and explaination. I could look for itself myself, but it seemed fair that since all we talked about Bush that Kerry should be talked about too in this forum, will respond later about what I think of Kerry as I do more research.

[Troll King]

Canada runs on a parliamentary system where every the country is divided into regions with each region voting in a representative. The party with the most representatives elected becomes the government and the leader of the party becomes Prime Minister.

There are several parties, but 4 or 5 relatively "major" parties. The Progressive Conservatives (AKA the Tories) and the Canadian Alliance are both considered to be on the right, though the Alliance farther right than the Tories. They have recently united to form the Conservative Party of Canada. On the left you have the New Democatic Party (NDP). The Liberals (also known as the grits) are currently in power, though you have to be careful when using the term "liberal". They are considered moderates (unlike in the States where the term is used to refer to left wing politics). There is also the Bloc Quebecois, which is a seperatist group based mainly in Quebec. They are a mix of socialists and nationalists and don't really fit into the conventional political spectrum.

Generally, the Canadian political spectrum is farter left of the American one; the Democrats would still be considered to be far right in Canada. Canadians tend to be centrists as a collective. The most successful Canadian Prime Ministers are usually the ones that are able to build a compromise between opposing sides.

I know, that might seem confusing, but with politics, things are rarely straight-forward.


If you want another look at how our politics are spread in Canada, take a look here:
http://www.tomifobia.com/belford/can...politics.shtml
It's a bit out-dated but it's humourous and probably explains things better than I did.

[Melo]

I ment by that about anti-nuclear example that Chretien did not agree about it so Martin seems more cooperative with Bush but I could be wrong. A sondage is when you call lots of people to estimate votes.

[Troll King]

The English word for it is "poll".

[J4D3D]

the green party isn't going to win, and the majority of the votes that they get would be democratic votes if nader wasn't running.

There are rumours that the Canadian Green party is quietly pointing their voters toward the New Democratic Party in an effort to amalgamate interests while still in minority gov't.
It's the same thing in Canada, there's basically two major parties that have fought for control throughout the last half-century. However, one of those parties (the current secondary gov't) recently adopted a disgraced, far-right political vacuum known as the Alliance in a characteristically despondent effort to increase their numbers at the polls. The Tories (if we can even call them that anymore) are headed for extinction. It will be a real fuckup for Canada if we give majority back to the Tories!!


JUST SAY NO TO STEVEN HARPER!

[Mantra-Slider]

why are you talking about Canada?

[lunch3]

Ok I went through Kerry's website and did a little bit of research.

1) He plans to finish job in Iraq, just as Bush. He seems though that he will do less in Iraq than Bush is doing. I recalled a statement, paraphrased, where he said "we need to stop building fire houses in Iraq and start building them here [in the US]". This is the type of selfishness I was talking about, although our security can be better, it has already improved a lot. And with a bombing occurring EVERY DAY in Iraq, and we haven't had a successful terrorist attack in US since 9/11, doesn't it make more sense that Iraq needs more firehouses and we don't, and that this in long term will fight terrorism worldwide and better stabilize our wanting alliance with a democratic and free Iraq in the future?

2) I see all these things where Kerry wants to spend more money on homeland security, education, environment, military, and our labor industry mostly. He basically keeps saying he is going to increase more funding for this stuff, but he never says where he is going to take money out from it except, so far from what I read, he might take some of it out from reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) Kerry wants to restore 'bilateral' talks with North Korea like North Korea wants, instead of having 'international' talks (ie international is where more countries like China and Russia that have influence on North korea are involved with talks too and at table) that North Korea at first said it wouldn't participate and is or was now but very slowly and in procrastinational way. This is how I look at it, if we keep Bush the rest of the world will sooner or later join US in confronting North Korea to stop its WMD development programs, which in end might lead to war that might be costly (but I think needed) to help the North Korean people from 'Big Brother', starvation, execution, and brainwashing. If we vote for Kerry we will sign and approve treaty with North Korea to stop WMD program. But North Korea will almost still pursue it secretly and we will one day pay for it when a bomb goes off. Plus North Korean people will continue to live in hell.

Yeah, so now I feel more strongly about voting for Bush.

PS Saw Richard Clarke on the Daily Show, he seems very assholic, wants to sell his book, and is the type of person that thinks 'my way or the highway'. He keeps saying he warned Bush about Al Qaeda, and I believe he did, but he isn't an anti-terrorism official...officially, and as such wouldn't myself listened to him as well as I would have listened to my actual anti-terrorism secretary. In end I don't think any of us were prepared for Al Qaeda and we have no right to blame our government for failing to protect us because they are only human like the rest of us. They have protected us since then with excellent deterence and much better security checks than before.

[bloodzombie]

Ok I went through Kerry's website and did a little bit of research.

2) I see all these things where Kerry wants to spend more money on homeland security, education, environment, military, and our labor industry mostly. He basically keeps saying he is going to increase more funding for this stuff, but he never says where he is going to take money out from it except, so far from what I read, he might take some of it out from reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm leaving work in a second so I don't have time to do this right, but I just wanted to point out this one thing...

he plans on raising taxes on the wealthy back to the level they were at in the clinton years, and he also plans on taxing corporations doing business overseas, where they were previously avoiding taxation. this will bring in more money, and also in theory discourage people from moving the jobs out of the US.

[Sarien]

1) He plans to finish job in Iraq, just as Bush. He seems though that he will do less in Iraq than Bush is doing. I recalled a statement, paraphrased, where he said "we need to stop building fire houses in Iraq and start building them here [in the US]". This is the type of selfishness I was talking about, although our security can be better, it has already improved a lot. And with a bombing occurring EVERY DAY in Iraq, and we haven't had a successful terrorist attack in US since 9/11, doesn't it make more sense that Iraq needs more firehouses and we don't, and that this in long term will fight terrorism worldwide and better stabilize our wanting alliance with a democratic and free Iraq in the future?

I wasn't going to reply to this, but I can't really help myself. I feel almost baited into it.. but.. still. The quote isn't about starting anything. He said: "We shouldn't be closing firehouses in Brooklyn and opening them in Baghdad" and it is one hundred percent absolutely correct. I take umbrage at it being called "selfishness". As a matter of fact, it pisses me off, to an extraordinary degree. Have you ever known what it means to be poor? Or to be hungry and not be able to do much about it? You may call wanting to take care of the citizens within your own borders first selfish, in real life however.. that's called: Common Sense. There are people here that have to borrow money from the government or get assistance from the government just to be able to have heat through the winter. My neighbors and my damn friends, that suffer because their jobs have gone to another country. How nice it must be to be able to vote and reside in a position of relative safety such as yours. I wish I could entertain the same peace of mind that would call such people selfish. I already feel bad for the venom in this post, but I'm aggravated. Too many people in this country blind that our own people suffer too. Time for them to wake the fuck up.

[lunch3]

Bz, if that's what Kerry plans to do then that sways me a lot more towards Kerry, will look it up.

Sarien, I'm not poor, but not rich either, middle class family in the tens of G's in debt. But no one dies from starvation here, we actually HAVE a welfare system, 20 people don't share the same room, etc. Baghdad needs firehouses because there are fires everyday and something like 50% of Iraq is unemployed, gives them some more jobs. I LIVE in Brookjlyn, and we don't need more firehouses. If there is a fire at least 2 fire trucks get basically anywhere in this borough in something like 3 minutes. All the whiners want more firehouses so that a firetruck will reach you in 1-2 minutes. By making it that fast they might actually save 1 extra person from fire, at the expense of 100's of millions of dollars. You might say money doesn't matter when it comes to lives, think of the extra 100 people that will die in Iraq because we were yuppie selfish and wanted more firehouses.

I'm not saying we should put all of our money into Iraq, but when it comes to firehouses, wtf, try to think in the broader way of thinking and help the world that needs our help now so that we can be full partners in the future. Only thing I think needs major fixing in this country is education. Our unemployment will fix itself in 1-2 years anyways, with 10 years of success, and another 4-5 years of 'relative' depression.

[Vantage]

....

[Vantage]

....

[Vantage]

....

[THE ENFORCER]

I'm leaving work in a second so I don't have time to do this right, but I just wanted to point out this one thing...

he plans on raising taxes on the wealthy back to the level they were at in the clinton years, and he also plans on taxing corporations doing business overseas, where they were previously avoiding taxation. this will bring in more money, and also in theory discourage people from moving the jobs out of the US.

Taxing the rich is harder than you think they have alot of power so whenever someone states this i generally think they arent really going to do this and instead raise taxes to the general public (most likely case), if it actually does happen it'll be ok except it will encourage more income tax evasion and the most extreme case (but not far fetched) business owners wont open businesses because they gonna get tax to much.

You need to be more specific about "plans on taxing corporations doing business overseas" do you mean hes gonna tax US companies for importing goods cause if thats true that is not condusive to helping the economy grow agian but its quite possible to send the economy into a further downswing. If you are talking about outsourcing (e.g Nike employing labour from china) and taxing that, that also might have the same effect you need to be more specific please- it'll also be good if you know the figures but its ok if you dont.

Oh Lunch do you know anything about Kerry's plans with Israel and the ME.