Another Rant on Politicians & Parties: Split from Address by the Prime Minister

[I_am_John_Galt]

Its sad how quickly some adults here quickly turn to mud slinging.

Frankly, no party is any better than the other. It's all politics and
politics by nature is dirty. Here's a "Rant on Politicians & Parties" :

Party X and their leader P.T. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military
budget, get into a few scandals and then P.T. retires to leave his
"pal" J.T. holding the bag......

We all get upset and vote them out, (we sure showed them).....

Party Y and their leader B.M. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military
budget, gets into a few scandals and then B.M. retires to leave his
"pal" K.C. holding the bag....

We all get upset and vote them out, (we sure showed them).....

Party X and their leader J.C. comes to power, feeds at the trough,
appoints pals to a few positions, cuts the heck out of the military
budget, gets into a few scandals and then J.C. retires to leave his
"pal" P.M. holding the bag....

We all get upset.....

But the funniest part is: Some people are still surprised.

I don't think it's funny at all:
P.T. was elected four times;
B.M. was elected once, and then re-elected on the basis of a single issue, despite his unpopularity (Liberals almost certainly would have won had they not lied about their intentions re: Free Trade ... seems they can't even tell the truth when it's in their best interest);
J.C. was elected three times ...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not surprised at all: I'm upset because we keep putting the same people back in, despite their scandalous behaviour and then paint all politicians with the same brush (I suspect, it's the sad state of affairs in our fourth estate)!

 

[old medic]

(Liberals almost certainly would have won...)

You mean X  ;D

It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.




<edited for spelling>

 

[Zipper]

A good system, where essentially the same group of lawyers divides themselves in half and pretend to be in competition and pretend to offer the electorate "choice".

Sounds like the Democrats and Republicans down south. ;D

It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.

Not far off at all.

Lets all vote NDP and see what a pisser that would be. :blotto:

 

[TCBF]

Better yet - BQ.

Tom

 

[2 Cdo]

Glorified Ape, think about it just for a minute. I'm sure it will dawn on you. I'll give you a hint, two traits that you should strive for in yourself, and those you surround yourself with or align yourself with.Think real hard and maybe it will come to you!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

You mean X  ;D

It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.

<edited for spelling>

I and was trying to be non-partisan and reduce the democratic deficit ... damn!

 

[Zipper]

It's an interesting cycle. I guess the moral is - Absolute majorities corrupt absolutely.

Its funny that that should be said. Considering Alberta has had one (absolute) majority government or another (3 in fact) in its whole 100 year history. They love their continuity.

 

[canadianblue]

I don't think the government in Alberta is corrupt. If they were then Albertan's would throw them out alltogether. Albertan's will keep on voting in good, common sense governments, it's only when the government loses the trust of the people, that they will be decimated in the next election and a new majority gov't elected.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Glorified Ape, think about it just for a minute. I'm sure it will dawn on you. I'll give you a hint, two traits that you should strive for in yourself, and those you surround yourself with or align yourself with.Think real hard and maybe it will come to you!

Personal political choices are outside the purview of professional doctrine - my politics are my own. I shouldn't have to tell you this, I believe they make some brief mention of it in basic.

Politicians are going to lie, both the good ones and the bad. As I said, I believe this is necessary sometimes - if politicians told the public the absolute truth about everything, you'd have mass anomie and possibly panic, given the scenario. People want to hear what they want to hear, if politicians didn't feed them dreamy speeches and promises (most of which they won't/can't fulfill), they wouldn't get elected. Telling your constituents "Hey, I'd really like to help you out but it's unlikely I'd be able to implement the healthcare reforms you want" isn't likely to get you elected. As for stealing, I don't condone it at all but nor do I believe that the entirety of the Liberal party is guilty of it or that the entirety of their potential should be judged on the basis of the bad acts of some of their members. I wouldn't vote for a party BECAUSE they lie or steal and I would surely prefer to vote for a party that doesn't do either (for the lying part that's impossible) but I don't think the NDP stands a chance of forming a government or conducting one capably and, as I said, I disagree with 75% of the Conservative platform. What would you suggest I do? Vote for a party I don't support? If I voted for them specifically because they were liars/thieves then there'd be a problem. Politicians are going to lie, to get angry about that is like screaming at clouds for raining on you. That doesn't mean I hold myself to the same standard as politicians. I have no intention or desire to lie or steal, and most especially not in an officerial capacity. As for the scandal, those individuals responsible should be brought to justice. I don't condone stealing nor would I do it and I'd love to have a political environment where people don't lie, but thems the breaks.

I'd love to have a party of saints with a platform I could support 100% but that's not going to happen. As I said - I take what I view to be the lesser of two evils. If you're going to question my potential as an officer, at least do it based on some valid criterion, not my political beliefs.

 

[canadianblue]

I disagree with 75% of the Conservative platform

What do you disagree with???

As for stealing, if it were a conservative government in power, were I agreed with most of their policies, but they were as corrupt as the current government, I would simply vote for the opposition party closest to my views, or simply a fifth party.

 

[larry Strong]

If you cant stomach any of the parties, spoil your ballot, at least you went out to the polling station. Ii would sooner do that than vote in thieves.

 

[Zipper]

If you pay attention to what goes on in your riding, you can pretty well be assured that there is SOMEONE who is running with the same ideals as yourself. Problem is most people vote strategically and that leaves you basically 3 choices. So we can either have even more parties sitting in Parliament, or you vote for someone closest to your ideas but is not a perfect fit.

Either way, your screwed.

Futuretrooper - Do you actually think someone is going to SAY what they totally disagree with about a conservative platform? C'mon. Why set themselves up for the neo-con BBQ?

Myself. I would rather not see an election right now. To much money (more money) at this moment down the tube. Although I think either way we are seeing the end of the Liberal rein.

 

[Glorified Ape]

What do you disagree with???

The Conservative platform is 40 pages long, so I can't go through the whole thing with you but I'll list a few points of what I agree and disagree with. I don't want to get in a huge debate about policy, but I think your question deserves an answer since if I'm going to say I don't agree with the conservative platform, I should at least demonstrate that I've bothered to read it.

Agree:
1. Military spending - they're promising a 1.2 (or 1.7, can't recall) billion dollar/year infusion for the next few years - that would be great, assuming they could actually do it. I believe they could and, though I'm not likely to vote for them, would look forward to it if they got into power.
2. Gun registry - It hasn't worked and it isn't likely to work. It was a waste of money. They want to scrap it and I'm inclined to agree, though it seems a waste now that the infrastructure/etc. has already been established.

Disagree:
1. Foreign policy - by the sounds of things - namely making broad references to encouraging "democratic ideals" (complete with rhetoric) and policing "rogue states", the Conservative foreign policy sounds strikingly like that of the US, which I can't get behind in its current state.
2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.
3. Criminal sentencing - They Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with.
4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority.
5. Senate reform - I'm torn between the two - I can see the benefits of both and tend to side with the "if it's worked for XXXX number of years, why bother changing it" appraoch.
6. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.
7. Business - cutting corporate subsidies isn't necessarily a bad idea, but to which businesses is the question. By virtue of their need, small business needs adequate subsidies more. The cuts Harper's pushing aren't going to hurt big business, they're going to hurt the small ones.
8. Universities - Harper's plan isn't to fund universities better, but to increase the number of loans available for students. Cut tuition costs and they won't need so many loans, won't accrue such staggering debts, etc. Instead, he's just offering more pokey.
9. Ambassador to US - making him a cabinet member? Christ. Enough. Establishing ANOTHER bureaucracy just to deal with Canada/US stuff? We already have one and it's quite sufficient.

I recognize the legitimacy of the arguments countering what I've said here, I just don't want to argue them ad infinitum. I can't vote for the Cons and I'd rather not vote for the Libs. I could vote NDP but in the riding I vote in they stand 0 chance of success so it's a wasted vote.

 

[Infanteer]

I've been trying to read over this gong-show but I'm lost - if it makes any difference, I don't put much stock in any of the political parties that are "representing" us right now; infact, I have a distrust for parties period, my favorite MP right now is Chuck Cadman, the independent who works for his people.

 

[larry Strong]

Agree:

2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.
3. Criminal sentencing - They Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with.
4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority.
5. Senate reform - I'm torn between the two - I can see the benefits of both and tend to side with the "if it's worked for XXXX number of years, why bother changing it" approach.
6. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.

2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"

3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/946010/posts
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114210757254_31
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/27/prison-tattoos050127.html

4, See the second link above.

5, You have people that don't show up for the majority of sittings, you have cronyism, you have people given Senate jobs that don't represent the will of the population of their province, You call this working!!!!

6, Why not, Then the field would be even and fair.

I suppose you are all in favor of the "First past the post" that we have now where a minority can elect the government of the day, where's the democracy in that.

You also say the Gun registry hasn't worked and it's not likely to work, yet you don't have a problem with wasting more money there. what the heck colour is the sky you wake up to!!! I think the billion or so that has been spent there would be better spent hiring more police officers. But then we might put more criminals in jail something you obviously are not in favor of, Part 3 of your response.

 

[Zipper]

Two things in that last rant.

One. Putting more police on the streets means nothing. You have to get the criminals charged and through court. More police just mean more back log in the court system. Not to mention no where near enough jail space. Their double bunking them already, which is dangerous.

Two. The criminals controlling the jails. As long as you have drugs getting into the jail, you have them under reasonable control. True fact if ugly. If you take the drugs away, they all go into DT's and start rioting. So unless we wish to accept a high body count in correctional officers from the riots or the prisoners from either the riots or killing themselves in the throws of the DT's, its the status quo. I don't like it any more then you. But there it is.

Its going to be interesting enough with the ban on smoking going into effect.

 

[Infanteer]

One. Putting more police on the streets means nothing. You have to get the criminals charged and through court. More police just mean more back log in the court system. Not to mention no where near enough jail space. Their double bunking them already, which is dangerous.

Agree with you here Zipper - all the cops in the world won't make a difference when a guy pushing crack on the street is right back to his turf 6 hours after being arrested.

 

[Glorified Ape]

2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"

3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/946010/posts
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114210757254_31
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/27/prison-tattoos050127.html

4, See the second link above.

5, You have people that don't show up for the majority of sittings, you have cronyism, you have people given Senate jobs that don't represent the will of the population of their province, You call this working!!!!

6, Why not, Then the field would be even and fair.

I suppose you are all in favor of the "First past the post" that we have now where a minority can elect the government of the day, where's the democracy in that.

You also say the Gun registry hasn't worked and it's not likely to work, yet you don't have a problem with wasting more money there. what the heck colour is the sky you wake up to!!! I think the billion or so that has been spent there would be better spent hiring more police officers. But then we might put more criminals in jail something you obviously are not in favor of, Part 3 of your response.

Maybe you missed this part:

I recognize the legitimacy of the arguments countering what I've said here, I just don't want to argue them ad infinitum.

 

[Infanteer]

What's the point of putting something up in a debate if you are not willing to debate it?

 

[Glorified Ape]

What's the point of putting something up in a debate if you are not willing to debate it?

I was asked what I specifically disagreed with about the Con platform and I answered, acknowledging the legitimacy of arguments for/against policies I opposed/supported to avoid a huge debate. The point being argued wasn't one of pros/cons of different policies, it was regarding who to vote for between 2 parties which have serious points of detraction. The question was valid since it pertained to backing up a claim I'd made which was germane to the argument - IE that I had objections to the Conservative platform. We can argue policy until we're blue in the face but it's not likely to have any affect on the aforementioned point. To tell you the truth, I didn't really want to get into a rehashed debate on gay marriage, gun control, healthcare, crime, the SCC, etc. since they've already been done to death.

*Edited spelling error