Obamamania

[Cataclaw]

It was fake people. I'm sorry you guys fell for it. Maureen Dowd sure didn't

Dowd is calling her out as a fake, basically.

Mrs. Dowd is entitled to her opinion, but that's all it is. Her interpretation of the events that unfolded. No one, except Hillary herself and her entourage, knows for certain if the breakdown was genuine or not, and what motivated it.

Dowd (and you by citing her) are trying to take an analysis of an emotional occurance, which is clearly subjective in nature, and make it out to be cold raw fact.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Cataclaw

[Pierre the Great]

How can that not be more correct in that she's calling her out. She's only crying because she's power hungry and does not care about anyone except herself. The LBJ line. Basically saying "people like me get things done, not mlk types". In my world that is being fake. Dowd is implying that as well. Clinton's only care about power, they're egotistical maniacs and yet people fall for this baloney.

And how can this not be a hillary is a fake article? Read the title again of her piece. Dowd is saying "omg this is a complete joke can hillary cry her way to the office".

[simonus]

How can that not be more correct in that she's calling her out. She's only crying because she's power hungry and does not care about anyone except herself. The LBJ line. Basically saying "people like me get things done, not mlk types". In my world that is being fake. Dowd is implying that as well. Clinton's only care about power, they're egotistical maniacs and yet people fall for this baloney.

And how can this not be a hillary is a fake article? Read the title again of her piece. Dowd is saying "omg this is a complete joke can hillary cry her way to the office".

OK Holden... of course she is calling Clinton out. Dowd, however, is not arguing that Hillary was pretending to cry or that she was forcing the tears, she instead is arguing that she was crying for unsavory reasons. Dowd's interpretation is far more interesting than your's. I know you like to editorialize when you state "facts," but it is a stupidly bad thing to do.

I love the fact that you are basing all of this on like the #4 op-ed writer for the times.

[Pierre the Great]

OK Holden... of course she is calling Clinton out. Dowd, however, is not arguing that Hillary was pretending to cry or that she was forcing the tears, she instead is arguing that she was crying for unsavoury reasons. Dowd's interpretation is far more interesting than your's. I know you like to editorialize when you state "facts," but it is a stupidly bad thing to do.

I love the fact that you are basing all of this on like the #4 op-ed writer for the times.

actually I'm not. I've heard at least 10 times on tv and in print and blogs that "hey if Hillary can manufacture more crying scenarios, she's going to win this thing."

You seem to think Dowd has no importance in the liberal world? Where have you been and how long have you been in the U.S.? She's the leader of the new left in print, which was the feminist movement that arose in the late 60's overtaking the Old Left (New Deal). She's the feminist voice, and if she's calling Hillary out there's a schism in the feminist movement.

Democratic Party has always been post '68 a two coalition party between the new left and old left. Republicans are the same thing post '80 except with 3 coalitions which are going to blow up this year.

[simonus]

actually I'm not. I've heard at least 10 times on tv and in print and blogs that "hey if Hillary can manufacture more crying scenarios, she's going to win this thing."

You seem to think Dowd has no importance in the liberal world? Where have you been and how long have you been in the U.S.? She's the leader of the new left in print, which was the feminist movement that arose in the late 60's overtaking the Old Left (New Deal). She's the feminist voice, and if she's calling Hillary out there's a schism in the feminist movement.

Democratic Party has always been post '68 a two coalition party between the new left and old left. Republicans are the same thing post '80 except with 3 coalitions which are going to blow up this year.

Did I say Dowd has no importance? No. Did you put a question mark after a statement? Yes. I've been in the US for over a decade, your childlike attempt at condescension notwithstanding. Of course Dowd has influence, but she is not half the liberal voice that Paul Krugman is, perhaps not even as influential as Friedman is.

You're understanding of Democratic party is questionable at best and your analysis is supremely uninteresting. Once in a blue moon you actually drag me into one of your attempts to use HW as a cult of personality and I am embarrassed to have allowed it to happen again. Congratulations, Pierre on wasting my time again.

[alexstream]

Guys, you can discuss politics as much as you want and you can talk about your own preference. But please keep out of the "bashing the candidate" thing, it's a slippery slope.

The analogy with the dinosaurs, etc was funny because it was done with humour. As soon as you start more serious accusation towards one candidate, some posters might take it more personal, because that's politics man! Same with religion.

So please refrain from bashing candidates.

[Pierre the Great]

Did I say Dowd has no importance? No. Did you put a question mark after a statement? Yes. I've been in the US for over a decade, your childlike attempt at condescension notwithstanding. Of course Dowd has influence, but she is not half the liberal voice that Paul Krugman is, perhaps not even as influential as Friedman is.

You're understanding of Democratic party is questionable at best and your analysis is supremely uninteresting. Once in a blue moon you actually drag me into one of your attempts to use HW as a cult of personality and I am embarrassed to have allowed it to happen again. Congratulations, Pierre on wasting my time again.

If you've only been here a decade you didn't go through '96, '94, '92. I did. You didn't witness the rise of the Limbaugh's. Where all of a sudden in '94 that idiot out of nowhere started popping up everywhere at the noon hour and on late night television. '94 killed us. That's when Clinton was forced to go "third way" thereby destroying the left in this country in order to save the democratic party, and all left parties in Europe when a tony blair caught on to the idea as a "renewal of social democracy". You might think I'm nuts (everyone here probably does) and most of the comments on here are purely cynical in nature. But I've been in more battles then you have, I come from a different perspective, different outlook in life. Yeah its corruptive but i'm just a product of issues out of my control.

'94 killed the democratic party into weaklings and we've been lost ever since. Clinton's represent the lost way, they became egotistical because they had to keep holding on to power during the high water mark of the "revolution" (not my words but '94 was and is called a revolution, i know how silly). If Clinton hadn't decided to go third way this country would be drastically more to right then it already is (his approval ratings were bush like in '94, he was dead, literally). The Clinton's are fighters, we don't need fighters now, we need bridge builders. That's never been the Clinton's m.o.

There's the pre-'94 Clintons who were true liberals represented the baby boomers and change was a coming, and then there's the post '94 Clinton's who survive on survival instincts and cannibalism.

Think of the Clinton's period as a coup happened and the King has two options to be killed or to give in and stay on and act like a figure head. Bill gave in and became a puppet of the revolution congress. He passed laws against his will more or less because he had to king on to power because this "revolution" was going to collapse. He survived it but at the same time the country became polarized. It hasn't recovered.

What happened in '94 would be the equivalent to Canada if first Canada had a french republic style and the Liberals lost all their seats but not the Presidency to the Reform party that wanted to turn the clock back and meant it.

[Cataclaw]

How can that not be more correct in that she's calling her out. She's only crying because she's power hungry and does not care about anyone except herself. The LBJ line. Basically saying "people like me get things done, not mlk types". In my world that is being fake. Dowd is implying that as well. Clinton's only care about power, they're egotistical maniacs and yet people fall for this baloney.

And how can this not be a hillary is a fake article? Read the title again of her piece. Dowd is saying "omg this is a complete joke can hillary cry her way to the office".

No. Alright.. forgive me for sounding condescending, but i think a debating lesson is in order here:

Let's get this straight : you're expressing your opinion, just like Dowd is. She is neither correct nor incorrect, because there isn't any supporting evidence to her claims. If you're biased against Clinton, you will accept Dowd's stance as true. If you're biased for her, the inverse is true. Pierre, you seem to have a difficult time differentiating between fact and idea, subjective and objective, opinion and evidence. Your claim that Dowd is correct (opinion) is because she's power hungry (unsupported argument), and that is linked to the claim that she is selfish (unsupported argument).

In debate or when trying to make a point, you cannot back up a supposition with another supposition. That isn't proof or justification of any kind.

In short, you're expressing your opinion and that's fine and dandy, but let's get this straight, without any evidence to the contrary, your opinion is in no way fact. My opinion is no more a fact since i have no way of confirming Hillary isn't interested in power. No one truly does. Hence it's my opinion vs. yours regarding this specific Clinton issue.

And as a side point, her record as senator, especially regarding issues dealing with children, education, etc. are quite impressive and suggest a genuine interest in helping the people.

Finally, i'd like to point out i'm playing devil's advocate here, since i am first a Obama supporter and then second a Hillary supporter.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Cataclaw

[Prime Minister Koivu]

I think the point is kind of mute. I really don't think that America is ready to vote for a woman or an african american as president.

Republicans will win again. It doesn't matter who the republican candidate will be or if you believe that the republican party is in meltdown.

[Pierre the Great]

what?

"(unsupported argument)"

look at Hillary's campaign up to this point. Its all about you must pick me crap. "inevitability"

[Cataclaw]

what?

"(unsupported argument)"

look at Hillary's campaign up to this point. Its all about you must pick me crap. "inevitability"

I have watched debates, seen her speak, read her policies, and i see no such indication. What supporting arguments do you have to prove this?

[Cataclaw]

I think the point is kind of mute. I really don't think that America is ready to vote for a woman or an african american as president.

Republicans will win again. It doesn't matter who the republican candidate will be or if you believe that the republican party is in meltdown.

Nonsense. America is more than ready.

The GOP is a ridiculously outdated, stubborn and obsolete party, and the American public is starting to catch on to this. Think about it. (I'm going to generalize here...) Who votes GOP? 40+ white men. That demographic is shrinking in relation to others. If John Kerry managed to pull off ~50%, any Democrat can match that.

Now, on the flip side, who wouldn't vote for a woman? The 40+ white men. Women (who make up more than half the voting population, a mildly important demographic) will embrace her, youth will as well, Democrats will obviously back her, that leaves the 40+ white men. Now.. Obama.. who wouldn't vote for him? Surprise, the 40+ white man and this time all the racists. Fortunately, the racists are (mostly) located in states that are ALREADY red states, so no loss there.

Yes, i'm generalizing and simplifying things a great deal, but you get the point.

Obama and Clinton are both very electable. Even my hardened GOP friends agree. I don't know why you think they couldn't...

[Jean]

barack will win by 20%

You were off by 23%, not nad

[Pierre the Great]

this is just the beginning...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424

[Pierre the Great]

Nevada

officially Hillary "won"

but Obama gets more delegates therefore, he actually "won"

so, go figure.

Huckster is on his last prayer.

[Mils]

I have watched debates, seen her speak, read her policies, and i see no such indication. What supporting arguments do you have to prove this?

Disclaimer: I am in the middle. I like different things about almost all of the candidates, and don't like things about each of them. I am not supporting or arguing against Hillary.

I have watched her too. Here's where I get confused.

The logical problem: She says she's been supporting change for 35 years. If she had been effective, wouldn't the change have occurred? Wouldn't she then have to campaign against change? I agree that certain things need to be changed right now, but what has she really "changed"? Is there a discernable destination or is she just talking about change for the sake of change? Striving for change for its own sake would not be useful in a president. In my opinion, change is only worthwhile if there's a destination or goal that, if acheived, would improve society.

The substance problem: She is the worst of the candidates (closely followed by Obama and Huckabee) of talking in broad generalities and not really committing to anything. Al Gore wrote the book on this sort of thing. She wants to do these different things, as listed on her website, but she talks in broad, unsubstantiated generalities. Example from her economic policy: "Empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share. Hillary will ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong. She will also ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment."

That's all well and good, and certainly something worth voting for. But she hasn't said anything. There is a total lack of definitional consistency. What do empowered employees look like? How do you empower employees? how do you ensure that unions are strong?... you get the idea, there's nothing to bank on in those words.

This is analogous to a hockey coach saying, "We should play at a level that is sufficient to defeat our opponents." It's nice to hear, and it's certainly true, but it would be more helpful for a coach to say "We're going to win by playing more physically in the corners and using our speed in transition." They're both true, but the second statement has more useful content that the first, and I feel like Hillary spends more time talking like the first example as opposed to the second. I would like her to tell me more "how" and a lot less "what" and "why."

Granted, there are other areas where she uses some specificity. I only cited one paragraph, and there are certainly other examples of these vague and ambiguous statement, just like there are some examples where she is much more clear. I'm not raising this issue for everything she says. I just find that she suffers from being a politician more than her competition.

Do you get the same idea?

[Zowpeb]

again 20's somethings our parents generation completely gets it wrong. The 60's are over. The old people need to go.

When will we stand up against their idiocy and destruction?

This goes not just for the U.S. but Canada as well. Why do we continue to let our parents generation tell us what our country is when they are not in the reality of the situation? Enough of the baby boomers choking this world to death.

I used to think this way about my parents generation...not too long ago either.

Now I realise that it has more to do with younger generations being more left wing (the 60's and 70's of my parents generation) and moving towards the right wing as they get older and understand the value of work and money(the 80's to NOW of my parents generation). Frankly, our parents generation REALLY screwed up future generations when they went through their rather hard core liberal, left wing, phase...and, at least in Canada, they've been working it in the right economic direction in the last 10-15 years. I think it's ridiculous in the extreme to say that "20 somethings" would fix the problems. I think it's pretty certain that the "20 somethings" would set us back to most of our previous problems and issues...simply because they are concerned social policies that are ineffective, easily abused and have grown up with a large sense of entitlement...and yeah, I was there too...most 18-26 year olds are in that boat till they really figure out what it is to pay bills and hold jobs on their own merits rather then parents merits. Entitelment is the father of all social policy...then life kicks you in the arse and you realise it isn't right for government to take away from your hard work to fund someone else's entitlement kick.

I also don't see things as black and white as Republican and Democrat when it comes to left and right wing voting...same as I don't see the Canadian Conservatives vs. Liberals as being truly right or left...it's about policy more then party and we've seen fundamental shifts in all parties, in most democratic countries, over the decades.

[Pierre the Great]

most 18-26 year olds are in that boat till they really figure out what it is to pay bills and hold jobs on their own merits rather then parents merits. Entitlement is the father of all social policy...then life kicks you in the arse and you realise it isn't right for government to take away from your hard work to fund someone else's entitlement kick.

I take offence to that. The entitlement kids are the right wingers the people you so support. The "daddy is going to get me a job" folks. When I think of the failed Reaganism and Thatcherism years, i think directly of entitlement spoiled children wanting all the money to themselves so they can get their fancy cars and another mansion. Trickle down doesn't work, never has and never will. Conservatism is happy gospel Christianity. "You can be rich too!" "God wants you to be rich!" they make people believe in this lie, then give major tax cuts to the ultra rich while giving a family of 4, 500 bucks. Oh the generosity.

If Conservatism is so great, move to the states, your mecca, your holy land, your inspiration. Spend ungodly amounts on health care and since you'd be an immigrant you won't have the luxury of iving in a white neighbourhood (well off), therefore your children's schools are going to be de-credited by the state, then your kids will never even be able to go to school, because of accreditation issues which are brought on by having "districts" which is a code word for if you live in a rich neighbourhood aka "white" you're schools will be great because its funded by property values. Then if you are in a non white area you're school will be rundown, have text books from the 80's, Soviet Union will still exist, Reagan will still be president, that's how old the text books are. All of this because of the idea that "you're on your own in life, government out of people's lives, yet you don't have total control over your own body" republicanism.

On top of all that, you'll be laid off, (depending on your work) and if you have a labour intensive job? lol forget it, you'll be unemployed faster then you can blink.

The average believer in the above believes that everyone else is scum and they don't deserve the rights of the privileged. If you can't afford, tough, deal with it.

Is that really who you aspire to be?

people who follow Reagan era policies live in a parallel universe.

then there's the culture of racism, sexism and jingoism that is all too prevalent in right wing parties.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Pierre the Great

[Zowpeb]

most 18-26 year olds are in that boat till they really figure out what it is to pay bills and hold jobs on their own merits rather then parents merits. Entitlement is the father of all social policy...then life kicks you in the arse and you realise it isn't right for government to take away from your hard work to fund someone else's entitlement kick.

I take offence to that. The entitlement kids are the right wingers the people you so support. The "daddy is going to get me a job" folks. When I think of the failed Reaganism and Thatcherism years, i think directly of entitlement spoiled children wanting all the money to themselves so they can get their fancy cars and another mansion. Trickle down doesn't work, never has and never will. Conservatism is happy gospel Christianity. "You can be rich too!" "God wants you to be rich!" they make people believe in this lie, then give major tax cuts to the ultra rich while giving a family of 4, 500 bucks. Oh the generosity.

If Conservatism is so great, move to the states, your mecca, your holy land, your inspiration. Spend ungodly amounts on health care and since you'd be an immigrant you won't have the luxury of iving in a white neighbourhood (well off), therefore your children's schools are going to be de-credited by the state, then your kids will never even be able to go to school, because of accreditation issues which are brought on by having "districts" which is a code word for if you live in a rich neighbourhood aka "white" you're schools will be great because its funded by property values. Then if you are in a non white area you're school will be rundown, have text books from the 80's, Soviet Union will still exist, Reagan will still be president, that's how old the text books are. All of this because of the idea that "you're on your own in life, government out of people's lives, yet you don't have total control over your own body" republicanism.

On top of all that, you'll be laid off, (depending on your work) and if you have a labour intensive job? lol forget it, you'll be unemployed faster then you can blink.

The average believer in the above believes that everyone else is scum and they don't deserve the rights of the privileged. If you can't afford, tough, deal with it.

Is that really who you aspire to be?

people who follow Reagan era policies live in a parallel universe.

then there's the culture of racism, sexism and jingoism that is all too prevalent in right wing parties.

Let's get something straight...I am not a fan of right wing politics in the US. Nor am I religous...I am in fact agnostic.

How can you argue that right wing policy advocates are people who have a sense of entitlement??? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. The people who promote large welfare state policy are the people who embody the sense of entitlement. Welfare, EI, aid payments, unions, the THOUSANDS of other income redistribution policies that are embedded in left wing politics, etc...all of these are built on the premise that those who can't/won't do what others are able/willing to do should get money for it. THAT is the essence of entitlement. THAT is left wing policy. You don't want to work? Here's a cheque. You aren't intelligent? Here's a cheque. You don't want to take advantage of the training opportunity that Canada offers in free education? Here's a cheque. THAT is the NDP and left wing Liberal ideology. The right wing Liberals and the Conservatives are hardly the essence of entitlement.

Trudeau and Mulroney fed off, and created, the sense of entitlement that left this country in a mess it will not get out of for another century. Canada had NO DEBT until Trudeau and Mulroney spent hundreds of billions of dollars on policies to create a frenzy of people who were screaming "gimme, gimme, gimme"...now, apparently, it's a human right to have the government give you things you did nothing for...just for being here we'll give you money. They bought their power and built a policy program that gives people a sense of entitlement.

Reagan's "trickle down" economics had/have a lot of holes BUT there are also many aspects that do in fact work. You want to argue economics I'm game...I'll dust off my degree and we can get the debate going. You don't think that people having jobs creates consumer confidence and increases spending? You don't think that create's business captial and expenditures? Then you're in for a rude awakening when you actually have a real job and your boss says "people aren't buying so we need to cut costs...review your staffing, office budget, marketing budget, hold off on that expansion, etc". Woops, 25% less homes built, less construction jobs, less cars bought, factory lay-offs, woops dollar is suffering due to credit crisis, costs more to import materials for manufacture, prices rise are going up, etc...trickle down economics is/was not absolutely flawed, it's was, and is often, executed poorly with ill advised policies.

You ASSUME that I look to the US as the answer to right wing policy when the reality is that I certainly do not. I have no problem with a number of Canadian social policies that would be abhorred by the Democrats and Republicans alike. The reality is that all the parties in Canada are probably much closer aligned to the Democrats either way...US politics is FAR more to the polar extremes then Canadian politics which gravitates to one side or the other of centrist policies. You can continue to try and polarize Canadian politics to the same degree as US politics but it's simply not the case.

I HAVE lived in the US of A for a short period of time. I also know a lot of people who live there. You hold up the extreme case of poverty as the norm...the reality is that most Americans do not live this way. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a poverty issue, but the fact remains that the comfortable middle class still likely represents over 80% of the US population.

I suppose you think that 90% of the population should be giving 50% of their income to support poorly implemented social policies to prop up the 10% of the population that is "under employed", seasonally employed by choice, generational welfare recipients, spends money on drugs and can't keep a job, etc...hey, I have no problem helping out the truly needy single mother who lost her job due to layoffs, or the guy who is working 2 jobs to put bread on the table. I don't see why I should see tax money to go to build more homeless shelters when 90% of the existing shelters are only 60-70% full...or why I should pay welfare to someone who is also collecting from 3-4 other government plans and hasn't even looked for work in a decade. Or pay for some kids college/university education when their parents make 200K a year and their cheating the system.

3 questions:

Why should I pay to fund someone elses life BEFORE I take care of my own family?

At what level are you poor? If you are above this level what should you be entitled to receive?

Edited January 21, 2008 by Zowpeb

[Pierre the Great]

If you want to argue spending policies, I could have a field day with you. The opinion that right of centre parties do not spend is a joke. Reagan lead the U.S. into massive debts. He was called Mr. Slash the budget for crying out loud. The United States only started going into the right direction when Clinton was in office. He came into office with a massive debt, came out with a huge surplus. Look at what Bush has done, spend spend spend.

Now on to Canada.

All Harper has done since he's gone into office is spend. For someone who says he believes in a government that doesn't spend, he sure isn't living up to that promise. Chances are now that we'll be in debt by the end of '08.

NDP in Manitoba doesn't spend, who is advocating the spending? The Conservative Party there and their pet projects like trying to bring the Winnipeg Jets back because they believe that will keep young people in the province. Political history of Saskatchewan the last time they didn't have an NDP government, the guy bankrupted the province.

The only enigma is B.C. but politics of this province is not something I can sum up in a paragraph. lol

No party is perfect, it depends on who is running and has the ideas.

The difference between the have's and the have not's has grown massively since '90 in Canada and '80 in the US.

Poverty in the United States is wide spread, you CAN tell and that's what I'm saying. The U.S. has done this flirtation with conservatism and its showing its cracks. The U.S. since the depression era goes in swings of political change every 20 to 30 years (think Alberta more or less). The Democratic Era everyone wants to remember all the people went by 3 initials. FDR, JFK, LBJ and then it died with RFK. The modern republican party started after the collapse of Nixon. '76 Reagan just lost to Ford, Reagan brought in the televangelists and moved the party to the right. (feminists voted for Ford in '76 over Carter for example). Then its been about Reagan since '80 and now the party is splintering into regionalism this year, when they created a guy like Huckabee.

I can't comment that much of Canadian economics I've only been here for 5 months so my views are more of what I've seen conservatism do in the U.S.

The right of centre to right wing folks in Canada have this admiration toward the american right, there is no denying that. You can argue it all you want but its true. Much like the left in the states has the same admiration for the canadian left.

On helping people.

"Why should I pay to fund someone else's life BEFORE I take care of my own family?"

It builds a stronger community. You cannot ignore the reality of the situation. Would you sponsor a child in India and Africa? Is that not funding some else's life so that they can have a better one? The idea that all homeless people are homeless because of drug issues is simply not true. The Aids epidemic, would you do anything about it or would you just let it spread into communities, which would then harm your own children? The fact that first nation in the north live on no running water and no sewage system, does that not bother you? We as a country are one people no matter the colour of our skin or language that we speak. We are in this together even if you don't want to take part in it. To me that is the essential role of the government. When you are down and out and need a place to go and you don't have anyone in the night to go to, the government is the best equipped to help you out. I believe that as long as you want the help, I should give it to you. Even if you don't want the help, I will give it to you, nag you, drag you to some place until you get help. That's the role of society in my opinion, that's the role we all have to play. One city, one neighbourhood, one street, one house, and one person at a time.

[Pierre the Great]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politi..._75440.asp#more

[Zowpeb]

If you want to argue spending policies, I could have a field day with you. The opinion that right of centre parties do not spend is a joke. Reagan lead the U.S. into massive debts. He was called Mr. Slash the budget for crying out loud. The United States only started going into the right direction when Clinton was in office. He came into office with a massive debt, came out with a huge surplus. Look at what Bush has done, spend spend spend.

Now on to Canada.

All Harper has done since he's gone into office is spend. For someone who says he believes in a government that doesn't spend, he sure isn't living up to that promise. Chances are now that we'll be in debt by the end of '08.

NDP in Manitoba doesn't spend, who is advocating the spending? The Conservative Party there and their pet projects like trying to bring the Winnipeg Jets back because they believe that will keep young people in the province. Political history of Saskatchewan the last time they didn't have an NDP government, the guy bankrupted the province.

The only enigma is B.C. but politics of this province is not something I can sum up in a paragraph. lol

No party is perfect, it depends on who is running and has the ideas.

The difference between the have's and the have not's has grown massively since '90 in Canada and '80 in the US.

Poverty in the United States is wide spread, you CAN tell and that's what I'm saying. The U.S. has done this flirtation with conservatism and its showing its cracks. The U.S. since the depression era goes in swings of political change every 20 to 30 years (think Alberta more or less). The Democratic Era everyone wants to remember all the people went by 3 initials. FDR, JFK, LBJ and then it died with RFK. The modern republican party started after the collapse of Nixon. '76 Reagan just lost to Ford, Reagan brought in the televangelists and moved the party to the right. (feminists voted for Ford in '76 over Carter for example). Then its been about Reagan since '80 and now the party is splintering into regionalism this year, when they created a guy like Huckabee.

I can't comment that much of Canadian economics I've only been here for 5 months so my views are more of what I've seen conservatism do in the U.S.

The right of centre to right wing folks in Canada have this admiration toward the american right, there is no denying that. You can argue it all you want but its true. Much like the left in the states has the same admiration for the canadian left.

On helping people.

"Why should I pay to fund someone else's life BEFORE I take care of my own family?"

It builds a stronger community. You cannot ignore the reality of the situation. Would you sponsor a child in India and Africa? Is that not funding some else's life so that they can have a better one? The idea that all homeless people are homeless because of drug issues is simply not true. The Aids epidemic, would you do anything about it or would you just let it spread into communities, which would then harm your own children? The fact that first nation in the north live on no running water and no sewage system, does that not bother you? We as a country are one people no matter the colour of our skin or language that we speak. We are in this together even if you don't want to take part in it. To me that is the essential role of the government. When you are down and out and need a place to go and you don't have anyone in the night to go to, the government is the best equipped to help you out. I believe that as long as you want the help, I should give it to you. Even if you don't want the help, I will give it to you, nag you, drag you to some place until you get help. That's the role of society in my opinion, that's the role we all have to play. One city, one neighbourhood, one street, one house, and one person at a time.

PTG, I really don't give a damn about Reagan. You can try and project his policies and beliefs upon, what you believe to be, what I'm actually saying. At no point in this argument did I actually raise the spectre of Reagan until you brought up some non-related discussion about trickle down economics not working.

So what you're saying is that right wing parties have historically led the economy into massive debt because of spending...and then you contradict yourself and say that Reagan did it by slashing the budget.

I am already on record here stating that YOU CAN'T compare Canadian right wing conservatism to that of the Republican's in the USA. The right - left wing political spectrum is purely a function of what is right and left within a given nation...it is not an absolute function that is comprable to the USA. I can 100% guarantee you that the Conservatives would look VERY left wing on a lot of issues in the US...and the NDP would be absolutely laughed out off the stage in the US...even by the left wing community. While I have no solid metric to quantify this issue I can only say that in my experience, on either side of the border, when viewing the US political spectrum their "centrist" policies are actually skewed further right then in Canada. That is simply a function of the political and democratic model the US has in place.

Further, Canada's political model has parties that bounce from left to right on various issues and in various decades. The Liberals under Trudeau were FAR more left of centre then they were under Chretien and Martin. Bob Rae undertook a number of right wing policies as NDP leader in Ontario...whereas Jack Layton is so far left he fell off the stage.

There is a strong belief that the largely Liberal supporting media in Canada promotes. That belief is one that has them framing the Conservatives in Canada as being a "right wing American" and "Bush supporters". It's actually comical to watch them try to villify the Conservatives and prop up an idiot like Dion and the current mess of a Liberal party. It seems apparent to me that every single party that has ever been in power in Canada has attempted to act in the best interest of Canada...and while that sometimes means we need to support our friends it also means we have a lot of disputes over trade.

Canada is not a 2 party system like the US where people have divided themselves as staunchly as saying "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican". Sure, there are generational voters and an economically based class structure that correlates to voting for certain parties, however, there is a very large portion of Canadians that vote for multiple parties over their lifetime. I've voted for 3 separate parties in my life and I'm only in my early 30's.

It simply appears to me that your rational is often based on taking a viewpoint based on American politics rather then on what Canadian politics actually are.

I fully agree with you...helping others builds a strong community. I have no problem with charity, or aid. I have no problem with helping others. I DO have a problem with government FORCING people to help others BEFORE they have the ability to help themselves and their family. Paying taxes is the government forcing people to help other people. This is a question of choice vs. big government mishandling your money on their way to giving it to other people.

Did you know that Canada has one of the lowest rates of charitable donations? FAR lower then in the USA? The reason is simple: we pay taxes to help those other people so nobody wants to give more away...in fact, our taxes are often so high that most people can't afford to donate anyways. It should be your CHOICE on when/how you want to help people. There are plenty of charities that I will/have donated money to...and none of them mishandle the money like the beauracracy in Canada mishandles money. The most powerful people in Canadian government aren't even voted for...they are beauracrats with guaranteed, high paying, jobs. People think Adscam was bad...there is far worse going on in government. I've seen some shady dealings on government construction projects that would make your head spin...to the tune of millions on just one job...and it wasn't in Quebec. Why should I be forced to give money to this type of big government and lose all choice on how my money helps my community??? I'm not advocating a full swing to US style of politics and government...I believe in many Canadian policies. I think almost all of them are mismanaged, mishandled and full of fat. Over 30% of the Canadian population works for the government and many of them are WAY overpaid...it's a joke and it's needs it's funding cut if only to force them to cut the unions back, cut layers of their management back, etc.

[Pierre the Great]

Obama wins South Carolina defeats bill clinton's ego

[Dirty Harry]

Great post Zowpeb. The government is out of control in this country and the bureaucrat empire builders are strangeling it. If it wasn't for our massive mineral and oil wealth, Canada would be worse off than France. At least you are in Ontario, the sad part of Quebec is that successive PQ governments have basically redundently duplicated all the functions of Ottawa bureaucracy in the name of French-Canadian nationalism and so they could hit the ground running when they won their referendum, so Quebec is even more screwed. I was born in Montreal and I love living here, but sadly I can't picture myself here still in 20 years, we are still taking on debt at massive deficit levels, taxes are amongst the highest in the world, the mafia is the strongest in north america, and the bureaucracy and unions are heavily entrenched so overall the situation is pretty hopeless. I'd say its about 50 times more likely that Quebec will go bankrupt than it reforms itself and becomes the Ireland of North America.

As a profesional worker in the finance industry with ambitions, I would be sacrificing a huge amount of lifetime earnings to stay in Quebec as opposed to a low-tax American state or other international low tax haven. The satisfaction of living Montreal is not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (or hopefully more ). I'm sure with modern satellite telecommunications being what they are, I'll be able to get all 82 (84?) habs games anywhere soon enough.

[Pierre the Great]

As a profesional worker in the finance industry with ambitions, I would be sacrificing a huge amount of lifetime earnings to stay in Quebec as opposed to a low-tax American state or other international low tax haven. The satisfaction of living Montreal is not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (or hopefully more ). I'm sure with modern satellite telecommunications being what they are, I'll be able to get all 82 (84?) habs games anywhere soon enough.

there's more to life then making money, you sound like you're driven by greed. Not trying to be mean here, its just how it all came off to me.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Pierre the Great