----------------------------------- templest Mon May 31, 2004 8:24 pm Debating... ----------------------------------- I want to exercise my debating skills, seeing as no good issue for me to go to work on has come about anywhere, like Dauntless has nicely pointed out, not even the letter to bush counts, I have no strong feelings about the U.S.. Make an argument, and I will counter it, even if I do agree with you, I'm just looking for some good ol' fun. :twisted: Crap, we should start a debating tournament on the weekends, the obvious winner get's 50 bits from loser, that would be teh r0x0rz. :wink: ----------------------------------- jonos Mon May 31, 2004 9:43 pm ----------------------------------- The Liberals are the best people to look after the money of Canadians. They have a good policy towards everything in Canada, including their form of lying. The NDP are communists set on taking people's hard-earned money as well as old people's savings when they die. The Conservatives are corrup, racist, homophobic, and genital smelling pigs. ----------------------------------- Tony Mon May 31, 2004 11:01 pm ----------------------------------- speaking of politics - isn't there some election coming up soon? :think: ----------------------------------- JayLo Mon May 31, 2004 11:35 pm ----------------------------------- JUNE 28th, BAYBEE. yeah, that was random. (vote conservative.) ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:02 pm ----------------------------------- Vote anything but conservative or cirstion praty. How about some of the lesser talked about partys like the communist one or the green party. Any that who keep free heath care and schooling in one pice. GO Socialisum!!! ----------------------------------- templest Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:39 pm ----------------------------------- If leaders haden't distorted communism so wildly out of how it was intended to be applied, this would be a better world. :shock: ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:06 pm ----------------------------------- Yes the upcoming election might be the most important one in the twenty first century for Canada, what with Stephen Harper wanting to lower taxes and americanize the healthcare system... do you have to be liberal to be Canadian? (not the party, the ideal :P) ----------------------------------- naoki Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:00 pm ----------------------------------- If leaders haden't distorted communism so wildly out of how it was intended to be applied, this would be a better world. :shock: I'm going to assume you mean the leaders of communism of today and yesteryear. At which point I would agree. Due to human nature and our imperfections, it's literally impossible to create a communist government which fulfills all of its promises. The leader(s) will somehow become corrupt either by outside forces or their own greed. So stop thinking about communism, because it's only a dream. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:56 pm ----------------------------------- Naoki is the goddam genius of the whole fucking world!!! Down with socialism!!! Up with capitalism. Capitalism is the reason for your nice Alienware computer, and you other people's nice Dell over-priced computers. But then again, Microsoft is here because of capitalism... but we all love Microsoft. Now Dan, please don't go around again calling the Conservatives "corupt" as you did in the provincial election, because as you should now know, the only corrupt part are the Liberals. And you don't have to be liberal minded to be Canadian, you just have to eat Tim Horton donuts and shit maple syrup. And Steven Harper is actually supportive of free health care. Even if he were to have a majority government, the Canadian people would not stand for private healthcare as it is ingrained into our society. Many people say "free healthcare" when someone mentions Canada. But according to a recent study/commission/thing on our healthcare and other country's healthcare, Canada needs to shape it the fuck up or we are going to go straight to the shit heap of healthcare. Who wants free healthcare if it sucks shit. Might as well just go to the US and pay 1000 dollars to get a bone fixed correctly instead of having it fucked up even more because of lack of equipment. And lowering taxes stimulates the economy so in the long run it is good. Look what is happening in the US now... their economy is growing at 5.5 percent, while ours is at something around 2 percent. So three cheers for the Conservatives and the Liberals can kiss my ass. ----------------------------------- Tony Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:28 pm ----------------------------------- you can't just keep on lowering taxes all the time. Some states have 0% income tax and you don't see them have amazing economy anyways. Point is that while tax cuts might (they don't always do) provide a short economy boost by injecting disposable income, in the long run it screws everybody over anyways. It doesn't matter if your economy will grow at 10% if in few years your expanded workforce will largely consist of sick idiots because the government cut away from education and healthcare. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:36 pm ----------------------------------- Well America doesn't have free healthcare so that doesn't really affect them. But cutting taxes still does stimulate the economy in the long run (but I am no economist). Steven Harper is not going to cut taxes until we have no taxes. He is going to decrease them and probably still be able to keep healthcare spending stable as well as education spending. It's just that they are going to do away with the mismanagement of money perfected by the Liberals. The Gun Registry is just one example of money (over 1 billion dollars) that could have gone to healthcare or education. ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:59 pm ----------------------------------- Ummm, you keep on going unabout how the libs had to rase taxs when they side they whould not, but you are forgeting that when they made this promise they where toald by the last govement that there was no defisite and when they got there they found a nice big one. So who realy is lieing? Any how i think they should have never side they where not going to raise taxs. We need more taxing of poleop who aucaly have money and less on the poor. Incerasing tax rates when it gose to healthcare is a good thing to me. And i did not "go around again calling the Conservatives corupt" in this thread, b/c i dont have to it is impleyed. :twisted: Realy that is the hole idea aorund there party, give money to the ritch and serivces to the ritch and screw over the other socail classes. So when that is your platform it is hard to get corupted from it unless u like make an even higher social class and screw over the the old high one. Also i arrge with templest saying "If leaders haden't distorted communism so wildly out of how it was intended to be applied, this would be a better world.". The ideas behind communism are good just the implemations of it have been bad. I mean equal materal rights is a good thing if u ask me (but i may not be the most unbasied person since i do think we should get ride of the hole money system :roll: ) P.S. i like how you side "probably still be able to keep healthcare". Sums up all the things wrong with that party right in that line. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:09 pm ----------------------------------- Well you are right in the sense that it was a deficit, but the thing is that the year was not only half over so corrective measures could still have been put in place to counter that. And the person who did the review of the finances and whatnot didn't even do an audit, he did a review and made too many assumptions. And the debt wasn't even 6 billions dollars, it was only 2 billion dollars but the Liberals and the "reviewer" window dressed it using complex techniques to make it seem 6 billion dollars. And please don't question me on this, my dad is an auditor. I was referring to your saying the Conservatives are corrupt comments from a while ago, where you blatantly said they were corrupt. Conservatives don't believe in giving money to the rich, I'm sure many conservatives give more to charity than many socialists. Just to brag, my family gives over 5000 dollars to various charities at the beginning of the year. This does not include giving to socilitors, collections at school, and collections at church. Also, rich people do pay their fare share in taxes... around 30 some percent which is what everyone else pays, so really, that is fair share. Our healthcare system is fucked in the ass which is in place of it's non-existent head. Not even the NDP can give enough to healthcare to make it good enough (without going into major debt). Conservatives are not corrupt. ----------------------------------- Tony Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:15 pm ----------------------------------- anyone knows of a reliable source to look up condidates in this election and their platforms? ----------------------------------- Dauntless Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:21 pm ----------------------------------- Templest probably means that Western leaders have distorted communism; the Cold War I'd say made most people associate communism with bad feelings, like threat of nuclear war, or simply just established democrazy as good and everything else as bad. Take the Truman doctrine; it expresses explicitly that the US will fight communism. With all these powerful cultural and political pressures, communism has taken on a completely disproportionate connotation. Dystopic literature like 1984 and Animal Farm (George Orwell classics we've studied) show an obviously skewed and biased view of communism. You'd hafta wonder if communists write books about dystopias of democrazy....lol. Jonos is a case in point of Western society's affect on our view of communism. I'd explain more, but do I really need to? On another note, vote Liberal; they didn't bring Canada into the war with Iraq, they're moving to remedy that Gun Registry fiasco, and Paul Martin is a good guy we can trust. Taxing the rich makes sense, but if we take it easy on them, we can let our economy run wild. Something I think needs to be taxed more is luxury goods; especially stuff like alcohol and cigarettes; things that have a definite negative effect on Canadians, and by extension the health system. Didn't the Tories say they're gonna increase the military budget? That's no good... Money like that is going to come out of somewhere, if taxes aren't raised; if they are raised, and the rich are taxed, it may put a damper on the economy; if the less-rich are taxed, they'll have less money to spend on the stuff the rich people are selling, so maybe it'll be bad too. Hell, maybe we should just get rid of healthcare, and put it all into military funding. In a few years, we can have our own defense contractors, and our economy can be driven by our military's industrial demands. Then we can attack someone. Preferably France. ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:22 pm ----------------------------------- No... Im going to france next year. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:24 pm ----------------------------------- Don't worry, the Canada won't be able to attack France til 2008; it can coincide with the Beijing Olympics. By then, we'll have an army of tasty supersoldiers. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:52 pm ----------------------------------- So I'm biased towards communism just because I don't agree with it? ??? I have unfortuneately wasted the time needed to read the Communist Manifest and other books about communism. To me, it is a stupid idea which humans would not be able to utilize. Even Lenin started out with good intentions, but then I guess the fun in killing all opponents just took the joy out of being a good communist. And also, how is communism so good if many of the people living in these countries don't agree with it and don't want it? Even with increased military spending, we still wouldn't be able to attack countries, which is kind of sad when you look at Dauntless' France proposal. Increased military spending would bring our Armed Forces up to snuff (you know, modern equipment and helicopters, stuff like that). Most likely, our military will still be mainly a peace keeping force, just better equipped, trained, and funded. If the military budget is not increased, then our military is going to cease to exist. How can we send troops to other countries and expect them to do a good job when we can't even give them good helicopters for fuck sakes. Good point on the luxury goods though. If a pack of cigarettes cost 15 dollars I'm sure more people would try to quit. If alcohol was more expensive... same thing. And if people really wanted to pay the money for it, then the government would get the money. Yes, trust the Liberals. They are trying to fix the Gun Registry... how much will that cost. They are trying to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal... but by calling an election they can make people forget about that commission. And yes, let's trust Martin so he can tell us that he did not know about the Sponsorship Scandal, but then later be told of a memo found that proved other wise. But yes he is a good guy, he sure can smile and talk to kids. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:55 pm ----------------------------------- Okay, new topic (since I won this one): Should the Chinese rulers convert to democracy? ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:01 pm ----------------------------------- No man, its the idealism that keeps it together, if you change to democracy, that would be a revolution, and it would not be a peacefull one. ----------------------------------- Tony Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:06 pm ----------------------------------- chinese economy has been growing at a 10% rate for the past decade... I don't think you should mess with that :think: ----------------------------------- Dauntless Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:57 am ----------------------------------- Plus, it seems to me that China is drifting towards some sort of democracy anyways. China should just do what works. P.S. I'll have a mod edit your post claiming that you won to something ridiculous. ----------------------------------- templest Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:15 am ----------------------------------- Templest probably means that Western leaders have distorted communism; the Cold War I'd say made most people associate communism with bad feelings, like threat of nuclear war, or simply just established democrazy as good and everything else as bad. Take the Truman doctrine; it expresses explicitly that the US will fight communism. With all these powerful cultural and political pressures, communism has taken on a completely disproportionate connotation. Nope, I meant what naoki said, but yeah... you're right as well. :wink: ----------------------------------- Dan Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:20 pm ----------------------------------- Speaking of communitst had any looked in to the Communist Party of Canada? I looked in to there platform and wow, i could not aggery with the stuff they say more. like: reduce the milltary buget by 50% Legislate a 32-hour work week with no loss in take-home pay and no loss in service to the public; ban compulsory overtime, raise statutory paid vacations to four weeks Lower the voluntary pension age Raise the federal minimum wage to $12/hour. Spend at least 1% of the federal budget on social and non-profit housing full pay equity for women workers Promote worker-run cooperatives. Stop privatization - extend public ownership & democratic control Defend Medicare - expand social programs Tax the greedy, not the needy (Legislate a truly progressive tax system, based on ability to pay! Increase the corporate tax rate to 19%, and tax all capital gains) Eliminate taxes on incomes under $35,000/yr. Scrap the regressive GST. Impose wealth and inheritance taxes on estates over $700,000. No Canadian participation in US military aggression. No to the US Missile Defence "Star Wars" plan. converting military to civilian jobs. Support the global abolition of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Justice for Aboriginal peoples and Quebec Full equality for women Increase federal support for education at all levels; rollback and eliminate tuition fees for post-secondary education. Shift from loans to grants for student assistance. Guarantee the rights of youth to training and apprenticeship programs. Build better schools and colleges, not more prisons and "boot camps." Lower the voting age to 16 years. Fight racism and discrimination Expand democratic rights (no more anti-terror crap where u can be heald forever with no reason) Fair elections - proportional representation Support family farms and defend Canada's food sovereignty Put nature before profits. Enforce stronger penalties on polluters. Make Canada a world leader in reduction of ozone-depleting gases and hydrocarbons. ----------------------------------- jonos Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:50 pm ----------------------------------- "Raise minimum wage to $12/hr." Not possible... we would see the rapid decline of business (which they probably want) and then there would be no jobs. Companies cannot afford to pay $12/hr (except a few). "reduce the milltary buget by 50%" They would have to increase the military budget by 50% just for more soldiers to control the raging mobs which would form just by having to live with what they propose. Just because a person is rich doesn't mean that they are greedy, it justs means that they are successful. A lot of rich people give more to charity than socialists, so by increasing taxes for rich people would just hurt the charities who are getting the rich people's money. "Support the global abolition of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction." Sorry fellow war-mongerers... I'd have to agree with this one. "Justice for Aboriginal peoples and Quebec" Aboriginal peoples do need better justice, but Quebec gets more justice than the rest of the provinces. They control in their province a lot more than what other provinces control so they can kiss my ass. "Full equality for women." Apparently the Communists are still living in the early 1900s. "Lower the voting age to 16 years." That would be good in some cases, but most 16 year olds can't even name the prime minister, even with all the publicity he is getting. "Fight racism and discrimination." Sorry fellow racists, I'd have to agree with this. "Fair elections - proportional representation." Damn good idea, but too bad most of the other parties agree with it. Damn... those communists having something for everybody (well... almost). ----------------------------------- Paul Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:59 pm ----------------------------------- "Raise minimum wage to $12/hr." Companies cannot afford to pay $12/hr (except a few). Eh? A decent factory labourer position can get $12 easily. $12/hr makes up for a salary around $25,000/year, which is pretty low if you ask me, most people make more than that, which is more than $12/hr. Just because a person is rich doesn't mean that they are greedy, it justs means that they are successful. A lot of rich people give more to charity than socialists, so by increasing taxes for rich people would just hurt the charities who are getting the rich people's money. Lol, its just an expression, something that rhymes with needy. "Full equality for women." Apparently the Communists are still living in the early 1900s. Whats wrong with supporting it? Maintaining full equality for women is a good idea isn't it? That would be good in some cases, but most 16 year olds can't even name the prime minister, even with all the publicity he is getting. I dunno which hole ur from buddy. ----------------------------------- naoki Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:34 pm ----------------------------------- Speaking of communitst had any looked in to the Communist Party of Canada? reduce the milltary buget by 50% Yes, because Canada is spending so much on military. That's why our soldiers wear green uniforms in Iraq and pilot 30 year old choppers and transport copters. Raise the federal minimum wage to $12/hour. Letting teenagers make that much money is absurd, and this act would only result in companies cutting back more on safety standards and whatnot just to keep up their profits. full pay equity for women workers Promote worker-run cooperatives. No Canadian participation in US military aggression Justice for Aboriginal peoples and Quebec Fight racism and discrimination A lot of that seems like false promises. All that stuff about fighting racism and equal rights for Aboriginals comes without any specific guidelines. They might as well claim "Will prevent WW3 from ever happening" on their platform. Increase federal support for education at all levels; rollback and eliminate tuition fees for post-secondary education. Shift from loans to grants for student assistance. Guarantee the rights of youth to training and apprenticeship programs. Build better schools and colleges, not more prisons and "boot camps." the hell do they mean by "boot camps" ? and i really don't think it's possible for university and college education to remain as well as it is if the tuition fees are cut and universities lose more money on loans? How the hell do they expect to attract skilled professors to come teach when they're offering them $30000 Cd a year? I really don't think we're gonna succeed just by reading textbooks. Lower the voting age to 16 years. expect parties supporting "less school" and "more malls" to get the votes. the majority of 16 year olds who live in Canada are idiots. Just take a walk to your nearby mall and watch as kids struggle with simple math, opening doors and where a checkout line is Put nature before profits. Enforce stronger penalties on polluters. Make Canada a world leader in reduction of ozone-depleting gases and hydrocarbons. Factories get closed. People lose jobs. Welfare increases. All to make Canada able to brag to its neighbors? Actually, my chemistry teacher stated that while he was driving to Florida, all along the way he saw signs saying "Coal keeps the lights on". Do you see where people's priorities lie? ----------------------------------- jonos Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:23 pm ----------------------------------- Well, go and talk to some random 16 year olds you meet on the street and not the people at your school where (paraphrasing you) and 80% is around a 90%. Women have the same rights as men. $12/hr for a factory worker... not a cashier working at a freaking dollar store who is in grade 10. Teenagers are not earning that money stocking shelves for a 4 hour shift is not worth 12 dollars an hour. If 7 dollars an hour is too low for the job then those people can just go work in your 12 dollar an hour factory which they can find easily. ----------------------------------- Dan Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:06 pm ----------------------------------- I dont thunk u guys fully understand there plans, they whould most like be able to fullfill thos promuims b/c they whould be magory chaging how tax system works and whould basickly be taking the moeny from all the big comanys and rich poleop who have to much anyway. Also if the redoce the mittray by 50% they whould also get a few billion. This whould be more then enougth money to go throw with there plans. The idea of geting ride of paying for post-scoendery eduation is not a new one and is aucaly like that in some places in eurpoe. Perosnaly i think it is a gr8 idea, every one is intiled to equcal education. Also it is not like they just going to say to the unis that they have to do it for free, they whould be foudning it. Also the grantes insted of lones is a good idea too, dont need to put students in deat for the rest of there lives. Politcks effect all of us young and old, just think what one politcal party witch i will not name did to grade 13 and eduation, that effected 16 and 17 year olds as much as 18 year olds so why not let them vote? Also i see making min wage $12/hr a good as well, what it dose is take money from the ritch and give it to the poor. I guse i could see how the ritch whould not like that :roll: I dont think comanys whould be cuting back on saftey b/c they got to pay more b/c there are laws about safte standereds. Factories get closed. People lose jobs. Welfare increases. All to make Canada able to brag to its neighbors? Actually, my chemistry teacher stated that while he was driving to Florida, all along the way he saw signs saying "Coal keeps the lights on". Do you see where people's priorities lie? i think they ment more of puting higher taxs on compayns that polote and kill the everoimet and new laws on bad emidtions. Also if we kill the o-zone the least of our worises will be if we have jobs. U most realy hate the green party then eh? Any how i am glad to see all thes lite partys geting more well know. Some of them have some realy good ideas. It is to bad that more poleop do not take the time to look in to them. I whould defualty vote for the Communist this election or the green party, if nothing eltes it will show the other partys that they need to start thinkless about the cmaping and more about the poleop who make up this contory ----------------------------------- Paul Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:44 pm ----------------------------------- Im learning German, cause Universities in Germany are free. ----------------------------------- jonos Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:36 pm ----------------------------------- Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is all well and good until there are no more rich people to take money from - as their money is all taken away. by the communists. So maybe it could work well for a couple decades, but then we would see a gradual degeneration. And how is it fair to take money from someone who has earned it, worked for it, saved for it, taken risks for it, etc and then take it and pass it on. If everyone is making around the same amount of money for different jobs then why the hell will someone want to become a doctor, or a lawyer, or a job that requires a large amount of work and education. Why not just go and work in a factory and recieve the rich people's money. Not like I do, but Communists don't understand long-term economic things. It's like Jack Layton saying that buildings should be made energy efficient and all that (which is a good idea) but then saying that it will be paid for by the money saved from this energy efficiently over 10-20-whatever years. The fact is that the money saved over this time compared to the cost is around 1/50 or something like that. ----------------------------------- jonos Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:43 pm ----------------------------------- Someone reply, I'm killing the competition or until Dauntless says something. But he may not be a communist. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:24 pm ----------------------------------- I think if we could have some sort of luxury tax; rich people who waste things that could be given to people who are not so fortunate should have to pay; its not like they can't afford it. For example: Cigarettes cause cancer, so tax them because they burden our health system Stuff like caviar is unnecessary and endangers fish, so they should be taxed because it is definitely a luxury item Gold-plated anything is not necessary, and should be taxed accordingly I know you guys can think of things like that. Taxes from that could be used for so much. That way it won't be specifically taxing rich people; only rich people who spend money on ridiculous bling, etc. And as for being energy efficient; its not just about saving money, its also good for the environment. If we're burning less gas, and breaking even moneywise, that's still good; we have more gas to trade, or what not. As for Canada's military, I think if we cut it for a few years during a peaceable time, we can do a complete overhaul rather than buying stuff piecemeal. It won't help if we buy a bunch of used stuff that won't be cutting edge, cuz it'll be phased out sooner than new stuff. Besides; do we really need a military? If anyone other than our allies invades us, our allies will step in. And either that, or we'll be nuked, and no army can stop that. Let's say that the US was gonna invade us; even if we increased our budget by 1000%, we still wouldn't be able to resist them. ----------------------------------- jonos Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:55 pm ----------------------------------- Yeah, if we are invaded let's just rely on our allies. Well, I'm pretty sure the US would protect us, but then they might not leave... choosing to help us draft a new constitution. Our country would then be Americanized and then the left-wingers would be where they were afraid to go with the Conservatives (who are not going to Americanize our country anyways). This is just me, but I would consider it selfish to be such a wealthy and job-rich, etc country and not help other countries reach this. Yes, you can give them medicine and money and swimming pools like the UN, but that just goes to the aristocracy, theocracy, or dictator. Now that is not good. So say there is a civil war in a country (good lowly people fighting powerful fuckhead governments) and the good guys need help. Should we let them be slaughtered? Maybe we should just shrug it off and let the US do it, then turn on the US later on when we forget that we wanted to US to do it because we did not have a military (or one that could go help). The world is not at a point yet where we cannot have a military. Well I guess we could not have one, but then we would be selfish. Now, when suicide bombers and imperialistic countries stop doing their thing, then we will still need armies (international of course) to counter the alien threat. ----------------------------------- Dan Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:48 pm ----------------------------------- Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is all well and good until there are no more rich people to take money from - as their money is all taken away. by the communists. So maybe it could work well for a couple decades, but then we would see a gradual degeneration. I dont think it whould have any degneration, i think that it whould hit an equlmibirm b4 that where the socail classes where very close to being the same. Witch you seem to think whould case the end of the world b/c no one whould work. But i dont think it whould hapen like that, why whould u be a highly eduacted job when it pays the same? B/C it is dam boring working in a factory all day!. I am not going in to computer science for the money, i am going in to computer science b/c i like it for exmaple. Also i dont think the communists long trem plans are any worse then the converisves, in fact they are probly better. You can not keep on giving tax cuts forever wtich seems to be there plan. Eventaly (if the conversives stay in power long enogth) they whould kill off or put the lower social class in to such poverdey that ether they whould vote them out, cause a cival war or whould shift all the social class down one and then they whould have to do there own work for once. As for millitray stuff, i think that canada should make a peacekeeper orgisation but i think the normal millitray should be compley disbaned. We are not going to take over anything like the U.S. so we dont need fancy fighter jets and shit, just need peackeeper stuff to help other conotrys. And by help i do not mean bomb the shit out of, witch the U.S. seems to think means help. Also there is a difrecner betwen poleop geting slaugthered and being under a dictaroship, just b/c there conotry is a dicraorshop dose not mean they slaugther all there poleop. Basiclk we should just turn our aramy in to all peackeepers and then let the U.N. uses them and help the small conotrys. Also could use them to help with other things like naterual diasotrs, not everything has to be about killing poleop. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:34 am ----------------------------------- Yeah, I agree with that. Canada as a defence force isn't much good; as an offensive force for that matter either. Fighter jets and really heavy weapons won't be much use against insurgents either. The only reason we might need them would be to bomb the hell out of someone entrenched, and we're not interested in that. As for getting Americanized, we wouldn't, because we have other allies than the US. Finally, how do we know who the "good guys" are anyways? The good guys are jsut who we support. In Vietnam, the good guys were just the non-communists and not even the people the Vietnamese wanted as their government. The US is constantly deciding for other countries who the good guys are. In Vietnam and Iraq, they supplied uprisings (Diem and Saddam) which, becoming inconvenient later, they themselves unseated. Iraq did a bit better than Vietnam, because of the lessons they learned there, but they didn't learn enough, apparently. On the world stage, the US is like an overbearing parent who doesn't know when to stop; you need them sometimes, and they're important in your life, but they need to stop steering your life where they think it is best to, especially leaning towards what is best for them as well, not always for the country they're helping to "liberate". ----------------------------------- jonos Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:45 pm ----------------------------------- Sorry Dan, though some of your points may be correct or partially correct, you are might ignorant. The Conservatives don't want to keep giving tax cuts forever, they just want some tax cuts which helps the economy grow (and has been proven by America, Ireland, and Japan). There will not necessarily be an equilibrium. If everyone is making the same amount of money no matter what they are doing, then why the hell go and pay the money needed to go through med or law school or further education. But then again, the communists would lower tuition rates so low that Universities would not be able to run these programs, and so we would have no doctors and lawyers and shit (in the extreme). Do you forget the Communism has yet to be beneficial towards a country (except Cuba but they are at a standstill). Canada's military is already a peace keeping force. But I disagree with the planes, because one needs air superiority. They can be used to scout insurgence fighters, bomb (yes, bomb) the insurgents bases. If Pakistan would have had planes they could have done more damage to the Al Qaeida fights when they were engaged in that standoff. I agree that Nuclear Weapons, large bombs, etc should not be manufactured and used though. Vietnam was a mistake, so you don't keep having to bring that up, I get the point all too well. And if I'm using something way too much, then just tell me. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:43 pm ----------------------------------- Communism was beneficial to China, was it not? And you must consider that the powerful countries of today didn't become that way because they're democratic and freedom loving. Britain rose to power through its empires, which was ultimately run by the monarch (basically a dictatorship, no?). Likewise, Germany thrived under Hitler's fascist government, at least until he started WW2. Japan benefited from being democratic simply because the US needed an ally in the Pacific theatre, and democratizing Japan was mutually beneficial. They gave Japan stuff in exchange for converting to democrazy. Vietnam didn't exactly thrive under democracy either. Neither did Holland, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Yugoslavia, and a slew of other democratic countries. And lest we forget, the US; any government willing to eliminate aboriginals with a justice could have done what they did. Were it not for the fact that they declared independence for the sole purpose of gaining their own non-monarch government, they could have adopted communism too, had it existed back then. The US has a ridiculously good geographical position, with all kinds of natural resources and a comfy place longitudinally. Bad connotations for communism arose in the Truman era and the Cold War era. People are so quick to dismiss the idea of communism, when really the theories of Karl Marx are open to interpretation and adaptation. Nobody said we had to be hardline communists, but there are certain communist ideals that our greedy capitalist society could use. ----------------------------------- jonos Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:16 pm ----------------------------------- It has taken China gradually becoming more Capitalist for it to be growing at such a rapid rate (as you know people can now own their own businesses). Some countries DIDN'T (note past tense) thrive under democracy, but why is it that all (is Vietnam democratic?) of these countries have at some point reverted back or just to democracy? Cuba benefited from Communism in the beginning but it only brought it to a certain point and is now at a stand still. And remember, even during a lot of England's imperialistic times there was still a prime minister and parliament which shared power with the King. The King did not have absolute power. I'm quite sure that the US would not have adopted Communism on winning their independence - they are a very conservative society though I may be wrong. Though I may agree with your statement that some Communist ideals should be adopted, I will only believe in Communism as a viable alternative to Capitalism when a country successfully utilizes it. I pray though, that Canada not be this country. ----------------------------------- Dan Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:53 pm ----------------------------------- What excaly is your defition of Communism there jonos? From reading all your post i realy am not shure, it seem it skips from being the same as a dictaership to being the libbiral party to being the way the staff run this site to being a politcal system that is strong on socialisume. The real defition of communism dose not say anything about what poleop can and can not own (businesses or other wise) but just says they have equal materal rights (witch dose not necaerly mean they divide everything eveanly ether). Aucaly in my option some of the conotrys you talk about as bad examples of communism are realy more extream cases of capitaliusm then communism. ----------------------------------- jonos Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:26 pm ----------------------------------- com"¢mu"¢nism \"kam-ye-'ni-zem\ noun [F communisme, fr. commun common] (1840) 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 cap a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively (C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved. As you probably know, or should know, my comments on the staff are all in a sarcastic manner which I have (I think) stated before. Oh, and here is the Communist Manifesto: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html It is a boring read though, very boring. ----------------------------------- Dan Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:52 pm ----------------------------------- I side your defition not Zane Publishings deftion of it. ----------------------------------- Maverick Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:50 pm ----------------------------------- gg liberal lovers. Things arent lookin too good for your side. At best the liberals will win a minority govenment and at worst the conservatives will win the minority. Go conservatives. ----------------------------------- jonos Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:29 pm ----------------------------------- I side your defition not Zane Publishings deftion of it. Well, where am I supposed to get a definition of communism? I could formulate my own, but that still wouldn't be my own because I would have gotten it from some source. Do you want me to make it up? If you are making up your definitions then I urge you to please stop doing that so everyone can get on the same level, using universale, generally accepted definitions. I will attempt to do what I think you want me to do though (using different sources to come up with a unique opinion?). Ahem (clearing of throat)... Communism: a form of government in which the right to private property is abolished/non-existent, where all material goods belong to the collective state ("everybody"), where everyone is of equal social class, where the proletariat controls the government, and where the word "profit" is considered dirtier than "vagina" in the presence of 16th century monks. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:46 am ----------------------------------- Why do you support conservatives? Btw, the ridings around Windsor in a recent poll showed that each riding is in support of the Tories more than any other party. :? ----------------------------------- jonos Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:09 am ----------------------------------- Damn good shite there Dauntless - your in my heart forever. I support the conservatives because: -Steven Harper is 2 hawt 4 u!!!! -they are willing to do the democratic thing and decide the same-sex marriage question in parliament (like Paul Martin said he would) instead of bypassing it and going through the courts -they are doing the same thing with abortion -they are going to manage the government better -their leader sticks to what he says, unlike Martin who said that he would go through parliament for certain issues but is going through the courts -blue is a cool colour -they will upgrade our military to make it more effective and so that we can have a stronger peace keeping role -they won't put up with shite like Sudan being elected to the Human Rights Council in the League of Nations -they will cut taxes to stimulate the economy -they won't put up with Quebec bullsh-t and separation mongering -they are 2 hawt brain freeze, can't think of anymore I won't ask you why you support the Liberals because I can guess why, but at least you don't support the Communists or NDP or the tree huggers or shite parties like that. I'd half to admit, I'd rather have the Liberals than NDP or anything farther left. ----------------------------------- Dan Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:58 pm ----------------------------------- lets look at thess points: -Steven Harper is 2 hawt 4 u!!!! right.... -they are willing to do the democratic thing and decide the same-sex marriage question in parliament (like Paul Martin said he would) instead of bypassing it and going through the courts ah, so you are homaphibic are we? -they are doing the same thing with abortion and going affter the woman now.... -they are going to manage the government better how so? -their leader sticks to what he says, unlike Martin who said that he would go through parliament for certain issues but is going through the courts How can u know that? The converstives have not had power fedearly in a while. So you can't realy say he dose what he says. -blue is a cool colour i like green, show i vote for the green party then? -they will upgrade our military to make it more effective and so that we can have a stronger peace keeping role i dont think it needs upgrade as much as dispanding and then fourming a much smaller more effcent peace keeper group with dose not invale bomb poleop like some conotrys. -they won't put up with shite like Sudan being elected to the Human Rights Council in the League of Nations Bomb them all to hell right? Who cares if we killl a few 10000 poleop who had nothing to do with it, they got in the way of our take over, opps i mean libration of the counotry. Beside canada is not the UN or League of Nations, the polical partys of canada are not going to be making magior chages to the UN. -they will cut taxes to stimulate the economy I keep hearing poleop say that but i have yet to see it ever work right. I think it whould be better to rase taxs and the found public services rather then take money from them. -they won't put up with Quebec bullsh-t and separation mongering oh so we did not have enogth minorty groups to go affter yet? I mean why the hell not, all ready going affter gays... -they are 2 hawt same as your 1st point (if u can call it that) This makes me think, jonos and poleop are all ways going on about how the Communists are the dictaors and whont to take over everything and that the conservices are opiste of this but look at what jonos just side: the conservices whont to go affter gays, women and french canindas and mess with there rights as well as make it legal for them to be openly descrimatend agested. While on the other hand the Communists party is all for protecking the rights of the minortys. Also he keeps on going say that the communists are all evil and ditatore like, but they whont to give money to public systems like education, hleath care, welfair and free uni with the convertives whont to keep the money with the ritch. Witch one sounds more like a dictaore to you? ----------------------------------- jonos Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:22 pm ----------------------------------- First of all, I don't think you should really be replying to what I wrote if you do not have a firm grasp on the concept of sarcasm which fueled probably half of my "points." jonos wrote: -they are willing to do the democratic thing and decide the same-sex marriage question in parliament (like Paul Martin said he would) instead of bypassing it and going through the courts ah, so you are homaphibic are we? How does that make me homophobic? Just because I don't agree with same-sex marriage doesn't make me homophobic. You are assuming that I am homophobic though you have no grounds for it!!!! That is about as stupid as you saying that I hate women and want to take away their rights. The fact is that probably more than half of Canada (not proven or anything) is against gay marriage, even a large part of the liberal party is against it, as well Jack Layton has had to order his MPs to vote in favour of it. No one can accurately predict what effects same-sex marriage will have on our society. First of all, it is a biological dead-end meaning that "making babies is not possible" in the traditional sense of having sex. Secondly, to many people it is against their religion, but you will just call that being Christian zealots so I won't go into that. It is like society choosing to accept common law marriage as an accepted legal relationship and not knowing of the consequences of this. Common law marriage has: been proven to cause later problems in a legal/religious marriage and been shown to not bind a union together as strongly as a traditional marriage which could then end with single parents, abuse, etc. The same thing with same-sex marriage - it has nothing to do with how I think of gay people (actually I know some gay people and I don't hate them, I fraternize with them, I don't feel like killing them, I respect them, not anything that you have assumed of me in your ignorance), but actually in the societal effects in later years which could include a decreased birth rate (even less than the present one), more anti-free speech laws like Bill C-250 which limits our rights to free speech, etc. I find it hard to understand how one as intelligent as yourself could actually think that I am homophobic because of my stand on same-sex marriage. Do I hate women because I don't agree with abortion? By choosing a more democratic route and a free vote in parliament the Conservatives are actually showing that they care how more of "Canada" feels about the issue and not a small group of Judges in the Supreme Court or wherever they want to decide it. jonos wrote: -they are doing the same thing with abortion and going affter the woman now.... Still assuming stuff in ignorance - which I do understand is how the far-lefties do come up with a lot of their attacks on other parties. I don't agree with abortion because I consider someone who willingly consents to sex a responsible enough person to be able to deal with a child or at least to take a morning after pill, be prepared with birth control beforehand, or responsible enough to take the test and get the birth aborted within the first 2-3 months of the pregnancy. This, of course, does not apply to rape, sex as a weapon in war, etc in which I would half-heartedly agree with the abortion but still support it. I don't know why you would think me a male chauvanist or wanting to take away women's rights, again I would consider this ignorance and half-brained assumptions on your part, so please stop assuming things that you have no grounds to assume. jonos wrote: -they are going to manage the government better how so? Well they would drop the gun registry which is eating up way too much money and more money than what the Liberals predicted. They would do away with corruption within the government. A major part of Conservative ideals and beliefs is good money management and effective use of budgetting. If you really need some more I will take the time later to add some. jonos wrote: -their leader sticks to what he says, unlike Martin who said that he would go through parliament for certain issues but is going through the courts How can u know that? The converstives have not had power fedearly in a while. So you can't realy say he dose what he says. Well, I really can't know, but seeing Harper speak, in what he says, in how he conducts himself, in his basic and core values, I can say with a very small shadow of a doubt that he will do this. jonos wrote: -blue is a cool colour i like green, show i vote for the green party then? Well, yes you should vote for the Green Party because it takes votes from the Liberals. Also, s-a-r-c-a-s-m. If I write something that does not appear at all in line with other arguments I put forward (not counting 2 hawt 4 u stuff), then it is sarcasm as I am sure others have recognized it as being. jonos wrote: -they will upgrade our military to make it more effective and so that we can have a stronger peace keeping role i dont think it needs upgrade as much as dispanding and then fourming a much smaller more effcent peace keeper group with dose not invale bomb poleop like some conotrys. We can barely peace keep with the size of military we have, how will making it smaller help? jonos wrote: -they won't put up with shite like Sudan being elected to the Human Rights Council in the League of Nations Bomb them all to hell right? Who cares if we killl a few 10000 poleop who had nothing to do with it, they got in the way of our take over, opps i mean libration of the counotry. Beside canada is not the UN or League of Nations, the polical partys of canada are not going to be making magior chages to the UN. Bomb them to hell!?!?!?!?!?! What the hell do you mean, I didn't say that. What I meant was that they would publicly denounce the decision of the Human Rights Council, or at least do something in an act of protest like the Americans and leave the meeting. At least do something about it. But maybe you don't grasp what type of country Sudan is. I will paint a picture for you: -Government backed Muslim militia kill Christian (and other) people because they don't want to live under Sharia Law -Government backed militia displace whole villages, slaughter village inhabitants, rape women, etc (you know, the "lite" stuff) -Slavery is rampant -estimated 1 million casualties (civilian) since this started Of course one Political Party can't do something about it but publicly denounce it and have that denouncement not put in the paper because it is a Conservative denouncement. But a party in power can at least raise a stink about it... protest it in someway... refuse to cooperate with these countries... etc. jonos wrote: -they will cut taxes to stimulate the economy I keep hearing poleop say that but i have yet to see it ever work right. I think it whould be better to rase taxs and the found public services rather then take money from them. The reason you keep hearing people say this is because it works, so I don't think you know what you are talking about when you say that you have yet to see it every work right. Japan, Ireland, and the US has proved it so now you see that it works. Why raise taxes to keep public services running when you can cut taxes, keep the services at the level that they are at now, and do away with the waste and corruption in government? jonos wrote: -they won't put up with Quebec bullsh-t and separation mongering oh so we did not have enogth minorty groups to go affter yet? I mean why the hell not, all ready going affter ***s... First of all, I'm not going after gays, so please shut the fuck up about that - I don't know where you came up with it. Say anything you want about me being stupid and a war mongerer, but stop with saying that I am racist and a male chauvanist and a homophobe. Please. Quebec is part of Canada. Quebecers do not realize that as soon as they separate that their economy is going to go down the damn drain which will then make them come crying back to Canada: "let me come back Canada, I don't have enough money." Why should we give them separation if it is going to cost Canada money when Quebec already has more rights than the other provinces. They even have their own common law for Christ's sake. If Quebec separates they will expect money and help from Canada to get their country going. They already act like they have their own country, they already have more provincial power than other provinces, so why can't they just accept it. Another problem is that if Quebec separates then why doesn't Newfoundland get to separate - or Alberta, the province with all the oil. Too many problems. This makes me think, jonos and poleop are all ways going on about how the Communists are the dictaors and whont to take over everything and that the conservices are opiste of this but look at what jonos just side: the conservices whont to go affter ***s, women and french canindas and mess with there rights as well as make it legal for them to be openly descrimatend agested. While on the other hand the Communists party is all for protecking the rights of the minortys. Conservatives don't want to go after gay people, women, or French. That is about as stupid as me saying that because you don't agree with some Christian view, you hate Christians and want to go after Christians. I don't see how "rights" should be brought up when it comes to an issue that could result in the degeneration of our society. Conservatives want to make it legal to descriminate against these people? You are calling Conservatives dictators but you are protesting their upholding the right to free speech? I don't have a problem with the Canadian Communist Party because they will never get in power, they take votes from the Liberals, and there are two of them. Also, why is their all this shite about minority rights when these people like the Communists and the NDP can't even uphold majority rights? Their thinking is the end of democracy where majority rules, not minority!!!!!!!!! Also he keeps on going say that the communists are all evil and ditatore like, but they whont to give money to public systems like education, hleath care, welfair and free uni with the convertives whont to keep the money with the ritch. Witch one sounds more like a dictaore to you? You can stop your fear-mongering because you are starting to sound like Paul Martin. The Conservatives are not going to take away education, health care, and welfare. What they want is to make the health care better with the money that we are putting into it (which is too much for what we are getting by the way). Concerning welfare, the money would be better spent in giving people who need welfare temporary welfare, training them to find jobs, and training them to better budget their money. If a person is capable of working then they have no right to be a burden and live their life off taxpayers' money. And yes, Conservatives do want to keep free university off the table because seeing as how badly managed our health-care system is, I can't see how the University system could be better managed. In my opinion, education is not a right, but a privilege. ----------------------------------- Paul Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:03 pm ----------------------------------- Which is one more step towards americanization... ----------------------------------- jonos Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:47 am ----------------------------------- Americanization does not necessarily mean becoming an American state or doing whatever America does. Americanization can just mean having an awesome economy or having influence in the world to do good in our eyes (not necessarily through military might). If you believe that anything involving becoming more "American" is bad, then you are the imbeciles that the Liberals are directing their attack adds to. Not all of America follows George Bush... ----------------------------------- jonos Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:30 pm ----------------------------------- I own you Hacker Dan. ----------------------------------- Paul Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:39 pm ----------------------------------- Actually, if we are americanized, we would be the same as americans in every way... ----------------------------------- jonos Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:04 pm ----------------------------------- Technically yes, but they [the conservatives] are not going to do that. But when people say "americanize the healthcare system" they mean make it more private and not necessarily exactly like the Americans. So if someone says "americanize the economy", it basically means make it more like the Americans, but not necessarily the exact same. I still own Hacker Dan. ----------------------------------- SuperGenius Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:34 am ----------------------------------- If we were to americanize the healthcare system that would be more drastic than you thougt. Our current healthcare system could be described as socialist, and socialism is one thing that the americans do not tolorate in the slightest. If we were to instill a capatalist healthcare system it would mean that we had adopted one of the american's most signifigant identity traits, which would make us closer to being like them. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:53 pm ----------------------------------- Saying that Americans do not tolerate socialism is like saying that Sweden doesn't tolerate capitalists. There are many socialists in America and a famous one being Michael Moore. And saying that he is not "liked" by the general American public is just as ignorant as what you said about them as socialism, because if no one liked him then why would his books and his movies sell so well? The Conservatives are not going to Americanize our healthcare system so stop saying they are going to. If they do they will put it to Parliament or to a Referendum and even then it will probably not pass because they will probably never have a majority government and/or the general public doesn't want it. There is another kind of private healthcare which is not capitalist - not for profit private healthcare. This type of healthcare is where one must pay for their healthcare (not through taxes though) but the institution just wants enough money for supplies, salaries, etc. ----------------------------------- SuperGenius Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:13 pm ----------------------------------- I was referring to the american government. I'll refer to a few incidents such as the cold war, vietnam war, korean war... these all happened within recent memory, and the fact that the United States sent off thosands upon thousands of soldiers to fight in the latter two conflicts, and that its inteligence sercives reached such magnitudes during the former incidednt attests to the american's hate for socialism. Of course, there are some socialists in the states, but they are a minority which does not have much influence. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:24 pm ----------------------------------- Those cases were a long time ago - the Cold War ended over a decade ago. Americans hated communism, not socialism, and they hated it because it was a real threat to the world. They went into Vietnam because they wanted to stop the thread of Soviet backed communism - which was badly run communism and dangerous to America and it's allies. This was the case with the Korean War also. If America hated socialism so much why did it not come and kill the CCF when it was formed in Canada. If Americans hated socialism so much then why would Ralph Nader recieve 5% or something of the vote. If Americans hated socialism so much, then why would John Kerry be slowly moving the Democrat party in socialist territory. ----------------------------------- SuperGenius Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:37 pm ----------------------------------- As communism is the extreme form of socialism, the americans HATE communists, whereas socialists are more generally disliked. For a nation such as the states, a decade is next to nothing in terms of time in relation to signifigant historical events such as the cold war. John Kerry only has so much room to wander from the political path, or else he will find himself in shit. He would lose immediately and utterly if he tried to make america socialist. Due to the fact that america is so utterly capatalist, they can move towards socialism a little without being to socialist. Why the states didnt invade us... they want our resources the last time they did they got their asses kicked we are the next thing to a puppet state of america, so they find the current arrangement satisfactory, and hence feel no need to change it. ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:32 pm ----------------------------------- you forgot our secret inuit army in the north, we'll wait until they go all up against china then we'll send them out to invade the USA. :lol: ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:59 pm ----------------------------------- I disagree with you saying that the "Americans" hate communism. There are communists in America, and to say that all of the residents of America hate communists is like saying that all Canadians live in Igloos. It may seem that Americans hate communists because past communist states have threatened American interests and the interests of the Western World but while the government may not give the impression of loving communists, the general American public in entirety, including everybody, does not hate communists. As to John Kerry, he will wander as far as he has to to get votes. American society is becoming more socialist, but this may not seem so because of the current administration. But I assure you, were you to visit say Berkeley in California, you would come across a lot more socialists that capitalists. Todays students are more idealistic and socialist then they were in the past - and this goes for America too. I also disagree with you saying that we are a puppet state of America. Though I sometimes wish we were, this is obviously not the case. Do you see Canadian troops fighting in Iraq? Do you see the soon to be deposed Paul Martin licking Mr. Bush's ass? Do you see America controlling our beef markets - oops :oops: you may be right when it comes to certain aspects of our economy. But that is only because so much of our economy and products in sold to the US so that is really our fault. Unfortuneately, Canada is becoming more like the European countries plagued by too many social programs and inaction. America could do more with our resources if they controlled us as a state then as a neighbouring country. They're just worried about those crazy people out in Quebec who just blow things up if they don't get to form their own country. (SARCASM!!!). Just for the stupid moderators. ----------------------------------- SuperGenius Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:06 pm ----------------------------------- it could very well be that a lot of younger people are socialists, but the fact is that not many of them vote, and politicians know this. Therefore, not many politicians will lean towards socialism because young people don't vote as much, and the goal of every politician is to get votes, votes and more votes. With this objective in mind, they will court a larger voting group, such as middle aged middle class people. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:19 pm ----------------------------------- Many middle aged people are socialist still, they were hippies and though they may have matured and grown up and realized that "free love and drugs" is not the answer, many are still socialist. ----------------------------------- jonos Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:35 pm ----------------------------------- Let us actually debate something interesting here - forms of Government are becoming dull material. Something suggest a topic, we will all state our view, then we will start "yelling" at eachother. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 pm ----------------------------------- I disagree with you saying that the "Americans" hate communism. There are communists in America, and to say that all of the residents of America hate communists is like saying that all Canadians live in Igloos. It may seem that Americans hate communists because past communist states have threatened American interests and the interests of the Western World but while the government may not give the impression of loving communists, the general American public in entirety, including everybody, does not hate communists. Jonos...why do you always make such bad analogies? Democracy is a representation of the majority. So basically, saying that not all of a country agree completely with any one issue does not mean that things do not get done that way. All Americans do not have to hate communism for the government to take an anti-communist stance. Hell, not even more Americans had to vote Bush in, just enough to get EC votes. So yes, saying that all Americans hate communists is like saying all Canadians live in igloos. But does it have anything to do with your argument? No. SuperGenius said that Americans hate communists. Generally speaking, if enough Americans hate communists for their government to act on that fact, then Americans hate communists. Right now, Americans don't hate communists, they just have no interest in pursuing communist ideals. Americans like to have their wealth and dystopic literature like that of George Orwell represent communism in a skewed and hyperbolous fashion. His novels were written in the Cold War era; American culture was stinking with things that bred a fear of communism. I for one think that the government planted the seed of fear, and just like with Iraq everyone followed headlessly. Saying that something happened a long time ago is not always relevant. Like I said before, Germans killed Jews once. Americans have a pattern of starting wars. The government convinces the public and everyone is happy, for a while. Then the body bags start rolling in because the war is longer than expected and everyone is unhappy. And anyways, Steven Harper WILL Americanize Canada, and that's the main reason you should not give him your support. Sponsorship scandal be damned; why are we grasping onto a relatively small scale and unrare occurence when we should be looking to what the Liberals can do for us in the future? I always thought it was funny that the Liberals balanced budgets better while the Conservatives are more liberal with their spending.... the last time they did they got their asses kicked Heheh...A lot has changed since the 1800's. ----------------------------------- jonos Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:40 pm ----------------------------------- I thought we weren't talking about democracy, but... I don't know much about 1984, but Animal Farm was a satire on the Russian and Bolshevik Revolutions, not communism. It is dystopic in the sense that it is an imaginary occurance, but to say that it presents communism in a hyperbolic fashion is not correct. It's plot follows that of the Russian Revolution and it's outcome, and while it does present communism, it presents communism as it turned out to be in Russia, and that is not imaginary. In 1984 he presents communism as Russian communism may have seemed from a Western World point of view. The reason that Americans did not like Communism during the Cold War because the only form Communism came in was in the form of Russia and some other small communist countries that didn't make such an impact. Russian communism and what Russia was doing presented a clear threat to American way of life. It's thanks to Russia that communism gets a bad name. But to say that people don't like Communism because it's distorted in literature and the government tells us it is bad is also not entirely correct. Some people may think this, but many people do not like Communism because it is the opposite of Capitalism and free enterprise and private property, which people want. What you have practically said in this and other posts is that people who do not like communism do not like it because they don't know what it really is, just what it was in Russia. That is not true. And please don't say that everyone followed the government with Iraq because you may lead me to make more idiotic analogies to show that this is also wrong. If you'll remember the protests and demonstrations against the way... maybe Michael Moore's Oscar speech... Even the people who followed did not follow without sense as you said, many people thought Iraq was a threat - as America, Canada, Russia, Germany, France, etc all said that he had the weapons. I'll stop so I don't try making stupid analogies. I'm sorry for the bad ones though. Please accept my heartfelt apology. And what do you mean by Americanize Canada? If you mean making it wealthier, then what is wrong with that? If you are thinking in terms of healthcare, then you are wrong. He can't do that because he would lose support. Canadians have been fed all this bullshit by the Liberals and the NDP too long to understand that a two tier system is not as bad as it may seem. If you mean Americanize our Healthcare system in terms of increasing the level of health care and decreasing waiting times, then what is wrong with that. Paul Martin is always going on about Harper Americanizing Canada but he won't even say how and concerning what. Americanization in some aspects is not bad... If you are going to say that he is going to pull us into wars with other countries alongside the US you are also wrong. He has already taken back his comments about Canada going into Iraq. Lost my train of thought. I also find it funny that sometimes the Liberals can balance a budget, while sometimes the Conservatives can't; but I also find it that the Liberals can still balance a budget and waste 150-250 million dollars on the sponsorship and the gun registry! I also think that we should not forget about the sponsorship scandal because it shows how irresponsible the Liberals were and how invincible they felt. How are the Liberals to govern responsibly when they cannot manage our money responsibly? I don't have too much of a problem with the Liberals now that Paul Martin is leader. He will probably do the Liberal thing and campaign from the left and rule from the right, but I have a problem with his flippiness. First he said he would go through parliament concerning abortion and same-sex marriage, now he is attacking Harper for wanting to do the same. Paul Marting calls himself a devout Catholic, a follower of Catholic beliefs, but he cannot stick with those beliefs when it comes time to campaign and get votes. Sounds like vote mongering but I'll shut up about that because every politician does it. ----------------------------------- Dauntless Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:42 pm ----------------------------------- Animal Farm portrays communists as dishonest and two-faced. I find it strange that there's no dystopic fiction on democracy. I bet communists have their own version of 1984. Yeah...where everyone has sold out their national identity just to be wealthier. Where their sense of nationality comes from how much money their country has. If you don't believe that people get their definition of communism from Russia, ask people the first country they think when they think communist. And ask them the first thing they think when they think communism. A vast majority of Americans approved of Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the early months of the war cuz they were scared from 9/11. Michael Moore was not a protester in those times. MY GOD. Canada did not believe Iraq had WMD. Neither did France. They trusted the UN inspectors and they were right. Russia did not endorse war because it had investments in Iraq; same with China. Even British politicians were caught hyping up the idea that there may be WMD.. Read up on this... Saying that Canada believed there were WMD in the same way the US did is completely wrong. The Conservatives are the ones who gave us the GST. I guess it isn't so bad, but its pretty high compared to most countries. The Conservatives have never been tested either. Paul Martin was a good finance minister and apparently he knew nothing about the scandal. Chretien went behind his back and was responsible for it. Or at least, it's a possibility that has been thrown around. Its ridiculous for everyone to be hammering at Paul Martin for a mistake the previous PM made. If there's no other reason to vote for Conservatives other than you don't want to vote Liberal or NDP....people shouldn't vote. Liberals are for decreasing waiting times too without privatizing it. Re: the sponsorship and the gun registry; you learn from your mistakes. Don't you also find it interesting that Canada is progressing and paying off its debt even with big wastes like that? What about the big black hole in the Conservative budget that Steven Harper won't address and changes the subject back to the sponsorship scandal all the time? A close call for the Liberals will make them realize how little leash they have left... I think with a new driver at the reins, the Liberals can make a difference. If the Conservatives are voted in, I believe they'll slowly take away from our Canadian identity. You can't put a price on our identity; I wouldn't lose it for a 150-250 million dollar anything. ----------------------------------- jonos Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:57 pm ----------------------------------- Ooops, I hope I didn't give the impression that I think people didn't get their impression of communism from Russia. I was saying that people got their "distorted" concept of communism from Russia. "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM That is from a UN guy. I remember reading that France, Russia, Canada, and Germany believed that Iraq had the weapons. Something that Mark Steyn wrote, and I remember this clear as day because I read it only a month ago. Michael Moore has always been a protestor. Paul Martin was finance minister. Anything in government that involves needing money has first to go through the finance minister. If Paul Martin was the finance minister, he would have had to know because real money went to these companies. Either he knew, or he took special steps and precautions to not "know" about it. As in not knowing of the details but knowing of it's existence and the bad bits. And concerning the debt, the Liberals may be paying it off but with how much they are paying it off the debt will be gone by the time my great-great-great or something Grandkids exist. What is Canada's identity? We have so many immigrants coming into our country that our identity is a mixture of many other identities. How can this be taken away? Or maybe you're implying that Canada's identity is liberalism. You still haven't told me what Harper would Americanize and what americanize actually means, becides "Make us more like America".