OT: Canadian Federal Election [Archive]

View Full Version : OT: Canadian Federal Election

Renegade 13

June 19th, 2004, 01:45 AM

For all you fellow Canadians out there, how are you going to vote?? Who do you think is going to win??

Personally, if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote Conservative, and I think they're going to win, albeit a minority.

(Please don't turn this into another huge political debate, just keep things reasonable ok?? Thanks a lot)

Atrocities

June 19th, 2004, 01:53 AM

You guys vote? I honestly didn't know that. I always thought that you guys went by the monarch system of government. He with the money rules.

Captain Kwok

June 19th, 2004, 01:55 AM

Ewh, conservatives.

I'd vote NDP and hope for a minority gov't with NDP-Liberals in charge, rather than the conservatives. Call it the lesser of two evils. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Captain Kwok

June 19th, 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You guys vote? I honestly didn't know that. I always thought that you guys went by the monarch system of government. He with the money rules. Are you serious? I sometimes wonder what they teach in US schools of the world outside the US. I had my sister-in-law once tell me that the US was the only free country in the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

No, we have a political system similar to that of the UK and other commonwealth countries.

[ June 19, 2004, 00:58: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Katchoo

June 19th, 2004, 02:02 AM

I'm voting Conservative.

The only thing the Liberals are good for is wasting money while not acutally doing anything constructive. Oh, and they're good at ailenating other nations with their laid back "let's think on this for a few months" attitude.

It still pisses me off to no end that, after 9/11 happened, Tony Blair was at George W Bush's side before Jean Chretien was. WE'RE THE UNITED STATES CLOSEST NEIGHBOOR! TONY BLAIR HAD TO CROSS AN OCEAN!!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Anyways, the Conservatives at least have a track record of taking chances and doing things, instead of doing nothing & playing golf.

Captain Kwok

June 19th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Hey, we were with the US after Sept 11th and we supported efforts in Afghanistan without hesitation. Do not confuse this with our decision not to go to war in Iraq without U.N. support. That was a choice that was consistent with the majority of people in this country.

I'm not a big fan of the Liberals either. They started off Ok, but after a while they got complacent - and we all know what happens after that occurs.

I don't like the conservatives and I don't need a Bush suck-up either for prime minister. Nor do I want to see debates re-opened on same-sex marriage or abortion and other topics that should be in the past. More so, I've been made bittered by the conservatives in Ontario after the whole "common sense" revolution that saw my tuition rates and rent increase much more than inflation, minimum wages frozen for what 7 years? Lack of investment in my city's infrastructure and public transportation that left it in disrepair...

Anyways, we do need a shakeup. I think an effective minority gov't may be that shake up. I'd just rather see it be some sort of NDP-Liberal Alliance and hope they do some repenting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ June 19, 2004, 01:25: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

narf poit chez BOOM

June 19th, 2004, 02:39 AM

I can't beleive some of you would still vote NDP. UGH!

I say we give Paul Martin one chance.

Grandpa Kim

June 19th, 2004, 03:22 AM

VOTE?!

Here's what they have to do to get my vote:

Gain power.
Keep their promises.
Have the incredible serendipidy of having their promises match my desires.

Then I will vote for them.

What it boils down to is I don't believe a bloody word they say. Why vote for any of them?

The track record of all Canadian politicians is such that they can't be believed. Until they change their spots I will vote for none of them. I shall retain my franchise and not waste it by voting.

tesco samoa

June 19th, 2004, 04:57 AM

Katchoo there are no Conservatives anymore... Unfortanty the Liberals are the closest thing to a tory now.

And that party reminds me of an american party. ( No offence to our strange neighbours to the south , east and north of me ) Lots of I believe and I believe

NDP gets in and were in deep trouble. .. Soccar Mom will help bring this country to its knees...

Bet we can hope for is a Tory minority that gets kicked out within 14 months... Cause they do not have their act together and their economic platform is just brutal.

Renegade 13

June 19th, 2004, 05:43 AM

There are a couple of big reasons why I would vote Conservative:

#1: They're promising to get rid of the gun registry, which has been a screw up of epic proportions. And they're gonna replace it with a national sex offender registry, which to me sounds like a great idea.

#2: Their platform doesn't call for huge spending, like the NDP's does. Have you seen the figures?? 65 Billion in new spending. How are they going to get it back? TAXES!

Ruatha

June 19th, 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
You guys vote? I honestly didn't know that. I always thought that you guys went by the monarch system of government. He with the money rules. Are you serious? I sometimes wonder what they teach in US schools of the world outside the US. I had my sister-in-law once tell me that the US was the only free country in the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

No, we have a political system similar to that of the UK and other commonwealth countries. <hr /></blockquote>He just gotta be joking, but it'd be a bLast if he was serious! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
There are a couple of big reasons why I would vote Conservative:

#1: They're promising to get rid of the gun registry, which has been a screw up of epic proportions. And they're gonna replace it with a national sex offender registry, which to me sounds like a great idea.
Hmm, give back the guns and tell the people where the sex offenders are, a way of solving overcrowding in prisons I suppose, but not the way I'd propose... (I'm not defendeing them but murder is a bit over the top, and I know that I'll get contradictions, won't anser those as this is an election thread.
Couldn't just not point out the connection there guns - offenders...)

[ June 19, 2004, 04:49: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

narf poit chez BOOM

June 19th, 2004, 05:56 AM

Gun registry's do not stop criminals. Criminals do not register guns. And they are less likely to be caught with an unregistered gun. And the only way to be sure someone doesn't have an unregistered gun and is to do house-to-house sweeps.

Gun registry's are a stupid idea. As long as you have sales records and serial numbers, which we have in Canada, you have all you need to investigate spontanious crime.

Organized crime files the serial numbers off if it's gonna be used in a crime.

TerranC

June 19th, 2004, 07:12 AM

We want the Canadian Gun Registry scrapped not because of what it's trying to do and its merit; we wanna scrap it because it has wasted 1 Billon Dollars (Canadian Funds) of our (the taxpayer's) money.

The Liberals deserve to be taken down a notch just for that alone.

Originally posted by Ruatha:
#1: They're promising to get rid of the gun registry, which has been a screw up of epic proportions. And they're gonna replace it with a national sex offender registry, which to me sounds like a great idea.

give back the guns and tell the people where the sex offenders are, a way of solving overcrowding in prisons I suppose, but not the way I'd propose... (I'm not defendeing them but murder is a bit over the top, and I know that I'll get contradictions, won't anser those as this is an election thread.
Couldn't just not point out the connection there guns - offenders...) Edited: Typos and Format

Edit: to answer the renegade's question; If I had to vote (say, somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to vote), I would vote Conservative or NDP, but in reality, I wouldn't vote at all; I don't particularly see Stephen Harper as our prime minister, and I don't like their plan to get our own Version of the HMS Ocean when we should be thinking about replacing our equipement, not adding new ones to the maintenance queue. I think Tesco best described the NDP platform, and I'd rather jump into the St. Lawrence river than vote Parti Quebecois. I'd vote for the green party, if they got rid of that 20% gas tax, which they probably won't, and I wouldn't want the liberals to stay, unless I felt like going to LaSalle (Paul Martin's home riding) and personally give my pin numbers to let Paul Martin use them at his discretion so he could finance another report about anything about anyone three-fold.

[ June 19, 2004, 06:31: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Atrocities

June 19th, 2004, 08:19 AM

David E. Gervais

June 19th, 2004, 12:32 PM

Well, I'll be quick and to the point,..

Background Info: I live in Quebec and consider myself 100% Canadian. (FYI: An elglish speaking Canadian living in Quebec is at best a second class citizen and at worst we have the right to remain silent, anything we say can and will be used against us by the language police.)

Thoughts on the upcomming election,..

What about Paul Martin? (Liberal Leader) Well, I have nothing good to say about a man who goes out of his way to lie or avoid telling the truth. But maybe I shouldn't be too hard on him, he is a politician after all, and it's in their nature to be like that.

What about Gilles Duceppe? (Bloq Leader) Well, no federal politition should be allowed to run for Prime Minister of CANADA if all they have is a 'Provincial' adgenda. All Gilles talks about is making Quebec better off. But HELLO! Quebec is just one provence, he has yet to show any real interest in the rest of Canada. Not exactly my idea of what the Prime Minister of Canada should be.

What about Stephen Harper? (Conservative Leader) This one is easy,.. any politician that lists "Lower Taxes" as part of his campaign promises should be disgarded with extreme prejudice. The term "Lower Taxes" has allways proven to be the exact opposite. Don't believe me? Ok, vote for him, and when your taxes go up send an extra 3% my way for giving you this warning.

What about Jack Layton? (NDP Leader) Well, he walks, talks and acts like a very bad used car salesman. I just can't see myself buying anything from him. He's against the privatization of healthcare. Well, if you look at it as a way to replace the current healthcare then I'd have to agree. But if it is put in place to 'suppliment' the current healthcare. To give the people that pay high health insurance (Blue Cross etc, or happen to be in the middle to high income bracket) the option of going to a private hospital for their care. Well, I see no reason to prohibit that option. If all or most of the 'insured/rich' people went to private hospitals, the immediate effect would be to reduce waiting times in our current over-crowded hospitals. Canada's healthcare system is in serious trouble, spending wads of money to pay for 'overtime' in our hospitals to offset the long waiting periods is going to lead to dire consequences. We can't keep asking our healthcare givers to work 60+ hours/week indefinately. Eventually it will lead to burnout. The entire system will then collapse.(I'm sorry if I got a bit too verbose on this issue, but all four candidates don't seem to realise the gravity of our healthcare situation.)

So, with all this said, who am I going to vote for? Martin? Duceppe? Harper? Layton? Well, I guess there is no good choice this time, so I'll probably vote Liberal. The logic behind this is that although things will still get worse, I think they will get worse at a slightly slower pace with the Liberals. And, I can only hope that in 4 years my choices are better and a new candidate arrives with Canada's well being as his/her top priority.

I usually stay away from political threads, but I felt that it was about time you all got a better idea of my political views.

Have a great day, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ June 19, 2004, 11:34: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

TerranC

June 19th, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
There are a couple of big reasons why I would vote Conservative:

#2: Their platform doesn't call for huge spending, like the NDP's does. Have you seen the figures?? 65 Billion in new spending. How are they going to get it back? TAXES! Any party that will actually try to upgrade our armed forces will have to spend huge; after the conservatives get new uniforms, new recon vehicles (to replace the paper-thin Bombardier Iltis jeeps), new recon planes and boats for our coast guard, and new helicopters to replace the sea kings for our navy, they say they will try to get an amphibious assult vessle, then they'll probably try to get new planes for our air force, and then some. What do you think the bill will come to after all that? At least the NDP's being honest about it.

tesco samoa

June 19th, 2004, 05:19 PM

and plus i do not think we need to upgrade our armed forces... just cut back on our commitments...

Renegade 13

June 19th, 2004, 06:05 PM

In reality, it's a choice between 3 or 4 bad choices. Which is no choice at all. We all just have to choose who we think will be, not good (few politician's are capable of goodness), but the least bad!

Who really knows what each party will do if they're voted into power. No one knows. If there's one thing we all know, its that politicians are proficient at breaking promises, and hiding their true agenda's. I'll just be happy if the new gov't doesn't increase the national debt, and actually does something to reduce it a significant amount. That would be the single best thing that could happen to Canada, a reduction in debt.

BlackRose

June 19th, 2004, 09:31 PM

Well when this whole mess started I was leaning towards a coservitive vote. I live in BC and i've seen what a mess NDP'ish governments can cause + I dont think they are very tough on foreign policy or to stand up for themselves for canadians against the millions of minority Groups (Appeasement, throwing money at them isnt negotiation for all of canada IMO). Jack Layton has done nothing to dissuade me from that notion.

On principal I WILL NOT vote LIBERAL as throwing a vote in that direction ultimately forgives them for the horrendous acts of public betrayal they've perpatrated.

I'm not from Quebec and I'M CANADIAN so the Bloc is totally out.

Stephen Harper sings a tune I like on Education, Health Care, Armed Forces etc But the guy scares me on Same Sex Marriage, (not on abortion, I believe him that he wont press that hot button.) Still I dont think he has enough reign on his people to manage them effectively and a lot of his people seem downright RABID.

So I was more than mildly surprised when I discovered I had another REAL alternative. The Green Party. They are hovering somewhere between 7 and 10% of the popular vote AND with every vote they get that places them OVER 2% they get a 1.75 in funding to better portray themselves.

Myself I've read all the platforms and to be honest I was quite surprised at what I found in the Green Party's Platform. They are not about to sack the military (THE NDP wants to phase out all offensive weaponry) Instead they want to reform it into a quick response force that can go just about anywhere to combat terrorism or keep the peace. Sounds reasonable.

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."

What?! That doesnt sound 'Green' to me, it actually sounds responsible!

They also want to use Canada's influence to reorganize NATO (not scrap it like the NDP). Instead of 5 Veto Holders they want 15, 5 of the wealthiest, 5 of the most populous and 5 elected countries to form a larger more rounded security council. I'll be damned if that doesnt sound good too!

They plan on turfing the wasteful, ineffective GUN REGISTRY as well.

They want to implement a balanced set of Tax Cuts and Increases That:

*Lower taxes on income, profit and investment, to promote increased productivity and job creation.
*Raise taxes on harmful activities such as pollution, waste and inefficiency.
Shift taxes onto land values and away from building values.
*Reform the public sector to be more responsive and accountable.
*Re-focus government programs on promoting the long-term public interest; creating a world class education system and building strong communities. (Again not just looking to benifit your TERM in office but long term Canadian growth)
*Use tariffs when necessary to discourage unsustainable industries and human rights violations. (READ getting read of things that often end up replacing jobs in CANADA, as sweat shops always will and always do produce faster and cheaper than we will)

They also take a strong stance on Health Care providing incetive for Canadians to eath Healthier and excersice (which I think most of us will admit has a lot to do with the strain on our health care). All of this means that they will actually take the helm on the problem not just throw more money and a ailing system. They also plan on reducing pollution and cleaning up water (again who else does that?).

The one thing that scares me but probably makes others happy is the plan to reduce the standard work week for all canadians (stress=poor health). If they can pull that one off i'd love it, dunno how it can be done tho!

All in all the Green party platform (to me) seems the most comprehensive. I really get the feeling of a party that intends to govern Canada as if it was a life long job, not a 4 year term before we have to worry about it again (screw around for 3 years and then make false promises for 1 year).

Now I work within a circle of 20 people and i'm generally the most outspoken of the group. I tracked the voting trends at the begining.

8 Liberal
7 Conservitive
5 NDP

Before Debate (Mid Election)

5 Liberal
11 Conservitive
4 NDP

After Debate

4 Liberal
8 Conservitive
2 NDP
1 Green
5 Undecided.

(I was the Green Vote, formerly the Conservitive. Generally my circle was turned off from the debate, most of us agreed that Harper was the winner of the debate, clear and well spoken. Some of us just didnt like what he was saying).

NOW since then i've been sharing the Green ideas and having my friends go over the Green platform we now sit at.

2 Liberal
4 Conservitive
0 NDP
14 Green

By golly you know I think they may have a shot at Making a Minority or propping one up!

My suggestion, read the platform, share their ideas and see if you want to vote for em, and if you do inform others. They actually have a rounded, fiscally responisble platform that speaks to a lot of us.

www.greenparty.ca (http://www.greenparty.ca)

btw prior to this i'm usually a staunch conservitive (because of economics not right wing views). I'm a supporter of what Klein did in Alberta, but a detractor of what Campbell does in BC (not as bad as his NDP predecessors tho).

All in all i'm sick of party fat cats riding promises to the top then throwing our money around like it was coming out of style once they get there.

So this election year I'LL be voting Green. And if not this term, but possibly the next I hope to see them IN OFFICE!

narf poit chez BOOM

June 19th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Actually, the Green party might be more honest too. After all, a slick politician wants a party they think has a chance.

TerranC

June 19th, 2004, 11:04 PM

Long post folks, if you're not interested, just stay clear of this one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Stephen Harper sings a tune I like on Education, Health Care, Armed Forces etc But the guy scares me on Same Sex Marriage, (not on abortion, I believe him that he wont press that hot button.) Still I dont think he has enough reign on his people to manage them effectively and a lot of his people seem downright RABID.

How so? By saying that Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that any other deviation is ungodly? Some radical MPs from every party preach that tune; it's just that the Conservatives haven't made tolerance towards metrosexuals official policy.

So I was more than mildly surprised when I discovered I had another REAL alternative. The Green Party. They are hovering somewhere between 7 and 10% of the popular vote AND with every vote they get that places them OVER 2% they get a 1.75 in funding to better portray themselves.

Popular votes don't win seats.

Myself I've read all the platforms and to be honest I was quite surprised at what I found in the Green Party's Platform. They are not about to sack the military (THE NDP wants to phase out all offensive weaponry) Instead they want to reform it into a quick response force that can go just about anywhere to combat terrorism or keep the peace. Sounds reasonable.

From the Green Party's Website:
To refocus Canada�s security capabilities and maximize their effectiveness, the Green Party will create an �International Affairs and Global Security Agency� to coordinate and fund the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs (excluding trade and citizenship). Our international efforts to achieve peace and sustainability can be best attained by coordinating our diplomatic and military capabilities, existing aid and development. Having one agency to coordinate all of our international efforts will maximize our potential contributions. Yeah, I bet it will.

Create a RRDF that combines the efforts of civilian specialists and diplomats with military units.

Ensure that these units work together, in a coordinated fashion, to protect civilians and eco-systems. Mix civilians and diplomats with military units to combat terrorism, keep the peace, and protect the environment; That sounds mighty naive to me, and dangerous to bout; we've seen and are seeing civilian contractors, diplomats, and fully-armed solders alike get taken down one by one in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Saudi Arabia; what makes you think that this RRDF can live up to its goal?

Canada�s security at home should be managed by one department. Search and rescue, coastal patrol, airborne maritime surveillance and disaster assistance would all be coordinated under one roof. A merged and enhanced National Reserve and Coast Guard would share the mission to protect our society from internal and external threats.There's a reason why the National Reserve and the Coast Guard are separate organizations; it's more efficient when one organization sticks to its job. If the Green Party wants to increase the coast guard's size by cutting a part of the national reserve and merging that part with it, more power to them, but merging to different organizations into one to handle two jobs at once is, IMHO, dangerous.

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."

What?! That doesnt sound 'Green' to me, it actually sounds responsible!

No, that sounds conservative to me.

They also want to use Canada's influence to reorganize NATO (not scrap it like the NDP). Instead of 5 Veto Holders they want 15, 5 of the wealthiest, 5 of the most populous and 5 elected countries to form a larger more rounded security council. I'll be damned if that doesnt sound good too!

You mean the UN security council. And the NDP wanted to scrap NATO in favor of getting a fleet of "6 Aurora Long Range Patrol Aircraft, 12 non-nuclear submarines, 18 frigates, and a fleet of helicopters." (http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/16.1/bayer.html) This was back in 1987, a good 17 years ago, when Russia was still the USSR. Jack Layton has said that the NDP will commit itself to NATO; and I believe him on this fact; it would seem foolish to reject an organization that offers deterrent against threats abroad. About that 15 nations who would hold veto power in the UN securiy council; how would you measure wealth? GDP per capita? Are you prepared to give Luxembourg and and the Cayman Islands veto power over 200 nations? or perhaps by raw GDP itself; thus letting the US and China retain their vetos, and yet giving Germany and Japan veto power, which would cause unparalleled furour in asia and europe? and by population alone, the world would certainly be alarmed at the fact of Indonesia ganing veto power at this time, should the greens have their way. A security coucil with the US, Germany, Japan, and Luxembourg on one side and with China, Indonesia, the Bermudas and the Cayman Islands one the other plus 5 other nations would certainly create mutual co-operation.

They plan on turfing the wasteful, ineffective GUN REGISTRY as well.

So does every other party, and then some.

They want to implement a balanced set of Tax Cuts and Increases That:

*Raise taxes on harmful activities such as pollution, waste and inefficiency.
*Use tariffs when necessary to discourage unsustainable industries and human rights violations. (READ getting read of things that often end up replacing jobs in CANADA, as sweat shops always will and always do produce faster and cheaper than we will)

You do realize that almost every economic and daily practices (such as cutting down trees for softwood lumber, which I am informed as being one of the most important industries in BC, your home province, and riding a car with a bad muffler) could be considered polluting, don't you? And tariffs to discourage unsustainable industries (which I must assume that they mean the current energy sector by that) and human rights violations? So the Green party would impose taxes each time we import power and gas from the US and abroad, while virtually prohibiting third world products (which I am sure were made in inhygenic factories in god-knows-where) from reaching our shores by taxing them? And expect the Canadian economy to fuction and grow all the while?

They also take a strong stance on Health Care providing incentive for Canadians to eat Healthier and excercise (which I think most of us will admit has a lot to do with the strain on our health care). All of this means that they will actually take the helm on the problem not just throw more money and a ailing system. They also plan on reducing pollution and cleaning up water (again who else does that?).

High praise for a party that would more or less advocate euthanasia.

The Green Party will:
Reduce the long hours that Canadians are working.

Advocate for more time spent engaging in outdoor activities.

Work to decrease the pollution that is weakening our immune systems.

Work to reduce overstress, which is a leading cause of health problems.

Respect the rights of the terminally ill to refuse treatment.The one thing that scares me but probably makes others happy is the plan to reduce the standard work week for all canadians (stress=poor health). If they can pull that one off i'd love it, dunno how it can be done tho!

You and me both. Although I expect it'll go down in flames once everybody starts to take advantage of it.

All in all the Green party platform (to me) seems the most comprehensive. I really get the feeling of a party that intends to govern Canada as if it was a life long job, not a 4 year term before we have to worry about it again (screw around for 3 years and then make false promises for 1 year).

They do have that effect on people, don't they? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

btw prior to this i'm usually a staunch conservitive (because of economics not right wing views). I'm a supporter of what Klein did in Alberta, but a detractor of what Campbell does in BC (not as bad as his NDP predecessors tho).

In all fairness, Klein managed to pull it off because the odds were on his side; Gas, a market for Gas, and at the time when Klein was first elected, a rising price trend for gas. Not all provinces can be expected to pull off the "Klein Formula".

All quotes taken from the Green Party Website: http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/index.php?p

Edit: bad grammar edited

[ June 19, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: TerranC ]

BlackRose

June 19th, 2004, 11:11 PM

Actually one of the biggest problems facing the Greens is the concept of a 'wasted vote' making most people think that voting Green is like not voting at all.

1: Well every vote that goes green is a $1.75 out of the Liberal or Conservitive or NDP or Bloc pocket (all in all there are about 23 million votes cast, thats a lot of coin). This money would go to the green party. If they get enough standing they could have swing votes or, god forbid, the right to be at the next leaders debate.

2: Voting Green shows that we are not pleased with voting for the least of 4 devils. Personally I dont like our system (albeit better than the US system) and would like to make a statement that Non traditional parties can take non traditional avenues into office.

3: Balance: Most would agree that the Conservitaves are right wing, many canadians like their economic stance but are turned off by a number of their 'views' on rights and freedoms. The NDP have a horrible economic platform but many Canadians believe in their 'views' thus we end up with a Liberal Government who seems to be more interested in wasting money that holding up to that balanced mandate they are so proud of. To me the Greens seem more balanced than the NDP or Conservitives and dont have the HORRIBLE record of the Liberals. They also seem to take clear posistions on things unlike Martin's liberals (anyone really know his parties stance on gay marriage yet? Or who was responsible for the sponsership scandel? Or know the justification for draining 45 billion out of our EI surpluss making our reserve EI fund now at 0 dollars? Nevermind what the heck his party is doing for or against Kyoto (IE Saying they support it yet doing nothing to bring the country up to those standards).

I think that the majority of Canadians are somewhat sick of things as our voter turnout has dropped 16 % since 93 (now sitting at around 61%). Thats why i'm voting green, its a message and a potential future I feel comfortable with. I refuse to reward corruption and I fail to see the lofty LEFT/RIGHT views of the other two parties.

It isnt a wasted vote, in fact it might just be your best spent vote, if we dont see the change this election we'll see it next election if we continue to show our displeasure in the traditional parties and our mounting belief in a new party.

[ June 19, 2004, 23:26: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

BlackRose

June 20th, 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Long post folks, if you're not interested, just stay clear of this one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ditto

One thing I do want to mention before delving further into this is that i notice you taken a look at the Green Party platform. If you did you may notice the little thumbs for 'love it' or 'hate it' on each policy or view. Its a personal touch but it does show that they are at least receptive and are willing to go to the effort of at least seeing what we do/dont like about their platform http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Any other parties do this?

Stephen Harper sings a tune I like on Education, Health Care, Armed Forces etc But the guy scares me on Same Sex Marriage, (not on abortion, I believe him that he wont press that hot button.) Still I dont think he has enough reign on his people to manage them effectively and a lot of his people seem downright RABID.

How so? By saying that Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that any other deviation is ungodly? Some radical MPs from every party preach that tune; it's just that the Conservatives haven't made tolerance towards metrosexuals official policy.I totally agree, however there are elements in the conservitave party that scare me with their views and I'm not sure Stephen Harper is up to the task of wrestling with the Opposistion parties and his own on the issues. If enough of his people push for certain things he'll either cave or get swept aside with a non confidence vote. Issues that many coservitives feel strongly on:

Death Penalty
Marriage (Same Sex)
Abortion
US Foreign Policy (making ours more consistent with them)

Remember that the Conservitive party is now a throw together of two different right wing parties that didnt see eye to eye. There has already been a lot of trouble containing those elements which are far larger in the conservitave party than people would believe by reading your point about them being radical.

So I was more than mildly surprised when I discovered I had another REAL alternative. The Green Party. They are hovering somewhere between 7 and 10% of the popular vote AND with every vote they get that places them OVER 2% they get a 1.75 in funding to better portray themselves.

Popular votes don't win seats.You're right, Unpopular politicians and parties seem to win seats right now. I'm not the only one that sees a problem with this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Myself I've read all the platforms and to be honest I was quite surprised at what I found in the Green Party's Platform. They are not about to sack the military (THE NDP wants to phase out all offensive weaponry) Instead they want to reform it into a quick response force that can go just about anywhere to combat terrorism or keep the peace. Sounds reasonable.

From the Green Party's Website:
To refocus Canada�s security capabilities and maximize their effectiveness, the Green Party will create an �International Affairs and Global Security Agency� to coordinate and fund the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs (excluding trade and citizenship). Our international efforts to achieve peace and sustainability can be best attained by coordinating our diplomatic and military capabilities, existing aid and development. Having one agency to coordinate all of our international efforts will maximize our potential contributions. Yeah, I bet it will.Not enough for me to take issue with but an educated guess points me in the direction of sarcasm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif See below.

Create a RRDF that combines the efforts of civilian specialists and diplomats with military units.

Ensure that these units work together, in a coordinated fashion, to protect civilians and eco-systems. Mix civilians and diplomats with military units to combat terrorism, keep the peace, and protect the environment; That sounds mighty naive to me, and dangerous to bout; we've seen and are seeing civilian contractors, diplomats, and fully-armed solders alike get taken down one by one in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Saudi Arabia; what makes you think that this RRDF can live up to its goal?**We've also seen what having multiple agencies with no co-operation can accomplish.

CIA/FBI - on 9-11
CIA/Military Mp's - On prisoner conditions
Governemnt/Intellegence Agencies - On Iraq WMD etc
List goes on, America is a good example of compartmentalized agencies and look at all the good they've accomplished. In fact they seem to be recognizing this huge problem and moving towards joining or at least creating more co-operation between them.

You say the policy is naive, I say its naive to have hundreds of departments running around each with their own agenda and mandate and no cohecive mission between them.

Canada�s security at home should be managed by one department. Search and rescue, coastal patrol, airborne maritime surveillance and disaster assistance would all be coordinated under one roof. A merged and enhanced National Reserve and Coast Guard would share the mission to protect our society from internal and external threats. There's a reason why the National Reserve and the Coast Guard are separate organizations; it's more efficient when one organization sticks to its job. If the Green Party wants to increase the coast guard's size by cutting a part of the national reserve and merging that part with it, more power to them, but merging to different organizations into one to handle two jobs at once is, IMHO, dangerous.Why is it dangerous? See my above reasoning, the US is a great example of having thousands of departments for just about anything and 100's more departments for managing those departments. The whole operation is expensive and seems to be getting shot full of holes right now in the US.

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."What?! That doesnt sound 'Green' to me, it actually sounds responsible!

No, that sounds conservative to me.That was my point as well.

They also want to use Canada's influence to reorganize NATO (not scrap it like the NDP). Instead of 5 Veto Holders they want 15, 5 of the wealthiest, 5 of the most populous and 5 elected countries to form a larger more rounded security council. I'll be damned if that doesnt sound good too!

You mean the UN security council. And the NDP wanted to scrap NATO in favor of getting a fleet of "6 Aurora Long Range Patrol Aircraft, 12 non-nuclear submarines, 18 frigates, and a fleet of helicopters." (http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/16.1/bayer.html) This was back in 1987, a good 17 years ago, when Russia was still the USSR. Jack Layton has said that the NDP will commit itself to NATO; and I believe him on this fact; it would seem foolish to reject an organization that offers deterrent against threats abroad. About that 15 nations who would hold veto power in the UN securiy council;Let me stop you right there,(your right btw I mixed up NATO and UN) perhaps I was unclear they want to REMOVE VETO POWER all together. Right now you've got a minority holding sway over a majority, or do you believe that France or Russia can best represent the views of the Middle East? Or the US for that matter. Right now a lot of people see the UN as inneffective at dealing with concerns not posed by the western world, probably because the UN is heavily favoured to the western world.

1how would you measure wealth? GDP per capita? Are you prepared to give Luxembourg and and the Cayman Islands veto power over 200 nations? or perhaps by raw GDP itself; thus letting the US and China retain their vetos, and yet giving Germany and Japan veto power, which would cause unparalleled furour in asia and europe? and by population alone, the world would certainly be alarmed at the fact of Indonesia ganing veto power at this time, should the greens have their way. A security coucil with the US, Germany, Japan, and Luxembourg on one side and with China, Indonesia, the Bermudas and the Cayman Islands one the other plus 5 other nations would certainly create mutual co-operation. All very frightening in your view, here is what the Greens actually say about it. Removing the VETO would alleviate a number of your concerns (sorry for the misconeption). Here is the actual GP quote -

"Propose a reform of the UN Security Council to eliminate permanent memberships and vetoes. Instead, representation on the Security Council will be awarded to the five most populous nations, the five wealthiest nations (per capita) and five other nations elected from the general assembly."

They plan on turfing the wasteful, ineffective GUN REGISTRY as well.

So does every other party, and then some.Both the NDP and the Liberals still have it as part of their platform,

NDP 'Want Gun Control but are concerned about the cost of the registry'

Liberals 'Want to cap the cost (of the registry) at 25 Million per year'

They want to implement a balanced set of Tax Cuts and Increases That:

*Raise taxes on harmful activities such as pollution, waste and inefficiency.
*Use tariffs when necessary to discourage unsustainable industries and human rights violations. (READ getting read of things that often end up replacing jobs in CANADA, as sweat shops always will and always do produce faster and cheaper than we will)

You do realize that almost every economic and daily practices (such as cutting down trees for softwood lumber, which I am informed as being one of the most important industries in BC, your home province, and riding a car with a bad muffler) could be considered polluting, don't you? And tariffs to discourage unsustainable industries (which I must assume that they mean the current energy sector by that) and human rights violations? So the Green party would impose taxes each time we import power and gas from the US and abroad, while virtually prohibiting third world products (which I am sure were made in inhygenic factories in god-knows-where) from reaching our shores by taxing them? And expect the Canadian economy to fuction and grow all the while?In a word, Yes.

If the industry is unsustainable why not phase it out or replace it? BECAUSE it makes too much money!

Its not just tree hugger science anymore that states there are alternatives to the heavily polluting industries we rely on but there is no incentive to change. I read that as an incetive to change. Tax breaks to inovative technologies that are least wasteful/harmful to health/environment that already work and more taxes on the opposite.

About your view on taxing the factories set up in third world countries are you arguing that this helps them in some way? Was our country built like that? or the US? In a way yes, but then we overthrew our task masters and built up our own economy. I think the trend is now going in that direction with the Third World countries as well and things might get ugly as those wars wont be fought with muskets and wooden ships but with Suicide bombers and hijacked planes. We cannot continue to rely on Slave Labour for our plush toys.

They also take a strong stance on Health Care providing incentive for Canadians to eat Healthier and excercise (which I think most of us will admit has a lot to do with the strain on our health care). All of this means that they will actually take the helm on the problem not just throw more money and a ailing system. They also plan on reducing pollution and cleaning up water (again who else does that?).

High praise for a party that would more or less advocate euthanasia.Your right and I'm guessing your against euthanasia. As I said before if you dont like that policy click teh little 'thumbs down' on their platform and make your voice heard. Do the other parties give you that oppurtunity?

One of the arguments there is the cost of keeping people alive WHO DONT want to be a part of that. They want to die but lack the strength to take their own lives. The doctors and nurses are required to spend time with that patient etc. and our dollars are required to keep them alive. Yet they dont want to be? So while your waiting to get your hip replaced so you can start work again (as your only 40 years old) your doctors and nurses and the hospital bed needed to get you that surgery is being kept by a person who doesnt want to be there, a person who wants to opt out of the service that causes them all that pain and suffering, they are tired and want to be done.

Tough issue, perhaps it needs a tough examination rather than the 'statis quo'.

The Green Party will:
Reduce the long hours that Canadians are working.

Advocate for more time spent engaging in outdoor activities.

Work to decrease the pollution that is weakening our immune systems.

Work to reduce overstress, which is a leading cause of health problems.

Respect the rights of the terminally ill to refuse treatment.The one thing that scares me but probably makes others happy is the plan to reduce the standard work week for all canadians (stress=poor health). If they can pull that one off i'd love it, dunno how it can be done tho!

You and me both. Although I expect it'll go down in flames once everybody starts to take advantage of it.Potentially on the surface I agree with you. Guess we'll have to see what they mean by it at the debate. Opps, they wernt invited http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

All in all the Green party platform (to me) seems the most comprehensive. I really get the feeling of a party that intends to govern Canada as if it was a life long job, not a 4 year term before we have to worry about it again (screw around for 3 years and then make false promises for 1 year).

They do have that effect on people, don't they? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'd say for a reason!

btw prior to this i'm usually a staunch conservitive (because of economics not right wing views). I'm a supporter of what Klein did in Alberta, but a detractor of what Campbell does in BC (not as bad as his NDP predecessors tho).

In all fairness, Klein managed to pull it off because the odds were on his side; Gas, a market for Gas, and at the time when Klein was first elected, a rising price trend for gas. Not all provinces can be expected to pull off the "Klein Formula".Nor can the country, yet i'm inferring that your a conservitive voter (from your post)?

All quotes taken from the Green Party Website: http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/index.php?p

Edit: bad grammar edited [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>

Phoenix-D

June 20th, 2004, 12:29 AM

Just a thing on departments: I agree that splitting things up is good- it gets too bulky otherwise. BUT, and this is where the US government screwed up, the splits should have clearly defined SEPERATE duties.

BlackRose

June 20th, 2004, 01:49 AM

The National Reserve is currently led by a coalition of 12 Business Men/Women from corporations around Canada appointed by the Dep of National Defence.

these are their goals

From the Canadian National Defence Website

Several objectives, in order of priority, derive from the mandate and mission:

To encourage an interest, knowledge and appreciation of the Primary Reserve Force among employers;

To seek a commitment from employers and educational institutions to enhance the availability of primary reservists for training and operations, without penalty;

To advise primary reservists about the value of employer support and provide them with the tools to achieve their employer support aims;

To prevent and aid in the resolution of conflicts caused by primary reserve service;

To sensitize the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence about the value of the Reserve Force and the nature of employer support for the Reserve Force;

To recognize the contribution and support of employers; and

To encourage and assist the hiring of primary reservists by employers who support the Primary Reserve Force. This is what the Green Party wants them to do

Canada�s security at home should be managed by one department. Search and rescue, coastal patrol, airborne maritime surveillance and disaster assistance would all be coordinated under one roof. A merged and enhanced National Reserve and Coast Guard would share the mission to protect our society from internal and external threats.So now we can decide which better serves Canadians.

Murph

June 20th, 2004, 11:40 PM

I'm also from BC and I agree with a lot of what Blackrose is saying. We're in a situation in this province specifically and this country in general where we vote for what we perceive is the lesser of the evils.

The NDP screwed up in BC, badly. So people vote against them. They voted for Cambell and the Liberals, and I don't think that you need me to spell out for you where that got us.

Now people don't like what the Federal Liberals have been up to. I don't like what they've been up to either. Massive waste, corruption, pork-barrel feeding on a huge scale, nepotism, Cretien's despotism and basically playing fast and loose with the trust of Canadians.

About par for the course for our federal government, IMO. So we're going to vote against them? Well, I am, anyway. I voted against them before, though. I've despised the Liberal government for years, for a variety of reasons mainly related to what I felt was their hypocracy.

But the problem I'm seeing here is that we're going to get another party that won't do a good job in their place. And if we vote conservative, we're going to get a party that is going to roll back a lot of the "liberal" things which I feel make up part of our national identity, things like abortion and gay marriage.

You say Stephen Harper isn't going to push hot buttons? Harper isn't even fully in control of his own party, and a "rabid" bunch is a good way to describe them. Plus, Stephen Harper got to the top of the Conservative Party by taking advantage of the rules in the party leadership race, and possibly commiting fraud (in the form of lots of suspicious new party memberships) in pushing the merger through in the first place. Not too auspicious a start, methinks.

If you like what's happening in BC right now, vote Martin. If you LOVE it, vote Harper.

I'm tired of voting for someone so that my "vote is counted". I'm voting Green, and I hope a lot of other people in BC do to. At least they say they're going to try and change things. Everyone else is just putting on bandages and hoping the bleeding will stop.

Even Layton has more of my respect than Martin or Harper (notice I'm not mentioning the Bloc, I don't even think they should be taken seriously federally at all) because at least he's telling us some of the truth.

And the truth is that we cannot afford to keep things going the way they are going. Not financially or socially. 1 billion on the federal gun registry is chump change. Small bills to government, and the sponsorship scandal was the pennies you dig out of your car ashtray. Not saying that it wasn't bad, but this is not the big problem.

The big problem is Health Care and the environment. I love health care, but when the boomers get old, it will kill our economy. I'm not saying scrap it, but we must change it. And the environment, by now, I hope people are starting to see that we are shaping up a catastrophe, and I'd love a government that would take that seriously.

If all you care about is your job, your car and maybe a nice round of golf at the end of the day, by all means, vote Liberal or Conservative, but voting for somebody you don't really trust because he's less untrustworthy than that other guy, thats what I call a WASTED vote.

Oh, and if you don't vote, you don't get to complain. You passed up on your say, and you did it voluntarily.

Sorry about the rant.

BlackRose

June 21st, 2004, 01:32 AM

I loved the rant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think it shows that a bit of a movement is starting up and starting to gain momentum. I just got off the phone with my father to wish him a happy fathers day. He's always voted but finds himself in quite a crux, he's reviewed all the platforms, the Conservitives scare him, he all but despises the NDP, and felt he was being forced, quite reluctantly, into voting Liberal. He hadnt cosidered the Greens an option and wasnt really familiar with anything they offer. He kinda lumped them in with the NDP as irresponsible. We spoke at great length and I could feel the receptive warmth that was starting to come from him. He liked a lot of the 'Green' ideas and Is going to contact his rep to get a copy of the platform (older guy, doesnt like the internet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

It's funny actually, a month ago I didnt consider the Green's a possibility either but the more I delve into it the more I'm commited to voting their way. As my commitment grows I find it infectious as I talk to people they agree, then they talk to people who agree and the process continues.

Certainly it is a small movement at this stage and the party is young and not accustomed to power (which often brings corruption) but there is a growing number of us who will vote for them.

Here's to hoping they get enough of our votes!

I also strongly reccomend a visit to the green party website, as I said earlier they have the option for you to approve or disapprove of most aspects of their platform, I just love that touch!

Renegade 13

June 21st, 2004, 04:45 AM

Haha, you kind of make it sound like a cult!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif You wouldn't happen to be affiliated with the green party in any way would you?? Sounds like advertising to me...lol!

(OT: Damn it's hard to type with a broken hand... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

BlackRose

June 21st, 2004, 05:04 AM

Nah, just got a breath of political fresh air, that's all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As I said heading into this election I was a staunch conservative. Voted for ol' Stockwell Last election (sigh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ). Usually vote conservative in provincial elections as well.

But for now I AM trying to spread the word as much as I can, vote is in a few days afterall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 21, 2004, 04:05: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

David E. Gervais

June 21st, 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
(OT: Damn it's hard to type with a broken hand... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) Harder still to type with a broken keyboard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Sorry, I couldn't help it. And I tend to have a dry sarcastic type of humor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

June 21st, 2004, 04:08 PM

*A large mouse walks into the thread and faints*

Katchoo

June 28th, 2004, 06:49 PM

Well it's Election Day here in Canada, and I went from voting Conservative to voting for the Green Party. The recent news that the Conservative Government might use it's power to veto any Supreme Court rulings (such as Gay Marriages) convinced me to vote differently this time around.

BlackRose

June 28th, 2004, 09:53 PM

Just finished voting, voted Green as well. Was actually quite a fuss I was registered in a different riding than I lived So I showed up to the Riding that I did live in but they sent me across town (and Vancouver is a big town http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) to another riding. AND they wanted to send me back http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Ah well...

Went in with 4 people, all greens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There were a lot of issues that pushed me from the Conservatives to the Greens the straw that broke the camels back for me (not to say it is the most important) was budgets.

Liberal 27 Billion
Green 27 Billion
Conservative 50 Billion
NDP 65 Billion

[ June 28, 2004, 20:55: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

Suicide Junkie

June 28th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Chalk up another vote.

I wrote them an email essay about their nuclear policy (among other things)... A few days after the obligatory form letter reply, they sent me a real reply!

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 12:49 AM

Bleh, CBC isnt showing the Green Candidates pictures and votes, too bad!

OFC our ultimate (If your voting Green) goal is getting OVER 2% (For the Funding) and then possibly hoping for a wobbly minority (Inspiring a quicker election).

It seems likely that the Greens will get a seat at the next debate which will allow them to actually get their message out.

Be interesting to keep tabulating the SEIV forum vote http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Suicide Junkie: That's awsome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif part of our group placed a call to the Greens inquiring about their budget, we got a candidate to call us back and give us the entire low down and then email us a bigger break down http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Was a nice personal touch.

[ June 28, 2004, 23:52: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

Captain Kwok

June 29th, 2004, 01:42 AM

I also voted for the Green Party! Out of all the platforms, I felt their one was the best suited for the future of our country and most in tune with my own views. Hopefully our votes this election will go to help make them visible for the next one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 02:34 AM

Good News For Greens - From CBC.CA

HALIFAX - The Green Party, fighting to be recognized as a legitimate fourth party, recorded a major boost to its party's fortunes, taking three percent of the vote in Atlantic Canada.

The party, which had complained about not being allowed to participate in the two all leaders' debates, climbed a whopping 2.9 per cent from the Last election.

In 2000, their vote was almost negligible, recording only 0.1 per cent, or 1,100 votes.

This election, the party has so far received more than 24,000 votes

geoschmo

June 29th, 2004, 02:42 AM

Well, from my highly scientific analysis of the voting patterns in the current election I have reached the following conclusion:

The Green party could win the next election in a landslide if they provide copies of Space Empires IV to every Canadian household.

Hmmm, I wonder if the same would work in America. Someone get Nader on the phone...

TerranC

June 29th, 2004, 04:23 AM

...And it's a Liberal-NDP Coaltion, but still a Liberal government nonetheless. I guess we'll have to wait until the next election for a Conservative government.

I don't know whether to be sad or indifferent.

Suicide Junkie

June 29th, 2004, 04:52 AM

Does anybody know where there is a listing of the popular vote?

TerranC

June 29th, 2004, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Does anybody know where there is a listing of the popular vote? www.globeandmail.ca (http://www.globeandmail.ca)

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 05:05 AM

LIB 37.05% (136 Seats)
CON 29.50% (95 Seats)
BQ 12.72% (54 Seats)
NDP 15.25% (22 Seats)
NA .09% (1 Seat)
OTH 5.39% (0 Seat)

Is what it was a few minutes ago. Pretty sickening, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Hopefully the NDP will cajole the Liberals into Electoral Reform

The Greens take the Lion Share of the OTHER vote and look to have locked in federal funding!

EDIT

Greens have 4.2% currently vs 0.8% Last election, more than Quadruple!

[ June 29, 2004, 04:13: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

Suicide Junkie

June 29th, 2004, 05:09 AM

I meant the popular vote with details down to (in particular) the greens and the M-L party who were leading one seat for a while.

TerranC

June 29th, 2004, 05:15 AM

Party Votes % of vote Leading Elected Total
Liberal Party of Canada 4424599 36.9% 12 124 136
Conservative Party of Canada 3539349 29.5% 13 83 96
Bloc Qu�b�cois 1519019 12.7% 2 51 53
New Democratic Party 1836691 15.3% 5 17 22
No affiliation 13188 0.1% 0 1 1
Green Party of Canada 506015 4.2% 0 0 0
Independent 43948 0.4% 0 0 0
Christian Heritage Party of Canada 36545 0.3% 0 0 0
Marijuana Party 29841 0.2% 0 0 0
Progressive Canadian Party 9753 0.1% 0 0 0
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada 7755 0.1% 0 0 0
Canadian Action Party 6564 0.1% 0 0 0
Communist Party of Canada 3797 0.0% 0 0 0
Libertarian Party of Canada 1388 0.0% 0 0 0

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 05:15 AM

http://www.globeandmail.ca/elections/fed2004/
or
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesridings/index.html

Last Election

http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table9_e.html

David E. Gervais

June 29th, 2004, 05:26 AM

I too voted green, I can't wait to see the final results in tomorrow's paper.

All in all, I think the green party has shown the biggest improvement of all the 'indipendants' I kind of hope the they get at least one seat in BC, it doesn't look like it, but hope they squeeze through.

Nuf said, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Suicide Junkie

June 29th, 2004, 05:28 AM

Thanks...

Just gonna clean it up a bit for easy reading:<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Party Votes % Leading/Elected/Total
Liberal 4424599 36.9% 12 124 136
Conservative 3539349 29.5% 13 83 96
Bloc 1519019 12.7% 2 51 53
NDP 1836691 15.3% 5 17 22
No affiliation 13188 0.1% 0 1 1
Green Party 506015 4.2% 0 0 0
Independent 43948 0.4% 0 0 0
Christian HP 36545 0.3% 0 0 0
Marijuana Party 29841 0.2% 0 0 0
Progressive 9753 0.1% 0 0 0
Marxist-Leninist 7755 0.1% 0 0 0
Canadian Action 6564 0.1% 0 0 0
Communist Party 3797 0.0% 0 0 0
Libertarian 1388 0.0% 0 0 0</pre><hr /></blockquote>

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 05:36 AM

Yes it's all very interesting, too bad they dont get their coverage.

All other independant parties mostly had their %'s cut in half.

Liberals lost 10% of their previous popular vote

Conservatives lost 21.5%

NDP Gained 83%

Bloc Gained 18%

Green Gained 525%

David E. Gervais

June 29th, 2004, 05:47 AM

Oh, one thing, I think that seats in the house of commons should be given out based on popular votes. it would be a truer representation of the people's wishes, and it would also mean that every vote counts. As is in many ridings the people always feel that their votes don't count, because they have lost their riding. but in the big pic, they are often in the majority.

just a little note about how I feel about the seats in the house of commons.

BTW: the green party gets 4.2% of the popular vote (over 500,000) and has no representation in the house? that is just not right. The bloc got some 1.5million votes and 54 seats. by right Ithink the green party should have 12 seats of their own. Some lonely indipendant gets 13,000 votes and wins a seat. There is definately something wrong with our system, but I doubt it will ever change in my lifetime.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Renegade 13

June 29th, 2004, 06:31 AM

One problem with seats based on popular votes:

How would you distribute the seats around the country?? Would you randomly distribute them? What? You could end up with a NDP incumbent in a riding that voted 70% Conservative...and THAT would not be right. They would not be getting the appropriate representation.

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 07:13 AM

Certainly, but the system the way it works right now delivers things like this:

BC LIBERALS got 98% of the Seats with only 57% of the vote.

In a sense you are right but this is how things would shake up if you went by the popular vote:

Liberal 113 Seats (Actual: 136)
Conservative 91 Seats (Actual:96)
NDP 48 Seats (Actual: 20)
BLOC 39 Seats (Actual: 54)
Green 13 (Actual: 0)
Combined Ohter 4 (Actual: 1)

So the biggest blow would be the Liberals and the Bloc. (is that bad?)

The Biggest Bonus would go to the Green and the NDP. (heck we the people wanted that!)

You have to look at it in a lot of different ways but in the end the Popular Vote would make a HUGE difference in how are goverment is formed.

The hard part is finding out who would be elected from where, or would the party leaders decide? who knows, but it is a significant difference.

The other thing we need to consider is the the 'non voters' and the 'stategic vote'.

1: 'Non Voters' I happen to live in a riding that is 79% Liberal support, so why should I vote for the conservative government? They cant win so I wont vote. OR I like the Greens but they simply cant win in my riding so I'm not going to bother.

2: 'Strategic Vote' I like the NDP but my riding is very heated between the Conservatives and the Liberals, I HATE the Liberals SO i'll vote conservative to STOP the Liberals.

It totally jades the process and often discourages voters. If you really wanted the CURRENT system to work you'd herd all the like minded people into the Ridings, which is obviously just aboud as flawed as our system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 29, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

BlackRose

June 29th, 2004, 07:39 AM

Oh My, I dont know if anyone is awake right now (I'm in BC) but this Liberal/NDP Majority is dissapearing.

It seems to all be coming down to two things, a vote in NEW WESTMINSTER that just went over to the Conservative Government.

The Independant Candidate that was elected in SURREY who was formerly a Conservative MP but chose to run as an INDEPENDANT. He is however planning on polling the people that voted for him to see if they want him to go back to the Conservative.

Regardless of the second point is this

The Liberals ended up with 135 Seats
There supposed coalition partner the NDP ended with 19 Seats
The Conservative ended with 99 Seats
BLOC with 54
And the Independant who may/may not go over to the conservative has 1

SO In theory the the Liberals with the NDP now would hold 154 Seats which is not a majority vote (they would need 155).

Things just got ugly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

June 29th, 2004, 07:53 AM

I'm awake. I live near Vancouver.

David E. Gervais

June 29th, 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
One problem with seats based on popular votes:

How would you distribute the seats around the country?? Would you randomly distribute them? What? You could end up with a NDP incumbent in a riding that voted 70% Conservative...and THAT would not be right. They would not be getting the appropriate representation. I understand the problems involved in "How to distribute the seats" if they were given out by popular vote. But I think the 'Party leaders' could decide who goes to Ottawa to represent them, and as for 'the person with the most votes in a riding not geting to Ottawa' well, instead of voting for all these individual mp's just have the 'party-name' on the ballots. (and have all registered partied on every ballot.)

The Green party got close to 600,000 votes and as is 4.3% of the population has no representation in the house of commons. At the very least the 'Leader' of the Green party should have a seat in the house of commons.

Our system is far from perfect and never will be, but such is life. Nuf said.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

June 29th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Hi, I was just wondering about a recent quote from the leader of the "Bloc" about how he was going to put issues regarding Quebec first. Isn't that kind of selfish? I know Senators down here look out for their own states but jeesh! Are there importand issues in Quebec that need to be addressed above other national matters? I was just reading about that "Bloc" leader guy. A ex militant Marxist? Oh great! Don't be adding any hammer and sickle to that red maple leaf!

TerranC

June 29th, 2004, 10:27 PM

Hi, I was just wondering about a recent quote from the leader of the "Bloc" about how he was going to put issues regarding Quebec first. Isn't that kind of selfish?

Yup.

Are there importand issues in Quebec that need to be addressed above other national matters?

Not really IMHO, they just need a bunch of money for lots of things just like every other province, but the bloc argues that since a majority of Quebecers speak French (and have, in turn a "distinct" society), that Quebec should be special and get better treatment by the federal government than other provinces.

I was just reading about that "Bloc" leader guy. A ex militant Marxist? Oh great! Don't be adding any hammer and sickle to that red maple leaf!

Don't worry; should he get his way, you won't be seeing a People's Republic of Canada; instead, you'll be seeing a People's Republic of Quebec.

[ June 29, 2004, 21:28: Message edited by: TerranC ]

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

June 29th, 2004, 10:47 PM

Thanks, just wanted to get an opinion on that. I do care what happens in Canada. I go there quite a bit and would hate to see anything interfere with their standard of living or happiness...or the continued construction of underground shopping malls.

Vancouver has a "Skytrain" underground; hey who knew!

Grandpa Kim

June 30th, 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
How would you distribute the seats around the country??Simple:

1. Have all candidates run at large. So 5000 candidates up for 310 slots. Top 310 win those slots... and represent no one part of the country more than another.

2. Candidates (again at large) must produce a verifiable petition with 100,000 names on it to gain a seat. If you can get 1,000,000 names, you gain 10 seats... and 10 votes in the house!

The beauty of the Last one is you represent those 100,000 citizens wholeheartedly! No disgruntled voters who voted for the other guy!

These ideas are not new by a long shot, but as this election has proven, the electorate hates change. They prefer the bad old ways to taking a chance. These electoral ideas are just way too big a change.

BlackRose

June 30th, 2004, 03:46 AM

Well only 60% of the elegible voters voted, OR there were more people who DID NOT vote than voted for the Liberals.

[ June 30, 2004, 02:46: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

Renegade 13

June 30th, 2004, 04:18 AM

Well, if this minority gov't doesn't Last long (which it probably won't...) next time I should be able to vote! As long as the election is after April 27, 2005, I'll be giving the Conservatives one more vote.

Suicide Junkie

June 30th, 2004, 04:27 AM

I failed to see any convincing reason to vote for liberal, conservative or even NDP.

What in particular do you see in them?

BlackRose

June 30th, 2004, 05:24 AM

Same thing happened to me, initially I endevoured to discover which party I hated the least. I still thought is was imperative that I voted but it wasnt about which party I liked, I didnt even consider the Greens a party.

Then I heard about the 1.75 a vote thing so I figured i'd at least check out their party's platform.

Glad I did.

Still I'd like to hear what Renegade 13 likes/dislikes about the Conservative platform. Or any party's platform for that matter? As I said before I WAS going to vote for the Conservatives but changed my mind. Admitedlly it had a lot to do with what the Greens offered, compared platform to platform I did prefer the Greens largly. BUT these were the issues that really bothered me with the conservatives:

Harper's Control over his party: More than any other party the Conservatives broke ranks and made inflamitory statements seemingly against what the party was standing for, regarding Military, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage. If he couldnt control them durig the Election how could he control them after?

Conservative Policy: They still hadnt held their Policy Convention so really Harper was running on an UNAPPROVED platform that may have been revised or turned aside. I dont blame Harper for that, it's more Martin's fault as he called the election to beat down the Conservatives (not giving Harper enough time to call the convention). In the end I still could leave that to chance.

In no way do I agree with sending Canadian Troops to fight in Iraq. I dont mind supporting the UN or helping in Peace Keeping etc. In the begining I bought the line about supporting existing Canadian troops, but as time went on it became painfully obvious that we would have been involved in combat over their if we had been under a Conservative Government. I just cant get my head around that and agree with it.

I really am not comfortable with a lot of the personal views held by Harpers chosen MP's. I can name several from BC how almost frighten me. I spoke to my local Conservative MP and I got the same gist, he was quite aquard about ansering questions about going to Iraq, Abortion and Same Sex Marriage. It made him uncomfortable and in turn made me more uncomfortable watching him squirm around the answers trying to find a diplomatic response.

I do agree with the reformation/refunding of the military but I dont like what the Conservatives are proposing to do with that funding. I was far more comfortable with the Green view on that.

I dont mind their view on health care (Chiropractic, Naturalpaths, Ancupuncture, Family Doctors) are all examples of private health care (but you dont pay).

I like the Idea of scrapping the Registry, the only old line party that wants to do that (but so do the greens).

I DID trust his economic views and I honestly believe he would have held to that budget, but I'd rather an econimist like Harper have that affect on government spending and then taking the balance and using it for other things than what Harper's Conservatives want. (Again, I know I keep plugging them!) See the Green economic platform.

[ June 30, 2004, 04:25: Message edited by: BlackRose ]

Renegade 13

June 30th, 2004, 06:04 AM

Here's what I like about the Conservative platform:

1. Scrapping the Gun Registry: It was and is a complete and total waste of money, plus it will do absolutely no good at all. Do criminals register their guns?? I think not. Also, it is simply another way for the government to control the common people. Conservatives were planning on scrapping it, which is great.

2. Additional funding for the military: Lets face it, Canada relies too heavily on US protection. Our navy is pathetic, our army is tiny and underfunded, and the air force I know nothing about, so I won't comment. But we need to have the military capability to protect ourselves, without relying on our allies who may not have our best interests at heart.

3. Space based weapons: This idea I really like. Canada should be able to protect itself, and if space-based weaponry is a way to do that, then go for it. The Conservatives are the only party that I know of that aren't pacifistic, and push-overs in the international community. Space based weapons are something that we are totally unprotected against, and something that we need as a counter threat for countries that DO have them.

4. Gay Marriage: Now this can be a tough issue, and I don't wanna step on any toes here, but I think that the traditional definition of marriage is the correct one. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Like the saying goes, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That is, if you believe in creation not evolution, blah blah blah, that's another debate. Now, I would have no problem if two gay men wanted to formalize their union, but give it another name, don't call it marriage. I don't really care what else you call it, but don't call it marriage please. I'm not totally sure what the Conservatives had planned for that, but I do know that they stated what their plans would be, rather than the other parties who hedged around the issue, and avoided it as much as they could.

5. Abortion: I think that the right to choose is a invaluable one. But should a woman be allowed to choose to murder her child?? In my opinion, no. Can I choose to murder my worst enemy?? No. So neither should a woman be able to kill her child, no matter how much it is unwanted. Its still murder, and its wrong. As far as I know, the Conservatives were taking a similar stance to mine on abortion.

6. Western alienation: Believe it or not, its a true thing. Nearly all politicians ignore the west as though it did not exist. I should know, I live in BC. Harper and the Conservatives are mostly a western party, therefore their concerns lie more in the ignored west. They are the only party that is willing to do something about the problem, and make the west feel as though it is a valued part of Canada, rather than a barely tolerated nuisance.

Those are most of the reasons why I like the Conservatives. I do not want to go Green, because of their environmentalism. In BC, where I live, regulations on the forestry industry are already over the top. We do not need any more red tape, or tree-hugging Greens representing us, and creating heaps of new legislation to help destroy the economy here. Now, I know you'll all refute that in one way or another, but when its all boiled down, it would be a disaster for BC.

There is one thing in particular that I do not like at all about the Conservative platform. They would have sent troops to Iraq. That I can not agree with in any way, as it is not our conflict, and I see very little reason for Canada to send troops over there to get killed in a conflict that the US started.

There is one thing I'm grateful to the Greens for: in many BC ridings, they drew enough votes away from the NDP or Liberals to allow the Conservative candidate to win. So, thanks Green voters in BC!!

Please, feel free to poke holes in my logic, and I will attempt to see your opinions as well. This is only my opinion, and may be totally wrong, as I have not done a lot of research into any of the platforms.

Tyrel

[Edited for clarity and additional points/arguements]

[ June 30, 2004, 05:12: Message edited by: Renegade 13 ]

Captain Kwok

June 30th, 2004, 06:24 AM

Some counterpoints:

- Our military is in mostly bad shape, but I wouldn't say our navy is pathetic. It's actually fairly decent and up to date. A bit more funding and better use of it would go a long way for the rest of our forces. It's important to at least be able to enforce out territorial claims, especially up north.

- Space based weapons is certainly silly for us to consider. Agreeing to participate in any US missile shield just makes us more of a target, plus how likely will someone actually target a ballistic missile at us? Anyways, it's super expensive and not proven to be effective.

- Many people have a misconception that marriage is solely a religious ceremony. Back in the early middle ages, marriage was simply a vow between two people before some witnesses. Religion didn't really step in until later on. Anyways, marriage for anyone is fine by me as it doesn't affect my happiness nor does it affect the commitment I have made in my marriage. I do agree that churches shouldn't be forced to conduct cerimonies if they don't want to, that's something people seem to mention a lot.

- Abortion. This is a must. Of course, you'd want to restrict it to early term pregnancies unless there were mitigating medical circumstances. Better sex ed and more available contraception could go along ways here, plus the RU-486. Abortion should never be nor is intended as an after-the-fact contraception method.

- The environment is a major concern. In B.C., it's improving with more emphasis on sustainable logging activities and such. However, alternatives to fossil fuels need to pushed ahead. We're way behind Europe and Japan here!

- The conservative party is not a western based party, they're just enjoying greater support there at the moment. It's the underlying elements of the old alliance/reform party that a lot of us dislike in Ontario.

Captain Kwok

June 30th, 2004, 06:28 AM

Woops.

Forgot about the gun control part. Some sort of registry is not a bad idea, but the way it implemented was. A think a change to the criminal system where criminals face much longer sentences for using a firearm would be much more effective overall.

BlackRose

June 30th, 2004, 07:38 AM

Well if those are your views (I dont agree whith a lot of them) then you definately should be voting Conservative.

About the 'tree hugger' greens. I think you should read a bit more about them. There is a misconception that there even more leftest that the NDP, this is simply not true. The NDP and the Greens do have some common ground but not as much as many people think.

About their policies in BC, well they actually enjoy more support in BC than anywhere esle and by all acounts that continues to grow. The greens want to invest in creating sustainable industry. Simply put no body can argue anymore about us ruining our environment and sooner rather than later running out of those trees and oil that you consider to be so valuable to the economy. Likely in your life time the world will experience a major shortage in one or both of those industries. Simply put we need to explore other alternatives.

I too live in BC and just because I feel alienated doesnt mean i'm ready to take the step into those waiting conservative arms. I'm going to be blunt here but the Conservative Ideal is going the way of the Dodo. This election of the 4 major parties 1 is left/centre 2 are left and the greens (if you count them as the fifth) are left/centre as well. The conservatives were in a posistion (now united) to gain all that vote on the right as there is no other right alternative. At best 1 out of 6 elegible voters actually voted for them (including the non voters).

Not to begrudge you of your opinion but as a Canadian Alternative their interest seems to be dwindling more and more each year.

Weapons in space is such a bizarre notion its hard to attack it seriously. But where do you think these laser beams would intercept these missles? Any way you look at it its gonna be a major nuke somewher and the size of these warheads these days it pretty much doesnt matter where it is detonated its gonna cause world wide trouble, just a matter of if you die in the bLast of suffer from all the after affects weeks/months or years later. It's stupid, just a stupid as the US/Soviet build up of Nukes in the 70's Each power being able to obliterate the earth many times over.

How would STARWARS prevent the sept 11 attacks? Or assuming we go the way of Israel would that system protect them? I think we're seeing that those are the wars of the future and any space based weapons programs are all but useless. (I cant resist) This isnt Space Empires here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The military doesnt need a lot of what the Conservatives want for them, I strongly reccomend you read up on what the Greens want for the military you might find some common ground. All in all you have to think what those investments would be used for. You dont like the fact that the Conservatives would have sent our troops to Iraq, well let me tell you, if we had been under the Conservatives we would have sent a lot more than we would have been able to at this point. The Conservatives would use that funding in just those kind of unilateral engagements eager to reinstate some archaic chest thumping that Canadians dont have much interest in.

Saxon

June 30th, 2004, 03:32 PM

Interesting comment on the Greens not being as left wing as the NDP. To a certain extent it is true, but much of the Green agenda is based on forcing the economy to take a certain path, which they see as better than others. At a fundamental level, they are saying that people should not be free to do what they like economically and that the Greens know better. This is the same as the NDP, who know better than you what your money should be spent on.

While the Greens have become much more sophisticated with their economic arguments and are nowhere near as one dimensional as many people suspect, they are not a party for freedom, particularly economic freedom.

Interestingly, the most successful Green party, that in Germany, has had some marketing problems. They can not use the images that traditional provide a resonance to the German culture. The historic images used in Germany in the 20’s and 30’s became tied up to the Nazi party! The Nazi’s had, believe it or not, a strong links to the ideas and people who promoted early environmental thought and were very concerned with where the resources to run their society would come from. The idea of Lebensraum, “living room” for the Aryan race to flourish was a mix of racism, nationalism, concern over population density and the fear of dwindling resources. Many of the ideas of environmentalism can, and have, mixed with those of social control and the limiting of individual freedom.

If I had my old hard drive here, I would post a link to an essay I did on this back in grad school. It would have all the references to back this up, as it does sound outlandish. That was half the reason I researched it, I did not believe my prof who told me about it!

In any case, let me say that I prefer parties which argue for individual freedom, particularly financial freedom, where we are the least free. Tax Freedom Day in Canada was only Last week…

BlackRose

July 1st, 2004, 12:28 AM

One man's freedom is another's slavery. A lot of our finacial freedom comes at the expense of others, the greens arent saying 'change right now'. They are saying 'lets get on the path to changing'.

Sure, buying slave labour is cheap but do we really think it wont bite us in the *** later on? What happens if those nations westernize? Whate will we do? Or if they rise up in anger and want their piece of the pie that they helped build?

We should ask ourselves these things, the Greens want to start asking them and moving down a different path.

OIL? What are we going to do? What if the Middle East errupts in war or terrorists blow up oil fields or if we simply just start running out? Man kind will be hit with the dark ages having no alternative, the Greens want to start exploring those alternatives. India and China (the two most populous nations) are starting to industrialize and modernize and they'll be wanting oil as well, the prices will rise faster than you can imagine. Between those two nations it probably amounts to 5x or 10x the oil currently needed. Where is it going to come from?

About the Greens and Nazi Socialism its an interesting history lesson but in the end it is a missleading representation that lumps in their philosophies with something they are not even remotely affiliated with.

Now I agree with you on the paths the NDP are wanting to take as being quite unrealistic, but have you looked at the Green plans? they are not out to lunch. They call for a gradual proggression so as not to shock the economy. There are just as many jobs in alternative energy as in oil, if not more.

Sometimes I just dont understand what people are afraid of. Do you like relying on the Middle East for your Cars, Houses, Heat, Power etc? Or would you like to employ Canadians using alternative energy? We've already designed a lot of these things but the people in charge of the Oil want to keep making the money, increasing our dependance. Heck they benefit from shortages. Really think about it, if your in your late 40's or 50's chances are you'll still be around to see the coming troubles, and if your younger, you'll be raising your children through those times. Either we're prepared for it or we're not. Heck we can even be unaffected by it and be in a posistion to profit beyond our wildest dreams by becoming the next Middle East while the rest of the world struggles to implement the same systems.

Here are some figures:

United States 67.85 barrels per day per 1000 people or 19.7 million barrels per day
They Have (est) 290,342,554 people

Canada 62.09 barrels per day per 1000 people
or 2.0 million barrels per day
We Have (est) 32,207,113

AND

China 3.80 barrels per day per 1000 people
or 4.9 million barrels per day
They have (est) 1,286,975,468 people

India 1.90 barrels per day per 1000 people
or 2.0 million barrels per day
They have (est) 1,049,700,118

Taking the US model if the Chinese reach the same per capita consumption they will be sucking back
80 Million barrels per day of Oil

Do you know that that is more than 15 Million barrels than the entire world consumes per day?

Or, The US consumes 1/3 to 1/4 of the worlds oil each and every day?

Another Fun Fact: The US only keeps 22 Million barrles of Oil In reserve, that would Last them what? 27 Hours?

Saudia Arabia has the Highest reserves at 264 Million Barrels, Perfect, that would keep the US going for all of 13 days... Wonderful!

I mean c'mon people!? Do we really think we can keep this up?

[ June 30, 2004, 23:56: Message edited by: BlackRose ]