It’s that characteristic that makes me figure to vote Conservative despite the fact that I’ll be holding my nose doing it.
I’ve never been more disenchanted with the options.
I guess I should join the Conservative party and work to change it, rather than whine.
I’d like to hear some policy from any of the parties on how they plan on dealing with the illegal flow of guns from the United States into Canada. In my mind, that’ll do a lot more to prevent another summer of violence in Toronto than this will.
Has anyone addressed this issue?
That about sums it up. The world is profoundly lacking in real statesmen these days, and Canada’s leading the charge into mediocrity.
That’s too bad. There’s something to the plan politically in that it may swing some voters their way whereas the people it will alienate the most tend to vote against the Liberals anyway, but that’s its only virtue. It’s not enough to drive me into the arms of a party that approves of the illegal invasion and occupation of other nations and would see members of my family treated as second class citizens, though. Not even close.
I hope I’m not booed off the SMDB for saying so, but that is essentially the reason I refuse to vote conservative as well.
I hope this doesn’t come off as anti-Americanism, but I’d be more comfortable the the farther away Canada is ideologically from the US. It’s just too easy to see Harper cozy up to the current US administration.
So far we avoided the “missle defense shield” and the Iraq war under the liberals. So for all their warts, they have that.
Seeing how hadguns have been regulated since 1934 how exactly do they plan to play this as “gun control” issue? What it does is provide Harper with a pre-text to hammer the Liberals on crime, drugs and border control. Exactly the things no one here is/was talking about.
Earlier in the thread someone asked how I vote, what I base it on. First and foremost I base it on what I think is important, such as Health Care, Education and socially progressive issues (SSM). I vote on what I think will help me the most. I think that I am pretty much like most other people in my age bracket. Recent graduate who has a lot of debt, no kids, no wife who believes you can sleep with whomever you damn well please and marry them to. I am also pro-choice but that isn’t really an issue here. I believe in green policies, but I am not a tree hugger. A strong economy means a strong country, and am somewhat pro-business. I also want to stay as far away from the US policies as possible. Bush is not someone who I could ever even concieve of voting for. In short I describe myself as a small C Liberal, if that makes sense.
Due to these reasons I have trouble seeing myself vote for Harper. I think he and his party are dumb for bringing up SSM, its over, let sleeping dogs lie. On the Gun registry thing, I admit to not having paid much attention to it, but I see very little reason to actually own a gun. I suppose a hunting rifle is okay, but why would anyone need a handgun? Guns are evil IMO, and the more we do to control them the better I say. Pot is fun, it should not be illegal, probably will be for a long time due to American influences though. I don’t think mandatory sentences work, and talking about them does not make believe you are tough on crime and the other guy isn’t, it makes me think of Republicans. When I think of republicans I get both scared and sad. One of the more important things to me is keeping an arms length from Bush. The Liberals have done this, I am afraid Harper won’t/may not (I think won’t).
That about sums up the way I feel right now. I don’t want to vote for Martin, they are corrupt, and I don’t like the idea of having 1 party control the gov’t for so long. However, based on the above, what are my choices?
Yes, and I wonder if this is one of the reasons that issues like softwoood lumber and beef exports last as long as they do? Given the superior attitude most Canadians have towards Americans, at least in my experience, I don’t find it surprising that the US doesn’t have much interest in listening to us.
Superior attitude? A dislike to the current leader of a country means is equivalent to a superior attitude? I don’t like Bush, much like many other people in this world. I think most of his ideas are stupid, such as invading a country before you are done with another country. Thats dumb. I believe the Conservatives would have gone right with the Americans, and we would have Canadians dieing in Iraq. This is a superior attitude?
Who, exactly, does the US listen to?
The reasons the for issues such as beef exports is because of Mad Cow. It was found, that is scary, its going to take a while before they trust the beef again. During this period some beef farmers use it as an excuse to attempt to protect themselves, and their markets. This is not do to any attitude Canadians have, this is just good old fashioned looking after number 1. The softwood lumber dispute is due to lobbyists in Washington having a lot of power, and being paid to look after certain interests. Or at least that is what I think. I am sure it is much more complicated however.
I am pretty damn sure Canadians are much more worried about what Americans think of us, then vice versa. Your whole premise is false. No way the so-called superior attitude has any effect on US policy towards Canada. Either did Parrish. You are telling me you honestly believe the policy makers in Washington are sitting there saying 'those damn smug Canadians, always thinking they are better then us. We are Americans dammit <chants of USA!USA!USA! would spring up here I am sure>! Lets screw them on cows and trees!" “Wow, that’ll show 'em!”
Riiiight.
Yes, pretty much that is it. Canadians tend to think they are superior to Americans and that opinion shows.
If the Liberals had a better relationship with Washington then these issues would be far easier to resolve. It isn’t hard to figure that one out.
Requiem for a hope
Wow, you really think Americans give a shit about us? I am flabbergasted. Not sure what that link has to do with anything. I am well aware of Parrish, even mentioned her.
The Liberals had a fine relationship with Washington, before Bush came in. It isn’t Americans that are the problem, its Bush. If you read all my posts in this very thread I outline the problems ONT voters, IMO, have with Bush, and the problem this causes for Harper and the Conservatives.
I don’t deny that if Martin had gone along with Bush on Iraq, or Missile Defence, that maybe these issues would be closer to be solved. I think that might be to harsh of a price to pay, and probably not completely true anyway. If they won’t listen to the WTO or NAFTA, who would they listen to?
You are way of base here, not even close to reality.
Martin’s pandering “handgun ban” is such a farce. Last time I checked the punks blasting away at each other aren’t exactly using legal firarms. This ban has no effect whatsoever.
He even set the damned announcment to look like a policy announcment by a sitting government instead of a camapign promiss. Hell he even had Miller sitting there (The fat head) giving this some sort of legitimacy. I think the average voter in Toronto will not be fooled by this crap.
And seriously, Uzi, do you really think the average American gives a hoot what we think? Even on this board you get the tolken “You have an army, you have politics up there” Comment.
We realy don’t register unless someone says something so stupid that the pundants can hold it up as an example of how we “Hate” Americans. The truth is the average Canadian has no problem with American’s even if they disagree on politics.
What you call superiority is the normal (though uncommon in this country) pride in our accomplishments. People bring up things like Health care and Iraq to say they are happy with certain policies. I’m glad we didn’t send our troops to Iraq, does that mean I feel superior because some poor family south of the boarder has lost their son or daughter? Hardly. I feel relief that we avoided that mess.
Do you seriously think that the Bush administration is paying attention to Canadian oppions and acting out against them in spite? Whether it is Harper or Layton or Martin in office there will be no change in the tarrifs or embargos on beef unless there is some serious concessions given by us. Those are policies that have more to do with the industry lobbiests in the States than some offensive we may have given.
Please repeat after me:
“The president of the United States is not as powerful as the Prime Minister of Canada.”
Bush has virtually no say in the disputes over softwood lumber and beef. When it comes to steering his government, he is far, far less powerful than Paul Martin has been for the past year.
Honest.
If you want to resolve lumber and beef and any other trade dispute, you’ve got to go directly to Congressmen. Inconceivable as it may be in Canada, where backbenchers were gradually stripped of all power during the Chretien years, in the U.S., Congressmen and Senators have loads of power.
The individual relationships between Chretien, Bush, and Martin have almost nothing to do with trade disputes, no matter how many times people say that’s the case.
No he isn’t, but he also isn’t powerless, either. If he wants to help resolve issues then he can do so. Or, he can just sit back and stick his feet up on his desk, too. I’d prefer that he used what influence he had for our benefit rather than just ignoring us.
…
Individual relationships ARE what matter. In everything it is the only thing that does matter. You can put shit down on paper as much as you want to, and have all the rulings by international trade organizations in your back pocket, but if the other party couldn’t give a rats ass about your opinion on the matter they won’t lift a finger to do anything about it on your behalf and may actually go out of their way to thwart you. It is only if they want to abide by such rulings that they actually will.
Yes, it is correct that Americans typically don’t notice us at all. But, what about those who do notice us when it comes to trade issues like softwood lumber? Are they more likely to remember a person like Parrish than, uh, well, whoever it was that spoke out against what she was saying? Are you more likely to give on your side of the issue if you perceive the other side as thinking you’re idiots for electing a guy like Bush or because 11% of your population can’t find your own country on a map?
There is no doubt in my mind that if Martin, et al, completely supported Bush then these issues would be closer to being resolved if not already resolved. There is also no doubt in my mind that you don’t have to be a toady and can still disagree about things, eg. Iraq, and still have a good enough relationship to get things resolved.
The trade issues do not have to do with Bush trying to get back on a snub.
In softwood lumber the US lumber industry lobbied their congressmen about the “unfair trade paractices” of their Canadian counter parts. Same as the mad cow issue. To protect their own industry from the ravages of free trade with a country that has much cheaper and plentiful product they have asked their government to raise tarrifs to artificially inflate the prices of our goods.
Bush can sit there and eat Albertan beef and whittle BC lumber and talk to the US public about how he wants to help end the disputes until teh mad cow comes home. In the end it is up to Congress to choose fair trade with a foriegn country over the interests of local business. Whether Parrish call Bush a bastard is irrelevant in those choices.
Don’t forget the artifically high cost of softwood in the US hurts their housing industry and by that also teh rebuilding in New Orleans. Do you seriously think they’d bite that bullet because Parrish stomped on a George W doll?
“Damn Americans, I hate the bastards.” is the actual quote. Not just a reference to GW it seems. That sentiment isn’t just isolated to that one Canadian, btw.
Do you seriously think they’d send their kids to die in some foreign land for oil (which they’d just buy in any case), or to free some damn ‘furriners’? Yeah, I’m pretty sure if they thought we thought they were idiots they wouldn’t be in such an all fired hurry to sort out issues that mostly affected us.
When it comes to a trade dispute, he has nowhere near as much influence as you think.
Heck, the President isn’t even in charge of his own party, like our Canadian counterparts are.
Presidents routinely have their Supreme Court nominees tossed out by Congress. Can you imagine that ever happening in Canada? Presidents constantly fight with Congress and the Senate over budgets. The only reason this has happened in Canada in the past three decades has been during minority governments.
If the President sits down with one member of the “Gang of 500” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, and says “I need you to drop this objection to softwood free trade so our economy can stay strong,” the honorable member just points out that he’s saving jobs in his district, and by the by, industry groups have donated $X million to his re-election campaign, so he can stuff it.
I’m pretty sure that it is more effective coming from him than if it comes from some Canadian trade minister (who may be perceived as ‘hating those bastards’) waving WTO rulings in their face.
Sorry, but why is this concept so hard to grasp? Good relationships grease the wheels. Lousy ones don’t.
Why is the concept that the President and his personal relationship with the PM has little to do with the trade dispute?
As to your ‘hating those bastards’ comments, I would say there a quite a few Americans who are very politically astute and who would have no idea who the fuck Parrish is. You may think its a big deal, reality is, it isn’t.
Of course it has little to do with the dispute, but could have a lot to do with solving it.
Again, why do you not understand that having good relationships helps to solve problems and having bad relationships makes them more difficult to solve?