Canada compensates man U.S. deported to Syria

[alanschu]

The Liberals got ALL their votes from, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver (thats no exageration either, the only votes the liberal got were from those 3 cities)

 

Lets not exaggerate too much. The Conservatives only beat the Liberal party by 6% of the vote. And given that the Liberals did in fact win seats in the prairies, demonstrates that it is in fact an exaggeration that the only votes the Liberals got votes in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Even in super conservative Alberta, 15% of the people still voted for the Liberal Party. They also won the majority of the seats in the Atlantic.

 

And yet the liberals came within 20 seats of defeating the conservatives for power over the country.

 

Which isn't actually that bad, given that the Conservatives only won by a small margin.

 

 

To give a example for our american neighbors, imagine if a political party only got votes in New York (the city not the state), Los Angles, and Denver and then almost formed the presidential party in power. You would call that messed up right? I sure would but thats EXACTLY what happened in our last election.

 

I wouldn't call that messed up. The House of Commons is not a regional legislature. It holds the Members of Parliament that represent the people. The regional representation is done by the Senate, and that's where things are insanely screwed up.

 

 

And please dont talk to me about the NDP, again read their platform, their enviromental solution would cause mass lay offs and economical decline! Harper is trying to help the enviroment with out impacting jobs. NDP doesnt care about jobs or people!

 

Uh, I wouldn't say that. Especially since you apparently feel they are "communist." The NDP Party focuses TOO much on the people. So much so that, as you mentioned, they don't have a fiscal policy to make it work.

 

 

PPPS: TO the other poster that said he veiws himself as Canadian. In the most recent polling data done, ALL of Alberta veiw themselves as canadian and WANT to stay in Canada as the first choice. BUT they followed that statement up with "I would vote to leave if electorial reform doesnt become a reality in the near future".

 

That would be me. And what poll is this? And those statements are political positioning. It's a threat in order to get something done. If Alberta was so pissed off about the political mistreatment from Ottawa, they would have left back when Trudeau implemented the National Energy Program. The "mistreatment" is easy street compared to then.

 

 

Edmonton and Calgary are the FASTEST growing cities in Canada, Alberta has the LOWEST unemployement in Canada, Pays the MOST federal transfer charges in Canada, has the BEST health care in Canada (paid for by province, not federal government) yet has less number of seats as Toronto (the city) has for electorial purposes.

 

You know what, I have no problem with this. Alberta was lucky enough to live on Oil. The thing is, the ONLY province to never receive money in transfer payments, is Ontario. There was a time that Alberta was receiving money from Ottawa. Furthermore, I do not feel that economic strength should garner significantly more political power. Otherwise, provinces that are typically poorer such as the Maritimes have their voting power marginalized.

 

Furtheremore, where do you get your numbers for transfer contributions? The official site only talks about who receives what. I can't find who contributes what exactly, since it's based on an amalgamation of all sorts of taxes and so on.

 

 

Alberta (unlike Quebec) WANTS to stay in Canada, they want to be apart of canada, but they HAVE to have a say in Canada. Right now (with how electorial seats set up) they simply have no say what so ever.

 

This is not an issue of electoral seats. As I said, the House of Commons is a Represenation by Population legislature. This should not change. Granting Alberta more power simply because the province makes money is effectively purchasing the power. It gives additional power to the wealthy, which is exactly how the democratic process should NOT be. I am not in favour of giving Alberta more power in the House of Commons simply because of oil and the wealth it provides.

[Oerwinde]

Also as for the NDP getting a minority Party, do you hate Canada that much? Im being serious here. EVERYTIME the NDP have ever held power (provincial levels as thats the only places they ever won at) they have created record breaking debts for those provinces. Why on earth would you want them to run our country? We are finally getting outta debt from the Trudeau era of over spending, why plummet our country back into massive debt? Seriously.

 

Read the NDP social platforms, it all sounds nice and great but NO WHERE do they ever explain how they going to pay for all this. The reason for this is because they CANT with out building up huge debt!

Hence the minority. That way if their crap sucks so bad it can be blocked by the other parties. Also, with a 13 billion dollar surplus, I'm sure they could afford some of the more reasonable items.

 

I would never want them with a majority. They do their best work when they hold the balance of power, such as right now, and back in the liberal minority. If they held power in a minority government, they could propose their social programs, and the other parties could force limits on them to make it affordable.

 

And lastly, (Im sick of hearing this flat out lie) please show me where the conservatives have stolen from us? You make the claim they are corrupt, so please supply proff to your statement as im sick to death of blanket leftist lies.

 

They bitch and moan about Liberals trying to bribe other party members with cabinet positions and on the first day of the new parliament they bribe a Liberal with a cabinet position and appoint an unelected friend of the party to a cabinet position.

 

After repeatedly complaining about the Liberals having large 6-8 billion dollar surpluses and over taxing Canadians, the first thing they do when they come into power is repeal various tax reforms for low income canadians and cut several social programs resulting in a 13 billion dollar surplus.

 

PS: Please supply a link to your 65% quote. actual numbers are reversed, Harper won the popular vote with 65% of the votes but because of electorial seats being so outta whack only got a minority government! Thats the problem with the left, truth and factual statements rarely come into play here!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/

 

36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Oerwinde

[alanschu]

36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

 

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either.

 

It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results?

 

 

Also, with a 13 billion dollar surplus, I'm sure they could afford some of the more reasonable items.

 

What are these reasonable outcomes? And does it make sense to spend the money just because we have it?

 

 

 

They bitch and moan about Liberals trying to bribe other party members with cabinet positions and on the first day of the new parliament they bribe a Liberal with a cabinet position and appoint an unelected friend of the party to a cabinet position.

 

After repeatedly complaining about the Liberals having large 6-8 billion dollar surpluses and over taxing Canadians, the first thing they do when they come into power is repeal various tax reforms for low income canadians and cut several social programs resulting in a 13 billion dollar surplus.

 

Kalfear asked specifically about theft. Your examples do not indicate anything about theft.

Edited January 28, 2007 by alanschu

[Oerwinde]

36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

 

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either.

 

It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results?

 

 

Also, with a 13 billion dollar surplus, I'm sure they could afford some of the more reasonable items.

 

What are these reasonable outcomes? And does it make sense to spend the money just because we have it?

 

 

 

They bitch and moan about Liberals trying to bribe other party members with cabinet positions and on the first day of the new parliament they bribe a Liberal with a cabinet position and appoint an unelected friend of the party to a cabinet position.

 

After repeatedly complaining about the Liberals having large 6-8 billion dollar surpluses and over taxing Canadians, the first thing they do when they come into power is repeal various tax reforms for low income canadians and cut several social programs resulting in a 13 billion dollar surplus.

 

Kalfear asked specifically about theft. Your examples do not indicate anything about theft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was saying that the electoral system needed reform and thought it was crap that a party getting 40% of the vote could have a majority government. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, I don't care. If a party gets 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats.

 

I also make the mistake of referring to parties by their social position as their whole party position. Which would make all but the Conservatives left of center in my eyes. I keep forgetting that that isn't how it actually works when I make those statements. It would be more accurate to say 63% of Canadians voted for a socially left of center party, and we're being represented by a socially right of center party on the world stage, and that bothers me.

 

I think it makes sense to spend it. At least some of it. Paying down debt is important, but when we have a 13 billion dollar surplus, it doesn't make sense to me to make cuts to social programs, and you'd think they could afford to give the health care system a billion or two. I don't mind paying high taxes as long as I'm getting something for it.

 

And I said they were corrupt, that doesn't necessarily mean theft. They're hypocrites. They call others corrupt for doing something and claim to be the ones to stomp out that corruption, then do it themselves.

[Guard Dog]

36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

 

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either.

 

It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many viable politcal factions does Canada have?

[alanschu]

It would be more accurate to say 63% of Canadians voted for a socially left of center party, and we're being represented by a socially right of center party on the world stage, and that bothers me.

 

Why?

 

 

And I said they were corrupt, that doesn't necessarily mean theft. They're hypocrites. They call others corrupt for doing something and claim to be the ones to stomp out that corruption, then do it themselves.

 

Welcome to politics I guess. The issue I had way back in the day is that you seemed to target specifically the Conservative Party for this (in addition to comments such as how surprised you were that things didn't go down the crapper shortly after the Conservatives made it to power).

 

 

I think it makes sense to spend it. At least some of it. Paying down debt is important, but when we have a 13 billion dollar surplus, it doesn't make sense to me to make cuts to social programs, and you'd think they could afford to give the health care system a billion or two. I don't mind paying high taxes as long as I'm getting something for it.

 

Who's to say you won't get something for it? Is it better to spend more on social spending when the economy is strong (and therefore needs the government assistance less?) and spend less when the economy is weak (and therefore demand for the social services increases)? Economies can shift, and if something happens that results in a downward economic trend, then spending can remain static (and not get cut further), or even increase (depending on how much you follow Keynes' economic theory) with less real penalty incurred on the government coffers.

[Oerwinde]

36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

 

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either.

 

It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many viable politcal factions does Canada have?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Theres the Liberals, they're the moderates, the Conservatives, they're the right, and the NDP, the democratic socialists. Theres also the Bloc Quebecois, which is only in quebec, but is a major force there. They're a semi-separatist party that has many policy similarities with the NDP and Liberals, but just get votes because they don't give a crap about anything but Quebec and the rest of Canada can go **** themselves and I guess thats the mindset in Quebec.

[alanschu]

Guard Dog, the bulk of the votes typically go between the two major Political Parties, the Conservatives, and the Liberals.

[Oerwinde]

It would be more accurate to say 63% of Canadians voted for a socially left of center party, and we're being represented by a socially right of center party on the world stage, and that bothers me.

 

Why?

 

 

Why wouldn't it? The people leading my country don't share the same values as the majority of its inhabitants. Thats not a good thing.

 

Guard Dog, the bulk of the votes typically go between the two major Political Parties, the Conservatives, and the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, they tend to be split down the middle now that theres only one conservative party. The NDP tend to have most of their support on the BC coast, while the Bloc has dominated quebec until recently.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Oerwinde

[alanschu]

Why wouldn't it? The people leading my country don't share the same values as the majority of its inhabitants. Thats not a good thing.

 

That's not true. You don't know why everyone voted they way that they did. Canadians may have voted for a "socially left of center party," but that doesn't mean that they voted for that party because they were socially left of center.

 

I am socially left of center as well, but I voted Conservative. You can't make your conclusion without knowing why people voted the way that they did.

 

 

Yeah, they tend to be split down the middle now that theres only one conservative party. The NDP tend to have most of their support on the BC coast, while the Bloc has dominated quebec until recently

 

The NDP also do well in the Maritimes.

[Sand]

Um... Why would one vote for a side that is against his values?

 

That just doesn't make sense. One of the reasons why I am voting Democrat from now on is because Democrats, flawed as they are, are closer to my own values than any Republican.

[astr0creep]

Interesting discussion.

Off topic a bit but interesting...

 

A man named Michel Dumont, born and raised Canadian, was wrongfully emprisoned 3 years for sexual abuse. Not only did he get molested multiple times in jail, he was also beaten and tortured as this is what happens to rapists in jail. His two children had to be put in foster homes where they were also beaten, tortured and raped.

 

His life, his family were destroyed.

 

He was recently acquitted of all charges with an apology from the government but not a single dollar in compensation.

 

Isn't this case the same if not worse than Arar's or does one need to provoke an international incident in order to get proper compensation?

 

 

 

By the way, you guys are incredibly na

[Surreptishus]

The two cases aren't similar. I doubt Canadian Law allows for torture to be used as punishment.

 

Arar was an alleged victim of Extraordianary Rendition.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Surreptishus

[Volourn]

"The Conservatives are just as corrupt as the Liberals"

 

Nope. As corrupt? Nope. The Liberals have PROVEN beyond a shadow of doubt to be thieves. The Conservatives have been accused of all sorts of things (mostly by Liberals); but no actual proof has been offered.

 

What's sad is that i used to *always* vote Liberal 'til last election.

 

Kalfear: Other have already embarrased you by fact finding that your myth only won in three cities was WRONG. You shouldn't feel the need to make things up if you truly believe what you say is true.

 

I'll point out this though: You claim that Kanada would become one of the poorest countries in the world if the West left; that's balony. there is no way Kanada would fall that low just because a few provinces left. Why do you have to lie to prove a point? Your arroagnce is disgusting. Too bad too 'cause I actually like the West (outside of Oiler fanboys who hate Pronger and feel he is the most evil human int he world just because he wanted to leave his JOB, R00fles!).

 

 

 

 

"I doubt Canadian Law allows for torture to be used as punishment."

 

Nor does it allow false improsionment, rape, toryure, and the like in prison. I believe if someone is victimized by the vovernemtn they should be compensated. And, no, a silly apology is NOT enough.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Volourn

[metadigital]

It would be more accurate to say 63% of Canadians voted for a socially left of center party, and we're being represented by a socially right of center party on the world stage, and that bothers me.

Why?

Why wouldn't it? The people leading my country don't share the same values as the majority of its inhabitants. Thats not a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are guilty of perverting statistics to make your point.

 

FWIIW, Tony Blair's Labour government only secured a vote in the low thirties (33% I think, can't be bothered to check) to win the last General Election in the UK.

 

It happens a lot in democracies, especially with more than a couple of factions to vote for (check out Iraq) and especially when the voting isn't very sophisticated (first past the post is the worst type of dumbing down).

[Kalfear]

How many viable politcal factions does Canada have?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Guard they have two viable parties in the Conservatives and Liberals

 

then two more minor parties that will never hold power but screw up the process as they play spoilers and blockers in the NDP and Bloq.

 

The NDP are socialists that beleive in state run everything where there is no aspect of lives that people run on their own. Everything and anything is state ran and monitored.

 

The Bloq is a seperatist party outta Quebec (they only run in Quebec) and they really are more about holding the federal government hostage so get more stuff for Quebec then anything else these days! Honestly the Bloq shouldnt be apart of the federal government landscape as they truely dont meet the criteria as a federal party but allowed to partake anyways after holding Canada hostage once again to get offically recognized.

 

Then after that you have the emergence of the green party which is what it sounds like. Nature first and economy and everythinbg else be damned. On the enviroment Green and NDP very similiar but Green doesnt preach socialism on the other aspects of Canada).

[Kalfear]

The Liberals got ALL their votes from, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver (thats no exageration either, the only votes the liberal got were from those 3 cities)

Lets not exaggerate too much.  The Conservatives only beat the Liberal party by 6% of the vote.  And given that the Liberals did in fact win seats in the prairies, demonstrates that it is in fact an exaggeration that the only votes the Liberals got votes in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.  Even in super conservative Alberta, 15% of the people still voted for the Liberal Party.  They also won the majority of the seats in the Atlantic.

Im not exagerating. Go look up the last election results if you want to debate/argue this but lets keep it real.

 

The liberals were ONLY supported in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, the rest of canada said no thanks to them.

 

Yes 15% voted liberal in alberta, that was to be expected with the recent influx of Eastern transplants that moved there, but those 15% were spread over the whole province and accounted for ZERO seats in the election. Lets not try to mislead. A party getting 15% of the votes should not win a seat and they didnt, they are basically a non entity in Alberta.

And yet the liberals came within 20 seats of defeating the conservatives for power over the country.

Which isn't actually that bad, given that the Conservatives only won by a small margin.

 

WRONG, Conservatives won by a clear margin but because 3 cities have more seats then most PROVINCES (which is wrong in itself) the liberals were able to almost win.

 

Again lets keep the discussion in reality. Liberals were CLEARLY not the choice of the majority of Canadians last election. Hell far as land mass representation the NDP were more popular. But again we come into a messed up electorial that benifits the few over the many.

To give a example for our american neighbors, imagine if a political party only got votes in New York (the city not the state), Los Angles, and Denver and then almost formed the presidential party in power. You would call that messed up right? I sure would but thats EXACTLY what happened in our last election.

I wouldn't call that messed up.  The House of Commons is not a regional legislature.  It holds the Members of Parliament that represent the people.  The regional representation is done by the Senate, and that's where things are insanely screwed up.

The house of commons is SUPPOSE to be set up based on population but that setting is 100 years outta date and grossly needs reform. So your supporting a system that was accurate 100 years ago and now doesnt support regional OR majority settings. 100 years ago Toronto was the center of the universe far as Canada was concerned, that is no longer the case.

And please dont talk to me about the NDP, again read their platform, their enviromental solution would cause mass lay offs and economical decline! Harper is trying to help the enviroment with out impacting jobs. NDP doesnt care about jobs or people!

Uh, I wouldn't say that.  Especially since you apparently feel they are "communist."  The NDP Party focuses TOO much on the people.  So much so that, as you mentioned, they don't have a fiscal policy to make it work.

Well lets see,

 

Communists beleive in unionized everything, so does the NDP

Communists beleive in State run programs removing the say of individuals, so does the NDP

ect ect ect

In reality the NDP is nothing but communism under a new flag.

Has nothing to do with how I feel, study politics, understand politics and this will become appearent to you as it is to any learned person regarding the topic

PPPS: TO the other poster that said he veiws himself as Canadian. In the most recent polling data done, ALL of Alberta veiw themselves as canadian and WANT to stay in Canada as the first choice. BUT they followed that statement up with "I would vote to leave if electorial reform doesnt become a reality in the near future".

That would be me.  And what poll is this?  And those statements are political positioning.  It's a threat in order to get something done.  If Alberta was so pissed off about the political mistreatment from Ottawa, they would have left back when Trudeau implemented the National Energy Program.  The "mistreatment" is easy street compared to then.

Polls I refer to can be found on stats canada web site along with (forget name off hand, the offical polling center used by ALL legit media (not CBC or Toronto Star) during election). Im on their mailing list and get a new poll each and every month from them. They are used on CPac as well as CTV and Global if that helps!

 

And of course much of the information Im saying here in in your newpaper, just pick up a copy each day or visit a none partisan (again not CBC or Toronto Star) media website for todays top stories. Read the articles for information and then make you mind up ON THE INFORMATION and not the political spin.

Edmonton and Calgary are the FASTEST growing cities in Canada, Alberta has the LOWEST unemployement in Canada, Pays the MOST federal transfer charges in Canada, has the BEST health care in Canada (paid for by province, not federal government) yet has less number of seats as Toronto (the city) has for electorial purposes.

You know what, I have no problem with this.  Alberta was lucky enough to live on Oil.  The thing is, the ONLY province to never receive money in transfer payments, is Ontario.  There was a time that Alberta was receiving money from Ottawa.  Furthermore, I do not feel that economic strength should garner significantly more political power.  Otherwise, provinces that are typically poorer such as the Maritimes have their voting power marginalized.

Again you show your ignorance on the topic. Alberta has NEVER received money from Ottawa, even when they were bankrupt because Ottawa was stealing all their oil in the 70s/80s. To say otherwise is just flat out flase and partisan nonsence.

 

You are right that Ontario also has never recieved but Ontario also has gone years where they DIDNT PAY Either. Alberta has paid EVERY YEAR since the creation of revenue sharing and has consistantly been the HIGHEST PAYER year after year despite not haveing the most population.

 

Last year Ontaorio paid on average $1 per person to revenue sharing where as Alberta paid a whoping $8 per person to revenue sharing. You tell me how this is proper or fair?

 

Quebec has NEVER paid to revenue sharing and year after year asks for and recieves the most amount of handouts!

 

I think this area should be reflected in who has a greater say in the direction of the country to be honest. After all Id rather have employeed/educated people making the rules then welfare reciepiants. The welfare people should have some say but their say should be balanced on their production and imput into the country.

 

And before you suggest im some rich elistist, im on disability so saying my single vote shouldnt count as much as someone who pays for me to enjoy health care and such. Its only common sence imo.

Furtheremore, where do you get your numbers for transfer contributions?  The official site only talks about who receives what.  I can't find who contributes what exactly, since it's based on an amalgamation of all sorts of taxes and so on.

again I get my numbers from stats canada, I figure ill just goto the SOURCE rather then some 3rd party partisan hack job site.

Alberta (unlike Quebec) WANTS to stay in Canada, they want to be apart of canada, but they HAVE to have a say in Canada. Right now (with how electorial seats set up) they simply have no say what so ever.

This is not an issue of electoral seats. As I said, the House of Commons is a Represenation by Population legislature. This should not change. Granting Alberta more power simply because the province makes money is effectively purchasing the power. It gives additional power to the wealthy, which is exactly how the democratic process should NOT be. I am not in favour of giving Alberta more power in the House of Commons simply because of oil and the wealth it provides.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its exactly a issue of electorial seats. Give albertians a fair and proper number of seats so their vote impacts the direction of Canada and they would stop complaining, plain and simple.

 

And the power arguement is funny, so dont give votes based on power, how about just REALISTICALLY updating the population numbers and asigning seats based on that. That alone would strip the unbalanced power from the East.

 

The Electorial set up right now is 100 years old and grossly outta date.

 

Cant say it any clearer to you then that.

Edited January 29, 2007 by metadigital

[Kalfear]

Finally,

 

1) sorry Oer let me resphase that, send me a link from a CREDIBLE NON PARTISAN source (like stats Canada)

 

The CBC and Toronto Star are KNOWN Liberal partisan media outlets and their numbers never match the rest of the medias or pollsters numbers. May as welkl quote the national enquirer if you taking their numbers and statements seriously.

 

So afraid you going to have to do better then that!

 

2) So now corrupt doesnt means theft or stealing? Wow thats a pretty wide meaning for a word.

 

Hear the facts, THIS CURRENT Conservative party has not stolen money (current liberals have), Harper has NOT lied to us as of yet (Current liberals have).

 

I dont understand how you can call them corrupt? You dont trust them, well guess what, neither do I, after all the proffessional political people. But that alone doesnt make them corrupt!

 

To be corrupt you have to steal and lie, current conservatives have done neither to date, liberals AND NDP both have on numerous occations and continue to do so to this day and never get called on it because of the left slant to the media in this country.

 

In closing: ANyways folks, I could talk Politics all day if you want but you and alan and volo (who has yet to prove anything at all) need to start making correct and factual statements for it to be interesting and worthwhile. Im not going to argue the misinformation the liberals and NDP put out daily right now as if they were faccts because they not.

 

If I did that I may as well debate the color of the sky for as relevant as it would be.

 

If you guys wanna do your homework and come back with factual and relative information ill be here ready but till then going to stop repling to the misinformation stuff. Sorry but just not worth the effort in the long run.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Kalfear

[astr0creep]

The two cases aren't similar. I doubt Canadian Law allows for torture to be used as punishment.

 

Arar was an alleged victim of Extraordianary Rendition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was tortured and raped by inmates, just like most if not all sexual offenders who find their way to jail.

The difference with Arar is that he was sent to be legally tortured in Syria by the States.

Both were victims of a poor justice system that barely deserve the name and both(like any other wrongfully accused) deserve substantial financial compensation.

[Oerwinde]

Finally,

 

1) sorry Oer let me resphase that, send me a link from a CREDIBLE NON PARTISAN source (like stats Canada)

 

The CBC and Toronto Star are KNOWN Liberal partisan media outlets and their numbers never match the rest of the medias or pollsters numbers. May as welkl quote the national enquirer if you taking their numbers and statements seriously.

 

So afraid you going to have to do better then that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/25/table9.html

 

How's that. 36.3%

[alanschu]

Um...  Why would one vote for a side that is against his values? 

 

That just doesn't make sense.  One of the reasons why I am voting Democrat from now on is because Democrats, flawed as they are, are closer to my own values than any Republican.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't voting against what I believe in. The Conservatives are more in line with what I prefer fiscally. I'm a right-wing economist.

 

The Liberal Party was shown to be misappropriating tax dollars for their own use. Furthermore, they were in power for 13 years, it was time for a change.

 

I also do not feel that the New Democratic Party have a plan that is economically sustainable, and would be devastating to the country.

 

 

Social issues like Gay Marriage and so on are much, much easier to influence than economic policy when dealing with your member of Parliament. It was interesting, because I had a chance to meet Laurie Hawn (my MP) and talk with him about things that I value from a social aspect.

[Sand]

Those who tend to follow the conservative path never seem to be all that progressive. Here in the US we have great tools of medical research and scientific advancement in genetics that can lead to cures of many horrible diseases. Who is in the way of this? Conservatives, mostly Republicans, who think that an unborn life is more important than the life of someone suffering, yet have no problems in condemning prisoners to execution and send soldiers to die for worthless causes.

[Sand]

I wasn't voting against what I believe in.  The Conservatives are more in line with what I prefer fiscally.  I'm a right-wing economist.

 

The Liberal Party was shown to be misappropriating tax dollars for their own use.  Furthermore, they were in power for 13 years, it was time for a change.

 

I also do not feel that the New Democratic Party have a plan that is economically sustainable, and would be devastating to the country.

 

 

Social issues like Gay Marriage and so on are much, much easier to influence than economic policy when dealing with your member of Parliament.  It was interesting, because I had a chance to meet Laurie Hawn (my MP) and talk with him about things that I value from a social aspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okie dokie. Sounds pretty reasonable. I just wish at time that I could take the best elements of both Republicans and Democrats here in the US and form a composite party. As you say a party that is fiscally responsible yet doesn't allow archaic ideologies get in the way of social progress.

[alanschu]

Im not exagerating. Go look up the last election results if you want to debate/argue this but lets keep it real.

 

The liberals were ONLY supported in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, the rest of canada said no thanks to them.

 

Yes 15% voted liberal in alberta, that was to be expected with the recent influx of Eastern transplants that moved there, but those 15% were spread over the whole province and accounted for ZERO seats in the election. Lets not try to mislead. A party getting 15% of the votes should not win a seat and they didnt, they are basically a non entity in Alberta.

 

I did look it up. 36% of the vote went to Conservatives, 30% went to Liberals. You can accuse CBC of being Liberal lapdogs all you want, but they weren't reporting inaccurate results from the election. Who cares if they didn't win a seat in Alberta. People still voted for them. And no, it wasn't just eastern transplants.

 

As for the rest of Canada saying "no," check this out.

 

Number of Liberal Seats in Newfoundland: 4

Number of Liberal Seats in PEI: 4

Number of Liberal Seats in Nova Scotia: 6

Number of Liberal Seats in New Brunswick: 6

Number of Liberal Seats in Manitoba: 1

Number of Liberal Seats in Saskatchewan: 2

Yukon and Nunavit also have Liberal representation.

 

The fact that they have zero seats is a fault of the First Past the Post Representative Democracy. It doesn't mean that there's zero support for the Liberal Party in Alberta.

 

WRONG, Conservatives won by a clear margin but because 3 cities have more seats then most PROVINCES (which is wrong in itself) the liberals were able to almost win.

 

Again lets keep the discussion in reality. Liberals were CLEARLY not the choice of the majority of Canadians last election. Hell far as land mass representation the NDP were more popular. But again we come into a messed up electorial that benifits the few over the many.

 

The Conservatives had SIX percent more votes. Sorry, but the Conservatives weren't even "clearly" the the choice of the majority of Canadians. Do you even know what the word "Majority" means? It means 50%+1. The Conservatives had 36% of the popular vote. The Liberals were just behind them with 30%.

 

The house of commons is SUPPOSE to be set up based on population but that setting is 100 years outta date and grossly needs reform. So your supporting a system that was accurate 100 years ago and now doesnt support regional OR majority settings. 100 years ago Toronto was the center of the universe far as Canada was concerned, that is no longer the case.

 

I'd like to see some proof that the constituencies laid out across Canada are not created based on population please.

 

 

Communists beleive in unionized everything, so does the NDP

Communists beleive in State run programs removing the say of individuals, so does the NDP

ect ect ect

In reality the NDP is nothing but communism under a new flag.

Has nothing to do with how I feel, study politics, understand politics and this will become appearent to you as it is to any learned person regarding the topic

 

I have studied politics. It's clear you don't understand it, based on your incorrect assessment of communism.

 

 

Polls I refer to can be found on stats canada web site along with (forget name off hand, the offical polling center used by ALL legit media (not CBC or Toronto Star) during election). Im on their mailing list and get a new poll each and every month from them. They are used on CPac as well as CTV and Global if that helps!

 

Get me a link. Are you referring to Ipsos-Reid?

 

 

And of course much of the information Im saying here in in your newpaper, just pick up a copy each day or visit a none partisan (again not CBC or Toronto Star) media website for todays top stories. Read the articles for information and then make you mind up ON THE INFORMATION and not the political spin.

 

Find me an article. Until then, you're just making stuff up in an attempt to prove your point.

 

 

Again you show your ignorance on the topic. Alberta has NEVER received money from Ottawa, even when they were bankrupt because Ottawa was stealing all their oil in the 70s/80s. To say otherwise is just flat out flase and partisan nonsence.

 

From 1957 to 1964, Alberta received Equalization Payments.

 

 

You are right that Ontario also has never recieved but Ontario also has gone years where they DIDNT PAY Either. Alberta has paid EVERY YEAR since the creation of revenue sharing and has consistantly been the HIGHEST PAYER year after year despite not haveing the most population.

 

You accuse me of ignorance? Every province contributes money via taxes and whatnot, that go into the Equalization fund. There's no such thing as "paying" the Equalization Fund, because the Government spreads out tax revenues that we'll all pay regardless. If a province receives ZERO money back, then by default they have paid. In fact, even if a province gets some money back, it doesn't mean they received a net gain. If $2 billion of a provinces tax dollars end up going into the Equalization pool, and that province receives back $1 billion, they technically have still "paid" into the Equalization pool. Furthermore, Ontario still typically pays more real dollars (simply because they have an insanely tax base compared to Canada). Alberta pays more per capita.

 

 

Last year Ontaorio paid on average $1 per person to revenue sharing where as Alberta paid a whoping $8 per person to revenue sharing. You tell me how this is proper or fair?

 

Because Alberta is lucky and lives on Oil. Where'd you get these numbers by the way? Your ass doesn't count.

 

I think this area should be reflected in who has a greater say in the direction of the country to be honest. After all Id rather have employeed/educated people making the rules then welfare reciepiants. The welfare people should have some say but their say should be balanced on their production and imput into the country.

 

If you want educated people, then that is a knock against Alberta. Because much of Alberta's wealth is because people opt to get into the Energy industry and skip out on little things like school. Besides, employment rate and education rate don't really have a strong correlation.

 

 

QUOTE:

again I get my numbers from stats canada, I figure ill just goto the SOURCE rather then some 3rd party partisan hack job site.

 

Then where did you find it? Post a link with your numbers. If you're going to be stupid and pick and choose what sources you want (including ignoring Finance Canada), you better damn well start citing your information. You can't just ignore something because you disagree with it. Accuse places like the CBC for being Liberal Lapdogs you want, but they aren't going to post INCORRECT ELECTION RESULTS you obtuse twit. If the numbers presented by CBCs election results page are wrong, show us the right ones. At least it will serve to validate your claim that CBC is a bunch of evil, misleading fearmongers.

 

QUOTE:

Its exactly a issue of electorial seats. Give albertians a fair and proper number of seats so their vote impacts the direction of Canada and they would stop complaining, plain and simple.

 

They DO! It's based on POPULATION you twit. You claim to studied politics, but have demonstrated zero comprehension of a Parliamentary Democracy. How many seats should they get then? Alberta has 10% of the population, and receives 9% of the seats. Not quite perfect, but pretty close. Ontario has 39% of the population, and has 34% of the seats in the House of Commons. Now my population numbers are based on 2005 population numbers, but the 2006 election was early 2006, so I doubt there's HUGE changes in any of the population numbers. Quebec has 24% of the population, and has 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I'm not really seeing this huge injustice. Would you like me to go through all of the provinces?

 

Here's the population information I had. It's even from a source you like!!!

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo02.htm

 

QUOTE:

And the power arguement is funny, so dont give votes based on power, how about just REALISTICALLY updating the population numbers and asigning seats based on that. That alone would strip the unbalanced power from the East.

 

Prove that they're horribly inaccurate.

 

Constituency borders were redrawn at least as early as 1996. Given that the number of elected representatives went from 301 to 308 in the most recent election, there HAS to have been restructuring of the set up of constituencies.

[alanschu]

Here in the US we have great tools of medical research and scientific advancement in genetics that can lead to cures of many horrible diseases. Who is in the way of this? Conservatives, mostly Republicans, who think that an unborn life is more important than the life of someone suffering, yet have no problems in condemning prisoners to execution and send soldiers to die for worthless causes.

 

Only if you exclude that evil right-wing corporations, that likely vote conservative since it's the most business friendly, often pony up the billions of dollars to do this research.