Jump to content
Matt

Which Party Do You Support?

By Matt, in Politics and Debate: WRONG!

Which party do you support?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party do you support?

    • Liberals
      5
    • Conservatives
      3
    • N.D.P.
      4
    • Greens
      0
    • Other
      1

Recommended Posts

Moonlight_Graham

Moonlight_Graham

Posted
Posted

Although i lean slighly left-of-center politically, i support the Conservatives right now.

 

I cannot support the Liberals, because of how crooked and complacent they have become. Don't even get me started on the Liberals because i could go on for days. I'll just say that if you read a lot and know what's really been going on the last 6-12 years you'll know how disgusting the party is.

 

The last 2 federal elections i've given my vote to the Canadian Alliance and Canadian Conservatives, respectively. I like Harper as a person and he's great in the House of Commons, but i disagree with many of his social policies. He needs to be ousted as leader because he does not represent what I, and the majority of Canadians, believe in. But i still voted for him because the Libs deserved to be held accountable for their corruption and incompetence, and 4 years of Conservative gov't would have cleaned up some of the wasteful mismanagement of funds, lowered taxes, and helped restore our military. But can i understand why most Canadians didn't vote for Harper.

 

The NDP is much too socialist for me as a gov't (though i respect them), and they would ruin this country economically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Stephen Harper represents the "Conservative" ideology. He represents his party. Belinda Stronach would have been a better leader for the party, but she's too "Progressive Conservative" for the Alliance, thus they voted for one of their own.

 

Paul Martin is a new leader, and I ended up deciding to give him a chance, because I can't stand Stephen Harper. He's the real problem, I don't believe religion should be used as the reason for making policy. And I don't like how the "Conservative" policys are too similar to the "Rebuplican" (U.S. party) ones. Perhaps Paul Martin will be different than the last little while of "Liberals".

 

I like the "Liberals" new cabinet too. He gave newcomers a chance as well. Scott Brison, a former "Progressive Conservative", is the Minister for Government Services and Public Works (last I heard). Ujhal Dosangh (sp?), former "N.D.P." member provincially in B.C., is now the Minster for Health Care last I heard... Perhaps some new people will bring some new ideas and help change what the "Liberals" have been doing recently.

 

The "Conservative" party is just the same as the "Alliance" and I don't think that's a good thing. Sure Harper gave Peter Mackay a chance, but Peter Mackay is one of the biggest liars and he sold out his party. He won "P.C." leadership with his promise of not to merge the two partys, and he's the one who helped merged the partys. If you want to talk about liars, why aren't you talking about what Peter Mackay did?

 

I think that Canadians already have a military, and I don't believe we need to keep pouring funding into it. We have one of the most well trained armys in the world. And I don't believe that the "Conservatives" would have any better funding ideas than the "Liberals".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moonlight_Graham

Moonlight_Graham

Posted
Posted
Stephen Harper represents the "Conservative" ideology. He represents his party. Belinda Stronach would have been a better leader for the party, but she's too "Progressive Conservative" for the Alliance, thus they voted for one of their own.

Actually thats not quite true. The reason Belinda Stronach did not win the leadership nomination is because she has zero political experience. She came from being a top business executive (CEO), to throwing herself into the political fray. She has a better image than Harper and is more likeable, so maybe in another 4 years she'll win the nomination. She even had the official backing Michael Harris, a demi-God in the eyes of conservatives. And Tony Clement was just a geek, and Peter McKay is a liar and a cheat, so Harper was the best man left for the job, and looking back Harper still was very likely the best chance the conservatives had at winning the Federal election.

 

I don't see Harper's winning as "what the Alliance wanted", because if Michael Harris (former PC) had run he would have blown Harper out of the water. But it does totally give the impression that the Alliance-PC merge was just an Alliance takeover.

 

Paul Martin is a new leader, and I ended up deciding to give him a chance, because I can't stand Stephen Harper. He's the real problem, I don't believe religion should be used as the reason for making policy. And I don't like how the "Conservative" policys are too similar to the "Rebuplican" (U.S. party) ones.

 

I agree, i hate the religious part of Harper's policies. Gay marriage, abortion etc. wouldn't be allowed if Harper had anything to do with it. But those are his own opinions, and his religious social views are not what all conservatives across Canada believe. Harper likely does represent what many Western Alliance believe, but not in the PC half of the party.

 

As for Martin and his "new" Liberal party, Martin is much better than Chretien, but the party, its members, the people and businesses they employ, and its basic policies remain mostly the same. I don't totally trust Martin, but we'll see where this party goes. I honestly don't forsee and sweeping changes happening.

 

I think that Canadians already have a military, and I don't believe we need to keep pouring funding into it. We have one of the most well trained armys in the world. And I don't believe that the "Conservatives" would have any better funding ideas than the "Liberals".

 

So are you saying you are content on having a military that is horribly under-funded and is totally incapable of protecting the sovereignty of this country? Haven't you read the stories about our crappy Sea-King helicopters, that are literally 40 years old, have frequent malfunctions, and one which crashed last year trying to take off from its landing vessel. link: Sea-King crash...and those are the best helicopters we have!

 

Do you also recall Canada not even having enough ships to even transport our troops to the Persian Gulf/Afghanistan and having to let the US do it for us? embarassing. Over the last decade the liberals have taken money directed to our military and used it towards funding social programs. They have no real plans on improving our military, unlike the Conservative who had more military funding on their official election platform. Yes i like our role in the world as peace-keepers and no i don't want us to become a war-like country, but i am for keeping our troops safe and properly-equipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Stephen Harper represents the "Conservative" ideology. He represents his party. Belinda Stronach would have been a better leader for the party, but she's too "Progressive Conservative" for the Alliance, thus they voted for one of their own.

Actually thats not quite true. The reason Belinda Stronach did not win the leadership nomination is because she has zero political experience. She came from being a top business executive (CEO), to throwing herself into the political fray. She has a better image than Harper and is more likeable, so maybe in another 4 years she'll win the nomination. She even had the official backing Michael Harris, a demi-God in the eyes of conservatives. And Tony Clement was just a geek, and Peter McKay is a liar and a cheat, so Harper was the best man left for the job, and looking back Harper still was very likely the best chance the conservatives had at winning the Federal election.

 

I don't see Harper's winning as "what the Alliance wanted", because if Michael Harris (former PC) had run he would have blown Harper out of the water. But it does totally give the impression that the Alliance-PC merge was just an Alliance takeover.

You do know who Peter Mackay's biggest supporter was during his P.C. leader election? Belinda Stronach.

Paul Martin is a new leader, and I ended up deciding to give him a chance, because I can't stand Stephen Harper. He's the real problem, I don't believe religion should be used as the reason for making policy. And I don't like how the "Conservative" policys are too similar to the "Rebuplican" (U.S. party) ones.

 

I agree, i hate the religious part of Harper's policies. Gay marriage, abortion etc. wouldn't be allowed if Harper had anything to do with it. But those are his own opinions, and his religious social views are not what all conservatives across Canada believe. Harper likely does represent what many Western Alliance believe, but not in the PC half of the party.

 

As for Martin and his "new" Liberal party, Martin is much better than Chretien, but the party, its members, the people and businesses they employ, and its basic policies remain mostly the same. I don't totally trust Martin, but we'll see where this party goes. I honestly don't forsee and sweeping changes happening.

 

But the people who make the decisions are starting to change is the point.

 

I think that Canadians already have a military, and I don't believe we need to keep pouring funding into it. We have one of the most well trained armys in the world. And I don't believe that the "Conservatives" would have any better funding ideas than the "Liberals".

 

So are you saying you are content on having a military that is horribly under-funded and is totally incapable of protecting the sovereignty of this country? Haven't you read the stories about our crappy Sea-King helicopters, that are literally 40 years old, have frequent malfunctions, and one which crashed last year trying to take off from its landing vessel. link: Sea-King crash...and those are the best helicopters we have!

 

Do you also recall Canada not even having enough ships to even transport our troops to the Persian Gulf/Afghanistan and having to let the US do it for us? embarassing. Over the last decade the liberals have taken money directed to our military and used it towards funding social programs. They have no real plans on improving our military, unlike the Conservative who had more military funding on their official election platform. Yes i like our role in the world as peace-keepers and no i don't want us to become a war-like country, but i am for keeping our troops safe and properly-equipped.

 

Yes I heard about the Sea Kings. But do you even know why the Americans want us to go to these wars? For our equipment, since we have some really good equipment, they want us there for that. How do I know this? I have a cousin in the military...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ok_go_570

ok_go_570

Posted
Posted
Yes I heard about the Sea Kings. But do you even know why the Americans want us to go to these wars? For our equipment, since we have some really good equipment, they want us there for that. How do I know this? I have a cousin in the military...

 

Our snipers kick ass.

 

Its not out equipment (casue the USA beats that out of the water) its that Canada has some of the best trained soldiers in the world. There isnt alot of Canadian soldiers but there very well trained.

 

 

and yes...our snipers do kick ass

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yes I heard about the Sea Kings. But do you even know why the Americans want us to go to these wars? For our equipment, since we have some really good equipment, they want us there for that. How do I know this? I have a cousin in the military...

 

Our snipers kick ass.

 

Its not out equipment (casue the USA beats that out of the water) its that Canada has some of the best trained soldiers in the world. There isnt alot of Canadian soldiers but there very well trained.

 

 

and yes...our snipers do kick ass

It's our equipment too. We have some equipment that the U.S. wants to have nearby as well. Yes we have some of the best trained soldiers in the world, as I said previously though as well, but it's mainly for the equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moonlight_Graham

Moonlight_Graham

Posted
Posted

well i'm glad we have some nice "equipment" the U.S. wants to use. Maybe we can trade it for a dozen Apache Longbow helicopters, and maybe a few ocean rigs to get our troops where they need to go.

 

nice little trivia i found out a few months ago: "Marine One", the U.S. President's personal helicopter, is also a Sea King. (but i suspect its a much newer model)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
  • Author
Posted
well i'm glad we have some nice "equipment" the U.S. wants to use. Maybe we can trade it for a dozen Apache Longbow helicopters, and maybe a few ocean rigs to get our troops where they need to go.

 

nice little trivia i found out a few months ago: "Marine One", the U.S. President's personal helicopter, is also a Sea King. (but i suspect its a much newer model)

Why do we need to get there? The U.S. is willing to tow our equipment for us. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept