And I'd much rather have Harper representing us internationally than Chretien, what a national embarrassment that guy was.

 

I actually wish Layton was Conservative.

He's got the most charisma of the whole lot... too bad he's a pinko commie.

Harper = wuss
Dion = confused
Layton = ballsy
Duceppe = nut-job
May = who cares

 

i've heard a lot of comments that among the leaders, duceppe is probably the most able, and should be in charge of a "real" party (though the bloc was the official opposition for how long? i guess they are a real party)

i still haven't made up my mind, re: leaders. on a personal level, there's something about harper that makes me want to punch him, dion strikes me as a nervous nelly , layton, as previously mentioned has the most guts, and may is probably the most optimistic.

policy wise, i they're all basically variations on a theme.... more or less

 

+1

I like his personality, but I hate his representation of the Bloc.

Everyone knows the Bloc is irrelevant outside of Quebec, so how can they really serve a purpose in the federal (i.e., national) government?

If the Bloc got their head out of their provincially-focused a**es, focused on national issues, and campaigned against the Liberals in all the Canadian urban centers, they'd have a real shot at the Conservatives.

Maybe Quebec votes need to wake up, get separation out of their heads, and realize that there's a reason that there's three tiers of government in this country--municipal, provincial, and federal--and that their provincial needs are met at the provincial, not federal, level.

 

The poor turnout was disappointing to say the least. From what I've gathered, it seems alot of people casted negative votes, in that they did not vote for someone they liked, just against someone they didn't. I didn't like the PC's in our riding (some sly maneouvring and kept hush-hush, just where do they draw the line?) so I am definitely guilty of casting a negative vote. I think there was a lack of motivation by the voters caused by not wanting to vote for any of the candidates and led to the poor turnout.

 

Google "Stephan Harper's Idol", there are a couple of references to the topic. I believe it was Dion that spread that gossip.

I'm not really against the PC party, I'll admit, I'm more against Stephan Harper. It does not seem like he's doing what's in Canada's best interests, especially with tax cuts, new bills, and other "expenditures". It seems like he's not on the Canadian's side, he's doing this in the interest of his own agenda.

He only defends himself to keep the position as PM for his own benefit.

A proof of this is when he sent troops to Afghanistan, he stated that he does not want Canada to sit back on foreign affairs, the result comes to Canada as an enemy to the war-torn country. He just put us in danger, so what if the next day, the event of the WTC event replicated to the CN tower? I even recall a video of Osama Bin Laden telling Canada to back off. It's not our war, it's not our affairs, so why are we joining? Sure we Canadians are courteous and we'll help out countries in need, but this is not the way to do it. We are provoking them.

Why did Stephan Harper do this? My belief is that he's just trying to make himself look good by involving Canada into foreign affairs and saying that we are Canadians, we are going to help. This will allow him to keep his job longer.

Of course, like all other politicians, he had broken some of his promises during his 2006 compaign, but his broken promises was much more shocking especially with the tax on income trust fund and some other crap I can't remember.

I believe Layton would be a much better leader, but I just dislike the fact that he is in NDP party, of course, I may be biased on that as well.

 

^what is this agenda of Stephen Harper's you are referring to? It sounds more like you don't like the policy of the PC party.

By the way the liberal government was the party that made the decision and first sent troops to Afghanistan. I find it hard to believe Stephen Harper is continuing to send troops only because he wants to make himself look good. Using that logic that would also be the only reason Jean Chretien sent troops there.

Layton can present himself well and make a lot statements that other parties can't simply because they know they will never get to power and back anything up.

 

Agenda: Saving his own ***. Wants to please the "voters" by letting them think that he's doing his job. By using our own tax money. It always seems like few billions dollar here, few billions there, where is it actually going? It's not really actually benefiting us as Canadians, I found the new 14% to 13% tax cut a more hassle than benefit, the government keeps adding new taxes to make up for the loss of 1% in which they are actually making MORE than the loss of 1%. There's are article on this as well. Although it's quite easy to find articles that always contains negative feedback about any politicians. But this fact is very true.

As for Chretien sending the troops, it's the same reason. Believing that Canada should get involved.

Layton does make a lot of statements, but do you think he can actually back his statements up? That's what I'm eager to find out.

 

^IMHO, you're taking blanket statements that apply to all politicians and applying them only to Harper. That doesn't make sense.

As I said before it's a moot point with Layton. He'll never be the leader of the country as long as he represents NDP.

 

^^ +1000, what politician doesn't do things to make himself look good, be popular and get re-elected? It's kind of the definition of the job. Other than, you know, the secondary stuff about running the country...

Also, I did Google "Stephen Harper's Idol" and I got a lot of radical-left bloggers spewing baseless anti-Harper vitriol.

 

^how do they be popular? by giving voters what they want, by running the country properly. I remember so many conversations about Harper's decision to send troops to Afghanistan just from walking down the street, and most was negative. Does that really show that Harper is giving what people want?

Like I said, heated topic, I'm not gonna bother with it, everyone has their own view, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to see it my way and vice versa for everyone else.

 

XX, I'm cool with everything you've said, it's great that we live in a country where we're free to agree to disagree.

regarding the street conversations: you're more likely to hear the negative being spoken out loud, the people who back Canada's involvement are not likely to strike up a conversation saying "hey, isn't it great that we have troops in Afghanistan?" Just the nature of people. I personally would rather we had maintained our role as the world's peacekeepers.

 

It's not heated from my perspective. I am trying to take an objective view on all of this. While I respect your comments IMO you've made some baseless statements on here so I felt I had to reply.

Once again it wasn't originally Stephen Harper's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Our role is evolving into more action than peace keeping which some people don't like. Most of us would probably like to have a more passive role in all this but it would probably mean the job wouldn't get done.

The people have spoken and the bottom line is more folks in this country disagree with what you're suggesting than agree. There doesn't seem to be much stomach or belief that the other leaders or parties can operate the country "more properly".

Like Swivel said it's great that we can voice our opinions and vote to back that up, having our say.

 

Against my better judgment, but RBull; I am curious. The job in Afghanistan, what exactly is it? Do you honestly believe we'll ever be able to effect a radical change in that area of the world?

(fwiw, I'm not a particular fan of any of this elections candidates. I am "ok" with Harper, but I am not ok with his party).

 

IMO, sending troops to Afghanistan has nothing to do with fixing that countries problems and everything to do with showing the world that Canada is here to take up a key role in the enforcement of UN Security Council policies--unlike the USA, who will support the UN only when it is convenient (e.g., Iraq).

I agree with this approach, because it furthers our reputation within the governments of the economic superpowers of the world, with whom we rely on to sustain our economy through the exports of Canada's natural resources to them.

Afghanistan is all about making a clear statement about our foreign policy, and I wholeheartedly support the Harper government for it!