Export thread
Canadian Election?
#1
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
This is a thread about Canadian politics.
.. be warned..
Do you think we should have an election this fall?
I think yes, but I am not really a big fan of the current government for many reasons. Number 1 being that they seem very willing to go to great lengths to control information, bully people, and generally be conniving, simply to stay in power.
I suppose you could reply that this is the nature of being the governing party and of politics, but I hardly think normalcy is justification for bad governance.
.. be warned..
Do you think we should have an election this fall?
I think yes, but I am not really a big fan of the current government for many reasons. Number 1 being that they seem very willing to go to great lengths to control information, bully people, and generally be conniving, simply to stay in power.
I suppose you could reply that this is the nature of being the governing party and of politics, but I hardly think normalcy is justification for bad governance.
#2
Espy
Espy
You guys have elections too? Well, thats cool. I figured it was just a "Whoever hikes to the top of that mountain over there gets to be president" type thing.
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, for those of us who aren't familiar with it, could you tell us whats going on right now?
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, for those of us who aren't familiar with it, could you tell us whats going on right now?
#3
strawman
-Adam
strawman
Of course. Any time to keep the current people on their toes, and bring fresh blood into the process is going to improve things - if only temporarily.Do you think we should have an election this fall?
-Adam
#4
Adammon
Adammon
I hope not. I suffer from electile dysfunction.
#5
strawman
-Adam
strawman
You need votagra - the only FDA approved treatment for hanging chad disorders.I hope not. I suffer from electile dysfunction.
-Adam
#6
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
Right now Canada has had a minority government since January 2006. What this means is that the Prime Minister's party (the Conservative Party of Canada) does not have enough members in the House of Commons (the parliament) to outvote the other parties. Out of 308 seats, the Conservatives only have 143. The Liberals (essentially the other governing party of Canada) have 77. The Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a Quebec based party formed to advance the cause of French Canadian seperatism has 48 (all from Quebec). The New Democratic Party (NDP), our social democratic party, have 36. There is 1 independant, and 3 vacant seats.
The Liberal party leader, an academic named Michael Ignatieff has never led the party in an election, as he only became leader as of December 2008. But he has announced that he is seeking to topple the Conservative minority government through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. If the government loses the vote, a possibility since the other parties outnumber them, an election is called. Essentially losing a vote reflects that the House of Commons (read: the people) do not have confidence in the government, so the Governor General (Head of state, representing the Queen) will usually call an election so that the government can regain the confidence of the House (the people).
The important thing to know is that we have had 3 elections since 2004, and have four in 5 years is expensive and it seems as if they dont solve anything. Since nothing changes, voter apathy is rising. No party wants to be the party which causes another election, but the Liberals think they can gain seats, so they are pressing for it, saying the Cons are causing it by not governing properly. This puts the other two parties (NDP and the BQ) in a very awkward position, as they are fairly left wing, of supporting the Conservative government. In the same way, the Cons have to pander to the left wing since the Liberals want an election. As usual, each party is trying to get the most of it, while betraying principles left and right.
The Liberal party leader, an academic named Michael Ignatieff has never led the party in an election, as he only became leader as of December 2008. But he has announced that he is seeking to topple the Conservative minority government through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. If the government loses the vote, a possibility since the other parties outnumber them, an election is called. Essentially losing a vote reflects that the House of Commons (read: the people) do not have confidence in the government, so the Governor General (Head of state, representing the Queen) will usually call an election so that the government can regain the confidence of the House (the people).
The important thing to know is that we have had 3 elections since 2004, and have four in 5 years is expensive and it seems as if they dont solve anything. Since nothing changes, voter apathy is rising. No party wants to be the party which causes another election, but the Liberals think they can gain seats, so they are pressing for it, saying the Cons are causing it by not governing properly. This puts the other two parties (NDP and the BQ) in a very awkward position, as they are fairly left wing, of supporting the Conservative government. In the same way, the Cons have to pander to the left wing since the Liberals want an election. As usual, each party is trying to get the most of it, while betraying principles left and right.
#7
strawman
strawman
See this wouldn't happen if you had a two party system.
-Adam
-Adam
#8
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
Essentially we do have a two party system. Only the Liberals and Conservatives (in whatever form they existed at the time) have ever governed Canada. I prefer our system to the American one, simply because I believe that it results in stronger representation for the greater variety of people, and I think that improves our democracy.
#9
strawman
Otherwise we'd have several other parties.
-Adam
strawman
No doubt. The duplicrats and replicons here work so hard to prevent party fragmentation. "A vote for nader is a vote for bush" and so forth.Essentially we do have a two party system. Only the Liberals and Conservatives (in whatever form they existed at the time) have ever governed Canada. I prefer our system to the American one, simply because I believe that it results in stronger representation for the greater variety of people, and I think that improves our democracy.
Otherwise we'd have several other parties.
-Adam
#10
Rob King
Rob King
I don't want another election. I don't particularly care for the Conservatives, but I'm sick of all the dicking around.
I'm actually really disappointed that the coalition didn't go through. Not entirely surprised, since it's a new and scary concept to the average Canadian, but it would get the Conservatives out, and we'd probably have a good few years of governance: Two parties sharing the power means they're keeping each-other in check, as well as watering down some of their more wingnut ideas.
I'm actually really disappointed that the coalition didn't go through. Not entirely surprised, since it's a new and scary concept to the average Canadian, but it would get the Conservatives out, and we'd probably have a good few years of governance: Two parties sharing the power means they're keeping each-other in check, as well as watering down some of their more wingnut ideas.
#11
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
The coalition Rob is talking about is what ended the brief leadership of the previous Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion. There was talk of ending the Con government's recent electoral win from Oct 2008 due to their supposedly abysmal handling of the economic crisis. Dion and the Liberals had an agreement that the NDP and BQ would support them, so even though the Liberals did not have the largest party in the House, they would have the support of the majority of the House. In theory, the Governor General could have dissolved the Con government and asked Dion to form a government. This did not happen, instead the Prime Minister prorogued parliament (suspending it?) and putting off a potential no confidence vote for a couple of months. The coalition quicky fell apart.
I dont know. Dion proved every pundit right by his completely disorganised and lacklustre showing in December as a leader. I would not have wanted him to be leader of our nation.
I dont know. Dion proved every pundit right by his completely disorganised and lacklustre showing in December as a leader. I would not have wanted him to be leader of our nation.
#12
rabbitgod
Bam! That's on two levels.
rabbitgod
Celine's sister?Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion.
Bam! That's on two levels.
#13
Heavan
Heavan
I'm Albertan. What do you think my opinion is?
GO CONSERVATIVES!
GO CONSERVATIVES!
#14
Rob King
Rob King
Well, the coalition would have been the largest party, because a coalition would function as one party made up of the Liberals and NDP. Between the Liberals and NDP, it wasn't just a matter of 'support.' But the coalition wouldn't have a majority then, and they were at risk of a non-confidence vote then. That's where the Bloc comes in: The Bloc pledged to support a coalition in confidence votes for a period of a year, but not become part of the coalition.The coalition Rob is talking about is what ended the brief leadership of the previous Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion. There was talk of ending the Con government's recent electoral win from Oct 2008 due to their supposedly abysmal handling of the economic crisis. Dion and the Liberals had an agreement that the NDP and BQ would support them, so even though the Liberals did not have the largest party in the House, they would have the support of the majority of the House. In theory, the Governor General could have dissolved the Con government and asked Dion to form a government. This did not happen, instead the Prime Minister prorogued parliament (suspending it?) and putting off a potential no confidence vote for a couple of months. The coalition quicky fell apart.
I liked Dion, to be honest, but not in a 'He's a politician I can respect' way. I loved his accent. The only reason I wanted the coalition really, was to give the NDP a bigger piece of the pie.I dont know. Dion proved every pundit right by his completely disorganised and lacklustre showing in December as a leader. I would not have wanted him to be leader of our nation.
#15
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
I'm sick of Harper. That should be no surprise as I'm a lonnie lefty. But I'm really rather moderate and supportive of the party in power as the will of the majority (Harris in Ontario is my exception; the asshole).
What I dislike about Harper was his insistence at the start of this recession that there was no recession. Either he was outright lying (as opposed to political truth-bending), or he doesn't know anything about the economy. Each scenario makes him a bad leader.
What I dislike about Harper was his insistence at the start of this recession that there was no recession. Either he was outright lying (as opposed to political truth-bending), or he doesn't know anything about the economy. Each scenario makes him a bad leader.
#16
Krisken
Krisken
You guys have elections?
Just kidding. Vote the shit out of that thing!
Just kidding. Vote the shit out of that thing!
#17
Heavan
Oh, but look, now the Liberals want to screw us again by limiting pollution because of climate change, ruining the tar sands. Hell no. My one vote won't be put toward letting that happen.
Heavan
I can do it! If you vote Conservative, there's a better chance Alberta won't get screwed over by the Liberals. And this isn't like an American Republican fearing that the Democrats will take away their guns and let the terrorists win or whatever. Alberta has been the target of well documented screw-jobs from the Liberals. Things like the National Energy Program pretty much killed Albertan prosperity for a decade. Oh, but that was thirty years ago, you say. That wouldn't happen now.I'm going to vote green unless someone can convince me to do otherwise. I really hope you can convince me to do otherwise.
Oh, but look, now the Liberals want to screw us again by limiting pollution because of climate change, ruining the tar sands. Hell no. My one vote won't be put toward letting that happen.
#18
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Yeah, I'm pretty torn as an Albertan. I am a lefty in every sense of the word but I do not like how the Liberal's view of Canada starts at the Manitoba/Ontario border and ends at the Ontario/Quebec border.
#19
Rob King
I responded that I'd like the economist, provided he hadn't been dropped on his head.
Rob King
Isn't Harper an economist? During the last election, my cousin was all about 'Who would you rather run the country during a recession, an economist or ... whatever the hell Dion is."What I dislike about Harper was his insistence at the start of this recession that there was no recession. Either he was outright lying (as opposed to political truth-bending), or he doesn't know anything about the economy. Each scenario makes him a bad leader.
I responded that I'd like the economist, provided he hadn't been dropped on his head.
#20
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
My answer to that question, Rob, would be "the person who acknowledges the recession exists."
There's some damn good evidence that we got shafted by them, too: We're no longer a "have" province - and weren't even before the recession, which was bound to hit us near-hardest since we're heavy into the manufacturing and financial sectors.
The funny thing here, Frankie, is that Ontario seemed to get ignored by the Chretien Liberals even while we kept handing them pretty much every seat in our provinceYeah, I'm pretty torn as an Albertan. I am a lefty in every sense of the word but I do not like how the Liberal's view of Canada starts at the Manitoba/Ontario border and ends at the Ontario/Quebec border.
There's some damn good evidence that we got shafted by them, too: We're no longer a "have" province - and weren't even before the recession, which was bound to hit us near-hardest since we're heavy into the manufacturing and financial sectors.
#21
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
Doesn't every province think they get ignored by the federal government?
I guess I would say you should vote as a Canadian, not as an Albertan. I mean, have some pride man.
And the idea that we should mine the oil sands is ludicrous. I mean, just insane. Not only is it environmentally a bad decision, it affects our global reputation. Harper's ministers are laughed at by other nations.
Which affects our foreign policy, which is generally focused on being conciliatory middle power who can resolve disputes. If other countries think we are full of shit, we really need to choose a new policy direction there, or have domestic policy which is respected.
There isn't really another policy direction for us to go in beside "has been" power or USA lackey. So.. I want the oil sand developments stopped. Along with abunch of other things.
I guess I would say you should vote as a Canadian, not as an Albertan. I mean, have some pride man.
And the idea that we should mine the oil sands is ludicrous. I mean, just insane. Not only is it environmentally a bad decision, it affects our global reputation. Harper's ministers are laughed at by other nations.
Which affects our foreign policy, which is generally focused on being conciliatory middle power who can resolve disputes. If other countries think we are full of shit, we really need to choose a new policy direction there, or have domestic policy which is respected.
There isn't really another policy direction for us to go in beside "has been" power or USA lackey. So.. I want the oil sand developments stopped. Along with abunch of other things.
#22
Kitty Sinatra
But I can understand why Canadians outside Ontario could think the Chretien Liberals had to be doing something big for us since they kept sweeping the province. Were the Liberals doing something big for us?
Nope. They kept sweeping the province because the right-wing vote kept splitting between the Reform and Conservative parties.
Kitty Sinatra
Yes.Doesn't every province think they get ignored by the federal government?
But I can understand why Canadians outside Ontario could think the Chretien Liberals had to be doing something big for us since they kept sweeping the province. Were the Liberals doing something big for us?
Nope. They kept sweeping the province because the right-wing vote kept splitting between the Reform and Conservative parties.
#23
AshburnerX
As for your global reputation... if your worried about what Europe thinks of you, you really need to get your priorities in order. Europe is self absorbed and utterly out of touch with the reality of developing countries, who are forced into polluting in order to keep pace with more established countries in the West, as well as the Western Nation's need to become self-sufficient in their energy concerns.
AshburnerX
Yes, because keeping your country looking beautiful should be more important than allowing it to mitigate it's dependency on foreign oil. Your children will thank you when they are sucking at the teat of the Saudi's like us Americans.And the idea that we should mine the oil sands is ludicrous. I mean, just insane. Not only is it environmentally a bad decision, it affects our global reputation. Harper's ministers are laughed at by other nations.
As for your global reputation... if your worried about what Europe thinks of you, you really need to get your priorities in order. Europe is self absorbed and utterly out of touch with the reality of developing countries, who are forced into polluting in order to keep pace with more established countries in the West, as well as the Western Nation's need to become self-sufficient in their energy concerns.
#24
Kitty Sinatra
We can make some money off it right now and create a shit-tonne of pollution doing so, or we can buy relatively cleaner foreign oil and make our money elsewhere.
Going with the latter, we still won't be dependent on foreign oil since we'd have the oilsands as a reserve for future exploitation; and at that time we might even be able to get at with cheaper and cleaner methods developed during the time between now and then. We also run the risk that the need for oil won't exist before we can exploit it, though.
Going with the former, we make the profits now.
I could argue either way is preferable. Also, there's more oil in Canada than just the oilsands stuff and we certainly are drilling it out.
Kitty Sinatra
It might very well be more important to keep our country looking beautiful. Getting oil out of the oil sands is a dirty, dirty business. It's also very expensive.Yes, because keeping your country looking beautiful should be more important than allowing it to mitigate it's dependency on foreign oil. Your children will thank you when they are sucking at the teat of the Saudi's like us Americans.
We can make some money off it right now and create a shit-tonne of pollution doing so, or we can buy relatively cleaner foreign oil and make our money elsewhere.
Going with the latter, we still won't be dependent on foreign oil since we'd have the oilsands as a reserve for future exploitation; and at that time we might even be able to get at with cheaper and cleaner methods developed during the time between now and then. We also run the risk that the need for oil won't exist before we can exploit it, though.
Going with the former, we make the profits now.
I could argue either way is preferable. Also, there's more oil in Canada than just the oilsands stuff and we certainly are drilling it out.
#25
BoringMetaphor
And since you are American, I can understand if you don't understand Canadian foreign policy. But we really do need to care what other countries think of us. It's the basis of us being successful at what we do, which is try to stay out of the way so no one is pissed at us. Ideally, we can be the middle man. Im not saying I think Europe know what's going on or anything, but I am saying we shouldnt shit on our lawn in broad daylight. When our neighbours look over and wonder what the fuck we are doing, we're not going to do well at the Neighbourhood watch meeting next week.
To address your point about developing nations - I really dont have an answer for that. If I did, I would be running for government or working for them, I hope. This is not simply a European problem though, but affects every country which is currently on top.
---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
Maybe a better illustration: Canada refused to go to war in Iraq. Consequently, we went to war in Afghanistan because America said: We understand you dont want to go to war in Iraq with us, but instead you will have to commit your forces to the Afghanistan mission.
So we did. Not necessarily because we thought it was a great idea, or because we thought we could help out Afghans, but because it was our obligation to our ally. One act took away goodwill, and another built it up again. Despite what the media or some radicals might have said, we ultimately came out in the same place we started, even though we refused to fight in the battle where we were needed more.
BoringMetaphor
It's not about beauty, it's about environmental degradation and its impact on the land. Where people and animals live, and my children will some day live.Yes, because keeping your country looking beautiful should be more important than allowing it to mitigate it's dependency on foreign oil. Your children will thank you when they are sucking at the teat of the Saudi's like us Americans.
As for your global reputation... if your worried about what Europe thinks of you, you really need to get your priorities in order. Europe is self absorbed and utterly out of touch with the reality of developing countries, who are forced into polluting in order to keep pace with more established countries in the West, as well as the Western Nation's need to become self-sufficient in their energy concerns.
And since you are American, I can understand if you don't understand Canadian foreign policy. But we really do need to care what other countries think of us. It's the basis of us being successful at what we do, which is try to stay out of the way so no one is pissed at us. Ideally, we can be the middle man. Im not saying I think Europe know what's going on or anything, but I am saying we shouldnt shit on our lawn in broad daylight. When our neighbours look over and wonder what the fuck we are doing, we're not going to do well at the Neighbourhood watch meeting next week.
To address your point about developing nations - I really dont have an answer for that. If I did, I would be running for government or working for them, I hope. This is not simply a European problem though, but affects every country which is currently on top.
---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
Maybe a better illustration: Canada refused to go to war in Iraq. Consequently, we went to war in Afghanistan because America said: We understand you dont want to go to war in Iraq with us, but instead you will have to commit your forces to the Afghanistan mission.
So we did. Not necessarily because we thought it was a great idea, or because we thought we could help out Afghans, but because it was our obligation to our ally. One act took away goodwill, and another built it up again. Despite what the media or some radicals might have said, we ultimately came out in the same place we started, even though we refused to fight in the battle where we were needed more.
#26
Rob King
Regarding Canada's reputation in Europe ... as far as I'm concerned, Europe can go suck a dick. We have a major industry here in Newfoundland under attack because Europe wants to save the poor little sea-kittens. Even worse, we have a federal government which seems to be unwilling to stand up for that industry. After they fucked up our fishery, I'm not about to let the seal hunt go quietly into the night.
I was quite into Danny William's 'ABC' (Anything But Conservative) campaign. I voted as a Newfoundlander, not a Canadian, just like I identify as a Newfoundlander, not a Canadian. The only time I've identified myself as a Canadian first, was when dealing with Americans who don't know where Newfoundland is.
Rob King
This. Newfoundland is seeing a lot of development based on oil. In fact, we became a 'Have' province a short while back based on it. Now ... I think we slipped back into 'have not' with the recession and all that, but we are very close to the line.I could argue either way is preferable. Also, there's more oil in Canada than just the oilsands stuff and we certainly are drilling it out.
Regarding Canada's reputation in Europe ... as far as I'm concerned, Europe can go suck a dick. We have a major industry here in Newfoundland under attack because Europe wants to save the poor little sea-kittens. Even worse, we have a federal government which seems to be unwilling to stand up for that industry. After they fucked up our fishery, I'm not about to let the seal hunt go quietly into the night.
I was quite into Danny William's 'ABC' (Anything But Conservative) campaign. I voted as a Newfoundlander, not a Canadian, just like I identify as a Newfoundlander, not a Canadian. The only time I've identified myself as a Canadian first, was when dealing with Americans who don't know where Newfoundland is.
#27
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Actually, I understand Canadian foreign policy pretty well... I was actually having trouble coming up with a way to say it that wouldn't sound condescending 
#28
Rob King
Afghanistan happened before Iraq. We went in there because there was an undeniable cause for war. When the Americans went to Iraq, we said 'hell no.' But since they are our ally, we took some of the pressure off them by picking up the slack in Afghanistan.
The thrust of your point is mostly correct, but you're fudging some details.
Rob King
That's ... not what happened.Maybe a better illustration: Canada refused to go to war in Iraq. Consequently, we went to war in Afghanistan because America said: We understand you dont want to go to war in Iraq with us, but instead you will have to commit your forces to the Afghanistan mission.
Afghanistan happened before Iraq. We went in there because there was an undeniable cause for war. When the Americans went to Iraq, we said 'hell no.' But since they are our ally, we took some of the pressure off them by picking up the slack in Afghanistan.
The thrust of your point is mostly correct, but you're fudging some details.
#29
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
I love Danny Williams. I support the seal hunt. European environmental causes are pretty messed up sometimes. German environmentalists close down nuclear plants in the 80s because it was dangerous. Thus, Germany is now one of the largest coal power producing countries in Europe. (source needed for this anecdote, I think its true)
Then they yell at Iceland for being environmentally unfriendly. Even as they produce a whack load of coal. Just goes to show that countries are made up of different people.
Ash: Im not sure if I replied to you appropriately then. What were you getting at exactly?
---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------
Oops, yep you're right.
We went to Afghan first technically from NATO commitments. I think we were in Kabul area. Then after Iraq is when we moved to much more dangerous and volatile Kandahar area to pick up the slack.
Sorry, that was a bit unclear in my post.
Then they yell at Iceland for being environmentally unfriendly. Even as they produce a whack load of coal. Just goes to show that countries are made up of different people.
Ash: Im not sure if I replied to you appropriately then. What were you getting at exactly?
---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------
Oops, yep you're right.
We went to Afghan first technically from NATO commitments. I think we were in Kabul area. Then after Iraq is when we moved to much more dangerous and volatile Kandahar area to pick up the slack.
Sorry, that was a bit unclear in my post.
#30
Heavan
Heavan
I am voting as a Canadian by going for Alberta, because guess who's prosperity has the biggest part in equalizing the other provinces? Destroy the oil industry and everyone goes down.
#31
Rob King
You're 'for' Alberta because Alberta will benefit the rest of Canada? That offends me more than if you said 'Alberta is most awesome, therefore I think as an Albertan.'
I mean, don't get me wrong: nothing wrong with Alberta. But it just sounds weird to say it like that.
Rob King
:bush:I am voting as a Canadian by going for Alberta, because guess who's prosperity has the biggest part in equalizing the other provinces? Destroy the oil industry and everyone goes down.
You're 'for' Alberta because Alberta will benefit the rest of Canada? That offends me more than if you said 'Alberta is most awesome, therefore I think as an Albertan.'
I mean, don't get me wrong: nothing wrong with Alberta. But it just sounds weird to say it like that.
#32
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
It sounds weird to me, too. It sounds like "damn the rest of you, as long as we're good you can have our scraps."
I don't actually think that's how he meant it, though.
I don't actually think that's how he meant it, though.
#33
Heavan
Heavan
I didn't mean it like that, no. The simple fact is that, right now, Alberta is doing pretty good thanks to the oil industry while other provinces have industries that are kind of either at a low point or going under. The money from the Albertan oil industry subsidizes the other provinces until they get back on their feet. Someday when the oil industry inevitably dies, I hope that they return the favor. I just don't see how it makes any sense to kill the oil industry now- everyone would be destroyed.
I also know that Alberta isn't the only 'well-off' province at the moment. I'm pretty sure that we're high on the list, though.
I also know that Alberta isn't the only 'well-off' province at the moment. I'm pretty sure that we're high on the list, though.
#34
Rob King
If they ever lift the cod moratorium, I'm sure that will also help, and we'll be 'have' for good! (I hope)
Rob King
Yeah, well, like I said, if Newfoundland isn't 'have' at the moment, it's hovering quite near the line. And that is also based on oil.I also know that Alberta isn't the only 'well-off' province at the moment. I'm pretty sure that we're high on the list, though.
If they ever lift the cod moratorium, I'm sure that will also help, and we'll be 'have' for good! (I hope)
#35
Heavan
Heavan
Hahahahaha, no. We aren't. Maybe we're polluting a bit, maybe the oil industry won't be viable in a few decades, okay. That doesn't put us on the level of developing nations. That's like saying the US is a developing nation because they're in a recession.Canada is quickly becoming a developing nation.
#36
Papillon
You're 'for' Alberta because Alberta will benefit the rest of Canada? That offends me more than if you said 'Alberta is most awesome, therefore I think as an Albertan.'
I mean, don't get me wrong: nothing wrong with Alberta. But it just sounds weird to say it like that.[/QUOTE]
The thrust of the argument is true though: Alberta has a significantly larger GDP per capita than any other province, largely on the back of the oil sands and oil & gas industry in general.
Papillon
:bush:I am voting as a Canadian by going for Alberta, because guess who's prosperity has the biggest part in equalizing the other provinces? Destroy the oil industry and everyone goes down.
You're 'for' Alberta because Alberta will benefit the rest of Canada? That offends me more than if you said 'Alberta is most awesome, therefore I think as an Albertan.'
I mean, don't get me wrong: nothing wrong with Alberta. But it just sounds weird to say it like that.[/QUOTE]
The thrust of the argument is true though: Alberta has a significantly larger GDP per capita than any other province, largely on the back of the oil sands and oil & gas industry in general.
#37
Heavan
Heavan
I'm still not seeing how any of this puts Canada on the level of the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan, both defined as developing economies.there is vary little innovation occurring within Canada. We have far too much policy in place that stifles competition and innovation in a number of fields.
The bureaucratic red tape and amount of taxation stifles new business in Canada with a lot of current businesses deciding to start up offices overseas to have direct access to better markets, a cheaper less entitled work force that works three times as hard and expects less in return, less taxation, less bureaucratic bullshit etc.
The majority of our exports are primary resources which we then buy back from other people.
Our government can't get along for a couple of months without it resulting in another election
Our service industry is painful and full of spoiled brats who never went a day without getting a pat on the shoulder and someone telling them how god dam special they are.
Not only are we increasing restrictions on immigration but less people desire to immigrate to Canada.
But the biggest problem that there is, is the common perception of Canadians that Canada is the best place in the world and that everyone should be like us. The belief that there are other reasons besides that we are the Americans lackey that we are a part of the G8. The belief that there isn't anything that needs to change or be improved because we are the best. The bloody complacency and apathy of Canadians pisses me off.
And that bloody bush clone Harper doesn't help anything at all.
#38
Heavan
Heavan
I don't think that there's ever, in the history of modern civilization, been a developed nation that slipped down into being a developing nation. Sure, Europe isn't the center of the world that is used to be, but even things like World War 2 were just a blip on human progress, and they all pulled through. I doubt that a little momentary complacency will kill our grandchildren.
Scare tactics won't work on me, sir.
Scare tactics won't work on me, sir.
#39
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Basically this. A lot of your good will stems from the fact that most of the world (including America) sees you as a bunch of hicks with a love for Maple syrup, and thus harmless. It's hard to be angry at someone who hasn't done anything.Besides, who beside Canadians actually thinks Canada is currently a developed nation and not some overgrown rural community.
#40
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
The only part of that mess that even comes close to defining Canada as a developing nation is the export part.there is vary little innovation occurring within Canada. We have far too much policy in place that stifles competition and innovation in a number of fields.
The bureaucratic red tape and amount of taxation stifles new business in Canada with a lot of current businesses deciding to start up offices overseas to have direct access to better markets, a cheaper less entitled work force that works three times as hard and expects less in return, less taxation, less bureaucratic bullshit etc.
The majority of our exports are primary resources which we then buy back from other people.
Our government can't get along for a couple of months without it resulting in another election
Our service industry is painful and full of spoiled brats who never went a day without getting a pat on the shoulder and someone telling them how god dam special they are.
Not only are we increasing restrictions on immigration but less people desire to immigrate to Canada.
But the biggest problem that there is, is the common perception of Canadians that Canada is the best place in the world and that everyone should be like us. The belief that there are other reasons besides that we are the Americans lackey that we are a part of the G8. The belief that there isn't anything that needs to change or be improved because we are the best. The bloody complacency and apathy of Canadians pisses me off.
And that bloody bush clone Harper doesn't help anything at all.
#41
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
I dont know if I like the terms developed and developing, but I would say Spain is pretty horrible these days...
Also, don't confuse how the general public perceives a nation with how actual governments do. Just because a bunch of yahoos rely on stereotypes in no way indicates somehow that other governments view Canada the same way. Saying stuff like, everyone just sees us hicks, or, an overgrown rural community, and that's why we are treated well, is just .. uh.. wrong, I guess.
I mean in the real world, international relations are based on policy, actions and diplomacy believe it or not. Your stereotypical/the media's view of Canada has so little relevance to what actually goes on, it's pointless to bring it up. It's not like we go to G8 meetings sucking on a bottle of maple syrup and a straw hat.
Back to the oilsands - they are so expensive to actually use and horrible for the area and for our reputation, and the idea that they somehow protect against Saudi oil reliance is just.. Yeah. The oil sands seem to be talked about a lot as potential. In reality though, the cost and time it would take to get oil out of them are extremely high. Unless oil prices absolutely sky rocket, in the next 30 years we will not get enough oil out of the oil sands to make an appreciable difference. If your argument is money for Alberta, fine - but this stuff about Saudi Oil is just ridiculous.
The oil sands are important for Alberta because of jobs and revenue. At best, I think they are an important tool for the transition to a sustainable economic infrastructure. If that was the case, I would probably support their use; however, our society seems to stubbornly refuse that sort of change, instead concentrating on short term goals like immediate economic gain or, conversely, immediate environmental relief. I will admit both sides has their share of whackos, but a middle ground can be found if more people were willing to admit it was possible.
Also, don't confuse how the general public perceives a nation with how actual governments do. Just because a bunch of yahoos rely on stereotypes in no way indicates somehow that other governments view Canada the same way. Saying stuff like, everyone just sees us hicks, or, an overgrown rural community, and that's why we are treated well, is just .. uh.. wrong, I guess.
I mean in the real world, international relations are based on policy, actions and diplomacy believe it or not. Your stereotypical/the media's view of Canada has so little relevance to what actually goes on, it's pointless to bring it up. It's not like we go to G8 meetings sucking on a bottle of maple syrup and a straw hat.
Back to the oilsands - they are so expensive to actually use and horrible for the area and for our reputation, and the idea that they somehow protect against Saudi oil reliance is just.. Yeah. The oil sands seem to be talked about a lot as potential. In reality though, the cost and time it would take to get oil out of them are extremely high. Unless oil prices absolutely sky rocket, in the next 30 years we will not get enough oil out of the oil sands to make an appreciable difference. If your argument is money for Alberta, fine - but this stuff about Saudi Oil is just ridiculous.
The oil sands are important for Alberta because of jobs and revenue. At best, I think they are an important tool for the transition to a sustainable economic infrastructure. If that was the case, I would probably support their use; however, our society seems to stubbornly refuse that sort of change, instead concentrating on short term goals like immediate economic gain or, conversely, immediate environmental relief. I will admit both sides has their share of whackos, but a middle ground can be found if more people were willing to admit it was possible.
#42
Kitty Sinatra
(take this humorously)
Seeing as the US is the most inward-looking nation (other than North Korea; perhaps) ignorant of and uninterested in anything outside your borders that you aren't bombing, we can be certain that your view of Canada suggests nothing about the rest of the world's view of Canada.
Kitty Sinatra
Basically this. A lot of your good will stems from the fact that most of the world (including America) sees you as a bunch of hicks with a love for Maple syrup, and thus harmless. It's hard to be angry at someone who hasn't done anything.[/QUOTE]Besides, who beside Canadians actually thinks Canada is currently a developed nation and not some overgrown rural community.
(take this humorously)
Seeing as the US is the most inward-looking nation (other than North Korea; perhaps) ignorant of and uninterested in anything outside your borders that you aren't bombing, we can be certain that your view of Canada suggests nothing about the rest of the world's view of Canada.
#43
Rob King
Rob King
And I think I see a source of some of the confusion. You're talking about Canada becoming a 'developing' nation, when that's just not possible. Development is effectively a ratcheted system: you can't go backwards. You CAN, however, stop ratcheting up, while other economies ratchet up past you. So maybe we could become a second-rate nation, is what you're trying to say. Not a 'developing' nation.
I personally understand and accept that the world is fluid. Canada won't always be where it is in the world today. Neither will America, or China, or anybody else for that matter.
I would, however, like to see your sources regarding less and less people wanting to come to Canada nowadays. As far as Canadians being the only ones who think Canada is the shit, that's just basically wrong. It's arrogance to say that we are absolutely and undeniably the best place in the world, but the only people I know who think that have I.Q.s rivaled only by bricks. And you get those in other countries too, regardless of how shitty things might be.
Yes, we have slipped a bit. We used to top the UN's report on the best places in the world to live for nearly a decade. But it's a long fall, and a small shift in position does not a plummet make.
I personally understand and accept that the world is fluid. Canada won't always be where it is in the world today. Neither will America, or China, or anybody else for that matter.
I would, however, like to see your sources regarding less and less people wanting to come to Canada nowadays. As far as Canadians being the only ones who think Canada is the shit, that's just basically wrong. It's arrogance to say that we are absolutely and undeniably the best place in the world, but the only people I know who think that have I.Q.s rivaled only by bricks. And you get those in other countries too, regardless of how shitty things might be.
Yes, we have slipped a bit. We used to top the UN's report on the best places in the world to live for nearly a decade. But it's a long fall, and a small shift in position does not a plummet make.