PunBB

LizardKing51 Wrote:

Jenna_Bird Wrote: Link appears to be broken...at least from my end.

-Jenna

Still works for me...do you have windows media player? I think its required to listen. Or try this link.. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eventsounds.com/television.htm">http://www.eventsounds.com/television.htm</a><!-- m -->

Loverly. Thanks.

-Jenna

"Stephen Dame Wrote:What do you guys think? Has youth ever been a factor when you've voted? Would you think twice about voting for somebody from a party you like if they were really young?

Dame, I actually would look forward to seeing a young leader emerge in the political scene. I would be concerned about a potential lack of life experience, etc. But I think that a young leader has the promise of progressive policies and could perhaps bring some new ideas to the political system. Stronach is one of the younger individuals in politics, and she has some great ideas, such as introducing fixed terms in office. I think a set time in office would make parliament more productive. The last month or so, and the period in the summer, when the opposition has been rallying to defeat the government has been met with relatively little production in parliament.

I am a big Liberal supporter as well. I don't think Canada is a nation that truly wants a Conservative government, but I think a lot of people are fed up with the Liberals. So I do agree that a taste of the Conservatives, and subsequent injection of new/young blood in the Liberals could be the answer. I will be doing all that I can to try to get the Liberals back in power, hopefully with a majority government.

I think Martin does have some great ideas for Canada, in particular his plans to combat the democratic deficit. However, the policies of prior governments, gun registry and Gomery, have overshadowed his term.

Stephen Dame Wrote:What do you guys think? Has youth ever been a factor when you've voted? Would you think twice about voting for somebody from a party you like if they were really young?

Youth wouldn't bother me too much if it were just someone running for MP (unless they hadn't finished high school yet). I think it's an issue to an extent for someone running for leadership in the party... some life experience and so on is essential.

chancellor Wrote:if i wasnt in school, i would flee the country if harper was in power

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

j-monster Wrote:

chancellor Wrote:if i wasnt in school, i would flee the country if harper was in power

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I think it's from the Trent Klatt School of Democracy. If things don't go your way, quit.

Hey, it's a Canadian tradition.

Look at all them Quebec separatists. Look at all them Alberta separatists.

He's just a separatist movement of one.

cferneyh Wrote:

j-monster Wrote:

chancellor Wrote:if i wasnt in school, i would flee the country if harper was in power

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I think it's from the Trent Klatt School of Democracy. If things don't go your way, quit.

Or, just switch teams...:wink:

It's going to be a very interesting month in these parts (i.e. "Belindaville")...

LoftyPines Wrote:

"Stephen Dame Wrote:What do you guys think? Has youth ever been a factor when you've voted? Would you think twice about voting for somebody from a party you like if they were really young?

Stronach is one of the younger individuals in politics, and she has some great ideas, such as introducing fixed terms in office. I think a set time in office would make parliament more productive. The last month or so, and the period in the summer, when the opposition has been rallying to defeat the government has been met with relatively little production in parliament.

Fixed terms in office? Well... that seems to contradict the most sacred of parliamentary principles: responsibility. In a parliamentary system, the government must hold the confidence of the house at all times in order to continue to govern. Not only is this the fundmantal principle upon which all Westminster systems are based, it ensures that the government is always held responsible for its actions and, it can be overthrown quickly if it steps out of line

Introducing fixed terms to the House would make us................ American.

(no offense to the congressional/senatorial system)

This post covers a few points I'd like to make.

My original statement about moving to Sweden if Harper was elected was purely an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour, albeit a lame one. I chose Sweden because of its socialist traditions. For those of you who can't tell by my posting history, I do have socialist leanings. Yet, perhaps strange to some of you after that statement, the NDP is too far-left for me on many issues: particularly foreign policy and unions. Drop the obsession with unions, and perhaps the NDP and I could make a deal. Thankfully, my leftist conscience is put at ease when I dont vote NDP because Alexa McDonough (NDP) is always a shoe-in for my riding.

I have ideological trouble supporting the Liberal party... Why? Because I'm not a huge fan of their tendency to adjust their policies based on what is popular at the time. Though I object to the very idea of party politics, I do recognize that one of the most important principles of a political party is that its ideological base is consistent and predictabe. The Liberal party is anything but. They look to get mainstream votes, and they'll shift their policy according to any trend. One day supporting and assisting big business, and the next lamenting governments role in the economy. I like to know exactly what my vote will mean once it gets to the House.

Anyway, back to my point, there's no way I'll be leaving Canada any time soon; if Harper gets elected, that gives me one more reason to stay: working on the next campaign to try and get him out. That's the beauty of politics. If your choice isn't elected, you work to change things. In fact, part of me would like to say that maybe it wouldnt be so bad if the Conservatives gain power - the Liberal party could use an ego deflation for the next 4 years to get some new blood in the mix.

In response to all of the questions about youth in politics:

I don't think youth or "life experience" has anything to do with your ability to represent a population. In fact, this "life experience" often brings cynicism, pessimism, and frustration to the table (for good reason, in most cases). However, those that are "blinded by youth" should be able to inject new ideas and new life into tired politics. Even though some of these ideas may be difficult to accomplish within the governmental paradigm, it doesn't hurt to have them available. I'm not sure that the obsession with retirement-age Prime Ministers is well founded although the one thing that age does bring is trust. People are often quick to vote for their grandfathers, rather than their peers.

In response to Mr. Dame's comments about educational background:

Though a poli sci stream doesn't guarantee an easy entry into politics, it does have its benefits. For instance, a poli sci student spends 4 years of their life reading political philosophers, and forming their own opinions about how things ought to work and relate. These 4 years can serve as an ideological foundation from which to build the "politik" necessary for election. Though poli sci doesn't tell you how to get elected, if you're prudent enough it will let you decide how government should work. And the possession and understanding of such ideas are a critical component of the foundation required for a political future.

blesser Wrote:I do have socialist leanings.... Drop the obsession with unions, and perhaps the NDP and I could make a deal.

I'm curious to know how your brain makes peace with this apparent contradiction.

I'm pro-porn, except for all the nudity.

cferneyh Wrote:

blesser Wrote:I do have socialist leanings.... Drop the obsession with unions, and perhaps the NDP and I could make a deal.

I'm curious to know how your brain makes peace with this apparent contradiction.

I'm pro-porn, except for all the nudity.

I suggest a quick reading of the differences between Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Communism.

You'll be quick to see that socialism doesn't = union in every case.

You should also note that I said socialist "leanings" and, by this, I meant I support socialist political economy. This means a strong state intervention in regulation and control of certain sectors of the economy (health care being a contemporary Canadian example).

What I meant by my unions comment is that unions, in my opinion, are outdated within the Canadian context. Though they have their place, and they play an extremely important role, I just don't feel that they should they should have the bargaining power they have - especially in the federal context. The union issue is a tired one, especially because of their current strength. I think the NDP just looks to use unions as a way of gaining the "working class" vote, even though it never works.

blesser Wrote:I suggest a quick reading of the differences between Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Communism.

If you are too lazy or too dim to explain your inherent contradiction, just say so. Don't bother telling me to re-read what I originally read when your momma was still wiping your ass, and then finish off with vague descriptions of nothingness.

A socialist "political economy" without unions. Yeah, OK.

cferneyh Wrote:

blesser Wrote:I suggest a quick reading of the differences between Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Communism.

If you are too lazy or too dim to explain your inherent contradiction, just say so. Don't bother telling me to re-read what I originally read when your momma was still wiping your ass, and then finish off with vague descriptions of nothingness.

A socialist "political economy" without unions. Yeah, OK.

Oh wise and learned one.. my deepest apologies for insulting you so deeply with my ignorance. Though I don't have any particular desire to continue this unpleasant dialogue, I'm getting pretty pissed off. Perhaps I should do two things: change my display picture, and refrain from getting involved in political discourse with the uninformed. I dont even think you realize what political economy is...... don't feel too bad, not many people do. Just so you're in the loop, it's the relationship between state and the market.

Why is it that you are so insecure that you have to question my ability to reason just because of my age? Ironically, you don't have any idea how old I am, nor do you know my educational background. I'm guessing you were unhappy with your childhood?

I have way too many papers to write this week to spend much time explaining what socialist political economy is, but I will quote some passages for you from "The Political Economy of Canada" ed. Howlett, Netherton, Ramesh (1999) Toronto: Oxford University Press. I assure you, these authors can be trusted.... they have been around for at least a few decades :thumb:

- Unlike liberal political economy, socialist political economy has never endorsed the neoclassical model of a perfectly competitive economy and has not had to debate the validity of incorporating market failures into abstract models of market behaviour. For similar reasons, socialist political economy from the outset has recognized the importance of the state's extensive activities in the market.

- ...over time social democrats gradually abandoned the proposal for the eventual replacement of the market by the state and instead developed a theory and practice of market-state coexistence based on careful state monitoring and regulation of market activities. Most social democratic parties in Western Europe and N.A., as a result, were early adherents to, and remain enthusiastic supporters of, Keynesian welfare state policies.

- In practice, social democratism involves substituting industrial democracy for economic democracy. That is, concentrating on macro-economic policies as a means of controlling wage and income disparities rather than the historical practice of securing worker control over the management of productive enterprises.


Now........ it's your turn to justify why you think unions and socialist political economy are inherently linked.

Actually, I couldn't care less. Obviously you havent spent much time with this (marx, engels, lenin)...... and I'm not going to pretend that it's the cool thing to do either. It's just what I happen to have spent the last 6 years studying.

Anyway, I'll leave you all alone now... haha my opinions obviously don't compliment any of yours, so I'll just amuse myself by observing from now on.

Here's one last comment, just to give you nightmares cferneyh... 5 years from now, I'll likely be working for your federal government. God bless civil servants.

Along with lots of good points, and pointless jabs at cferneyh, blesser Wrote:Anyway, I'll leave you all alone now... haha my opinions obviously don't compliment any of yours, so I'll just amuse myself by observing from now on.

Political discourse aside, or maybe not... don't walk away from posting because of this. Doing that, and you'll be counted in the same category as thipfan73. (Please see this thread for a small point of reference)

Stick around and keep contributing. Let cferneyh post his rebuttal, agree to disagree, and move on with things!

:thumb:

Sort of off topic, but a question for you poli sci majors. Have you ever come across any Mises or Rothbard in any of your courses? I'm guessing the answer would be no but hopefully someone will surprise me.

And don't worry Dame, I will never vote for the Conservatives again until Harper is turfed as leader. I'm hoping this will be right after this election, I can't see him doing any better than last time (especially given the fine start he's off to). I think I'm not the only former Progressive Conservative still looking for a new political home.

keithtalent Wrote:Sort of off topic, but a question for you poli sci majors. Have you ever come across any Mises or Rothbard in any of your courses? I'm guessing the answer would be no but hopefully someone will surprise me.

And don't worry Dame, I will never vote for the Conservatives again until Harper is turfed as leader. I'm hoping this will be right after this election, I can't see him doing any better than last time (especially given the fine start he's off to). I think I'm not the only former Progressive Conservative still looking for a new political home.

Certainly. von Mises and Rothbard are both huge figures in the Libertarian movement. Though I learned of Mises through my upper-year economics classes, Rothbard is a name mentioned in most first-year poli sci classes I'm assuming because of his theories of monetary policy.

Not only does von Mises have some interesting economic theories that rival Keynes, his personal history was pretty neat too.

keithtalent.... is Peter Mackay a better option in your opinion? He seems like an interesting personality, though I dont know a whole lot about his politics.