[prz]

Something I do not understand about the Liberals is this... Ignatieff gets dropped into a riding. He is loved by the Liberal Brass, yet this man is a Hawk. Go look at his views on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration (he supported the war and the Bush admin throughout). He is completely opposite of what the Liberal Party has stood for since the invasion of Iraq.

He seems a bit too realist in his positions on international affairs to run under a Liberal Banner.

As for the earlier post about the balance of power shifting in the world. Its still the US, and no one is even close. Go and throw out comments like China and such. But before you do, do some research and read about their military, navy and airforce. Find out where all their fighter jets and ships come from and look how old the stuff is. The US has at least 50 years on them and the gap is not closing anytime soon.

If you think Canada has been a success through the UN, you need to look at things such as the Canadian promise on Kyoto. We are going to meet the limits in the next few years by not cutting emissions to the extent we need to. Canada is going to buy credits from countries like Russia to brag about meeting the commitments.

As for UN intervenion and Canadian success, ask Dallaire, or go and ask any of the Canadians that were sent to East Timor to be election monitors in that free election (I think it was 1999). They will tell you most of the people they went to help and convinced to vote were executed or murdered right after the UN and the Canadians got on a plane and left.

sure canada has had some success, but there have been failures and usually some of the worst get little coverage.

[fingernailsonhull]

Consumerism definitely creates massive inequity, which is a downfall to be sure, but do you really fail to see the incredible advances in technology over the last 50 or 100 years that has made life better? It is almost completely because of profits. Companies spend millions on research and development in the hopes of creating something new that will make them money. Greedy? Yes. But, advancement of standard of living anywhere is unlikely if there are no profits to be made.

[fingernailsonhull]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

[prz]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

I still have to read the book. I have had the chance to meet him twice and he is a great person to listen too.

I think he would be a great prof at any school. But then again, his day job right now isnt to shabby.

[j-monster]

I'm just curious, can you give me a list of a few of the things the Liberals have failed to deliver over the past 12 years? That's your assignment for tomorrow. You can even look to the last election, analyze the promises made, and then report back about what they haven't accomplished.

hmm...... even in minority the Paul Martin government was still able to push its agenda. Interesting, eh?

Next, how have the Liberals failed? The past 12 years have seen Canada grow to an unprecedented position in the world. Our economy has never been stronger, nor better managed. The Liberal government (with Paul Martin as finance minister) was the first to pass continual surplus budgets. Quality of life in Canada is at its highest level in history..... so where exactly have they gone wrong?

Finally, while I agree that the announcements the Conservatives have made are very appealing, they do nothing to eliminate the fears of a hidden agenda. The key word there is: hidden. Also, I'm curious to hear how the Conservatives have persuaded you that they will be able to deliver on their promises any better than any of the other parties.

As Jeff ("fingernailsonhull") mentioned, the GST is just one example. The various scandals, of which Adscam is the biggest and most well-known, are indicative to me of a government not delivering on its most basic promise... to safeguard the public trust and to safeguard and use tax revenues gained for the public good, not to pass them out as favours to friends. Various other promises regarding cracking down on crime, improving health care and so on have gone unfulfilled.

As for Paul Martin's minority government, it was not so much his agenda that was pushed through, but Jack Layton's NDP agenda. Remember that the agreement to amend the budget to add more spending was based on the NDP plan, and in return the NDP supported the Liberals when Gomery was at its hottest point... without that support the government would have fallen earlier this year and we would have already gone through the exercise of this election.

It's interesting that you point to the health of the economy as evidence that the Liberals have succeeded in their time in power. Often the performance of the economy has little to do with the government in power or their policies, but rather is a function of other factors. It can also be stated that having a good economy is the absolute minimum a government can do. So essentially saying that a government is successful because the economy is good is damning it with faint praise... it's saying, "Well, congrats for doing the bare minimum necessary".

Finally, I will admit that since I am a conservative person in my beliefs, naturally I will lean towards the positions of a conservative political party, which partly explains why I think the Tories will deliver. The other factor, however, is more what the Liberals have NOT done to convince me, rather than what the Conservatives have done. Based on their failures to deliver on promises and their many scandals, they have proven themselves untrustworthy and unfit to govern, therefore in my opinion it's time for a change.

[skippy the wonder dog]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

Unfortunately, there's no institution outside the UN that will work, either.

Ignatieff favours intervention in cases like that, which I tend to agree with, but his "lesser evils" doctrine is not something I can go along with.

[skippy the wonder dog]

It's interesting that you point to the health of the economy as evidence that the Liberals have succeeded in their time in power. Often the performance of the economy has little to do with the government in power or their policies, but rather is a function of other factors.

See? Sometimes I even agree with j-monster.

Especially in today's world, economies are often pushed around by things that are beyond government control, things that happen outside their borders.

If GM goes belly up, Ontario will take a hit. And there's not a damn thing that the Ontario government, or the federal government, can ever do about that.

If the US economy completely tanks, so will ours.

And so on.

[fingernailsonhull]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

Unfortunately, there's no institution outside the UN that will work, either.

Ignatieff favours intervention in cases like that, which I tend to agree with, but his "lesser evils" doctrine is not something I can go along with.

What do you think of the new Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Protocol? I still think nothing would have been done in the case of Rwanda because the international community never decided what was going on was genocide (because it's in their interests not to). Just a question.

[prz]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

Unfortunately, there's no institution outside the UN that will work, either.

Ignatieff favours intervention in cases like that, which I tend to agree with, but his "lesser evils" doctrine is not something I can go along with.

What do you think of the new Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Protocol? I still think nothing would have been done in the case of Rwanda because the international community never decided what was going on was genocide (because it's in their interests not to). Just a question.

Just look at the Sudan. There was genocide going on and the UN called it "something just short of genocide." Whatever that means.

[skippy the wonder dog]

In agreement with prz, has anyone read Shake Hands With The Devil? Dallaire came and spoke at Brock a couple years ago but I, unfortunately, missed it.

Unfortunately, there's no institution outside the UN that will work, either.

Ignatieff favours intervention in cases like that, which I tend to agree with, but his "lesser evils" doctrine is not something I can go along with.

What do you think of the new Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Protocol? I still think nothing would have been done in the case of Rwanda because the international community never decided what was going on was genocide (because it's in their interests not to). Just a question.

Just look at the Sudan. There was genocide going on and the UN called it "something just short of genocide." Whatever that means.

As Gen. Mackenzie said to the Bosnian president, I forget his name: "Your best hope is that someone will find oil under Sarajevo."

I agree; nothing would have been done about Rwanda.

[sherpahigh]

The public sector has problems of its own, but it's wrong to assume that competition is some kind of magic lever that continually hones business efficiency. In fact, businesses change very little on an ongoing basis. They buy new software, they work with new products and services, and their payrolls shrink and swell, but they are remarkably resistant to real change.

This is especially true of larger companies, it seems. But smaller companies can have their own problems, like good old family nepotism in family-owned companies.

To assume that competition in the private sector will produce lower costs than you would see in the public sector is simply wrong. The rule does not always hold. You have to look at the individual case.

I disagree with you about competition. If a company becomes static and inefficent, changes will come or the company will loose its competitive edge, loose market share and become irrelevant.

I don't believe your point about small family run businesses and nepotism holds water either. First of all, it is completely within an owners right to do whatever they may wish with their company in regards to control. Secondly, it is not it the company's best interest to issue control to anyone, family or not, if they are not capable of handling it. Nepotism in public companies is a different monster however.

Also, if you think that nepotism and cronyism do not exist within government then you are very naive.

Having said all of that, I don't believe that the answer to our health care problems lies in a completely privatized system. The government is required to ensure that everyone has access to a basic level of health care. I do believe however that a certain level of privatization within the health care system will benefit the entire system. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but the answer is clearly, at least in my mind, not to continue pumping funds into a broken system indefinitely.

[sherpahigh]

For example, a lot of people have theorized that the same sex marriage announcement was a means of getting it out of the way, and burying it behind other proposals (like the GST cut). But the instant you stop making announcements, pow, Martin can take the initiative and resurrect it. And I expect Martin to start running a negative campaign later on -- trying to stand with one foot on the economy and the other on Stephen Harper's unpopularity.

The same sex marriage issue was not an announcement. It was an honest answer to a direct question. As much as I disagree with him on the issue, he handled it the only way he could have. His opinion on the issue is well documented and should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Edit: I could be off on how the issue was brought up. I was under the impression he was asked about it but can't find the article that I got that impression from at the moment.

I do agree with you that Martin will start running a negative campaign. The fear mongering will return with a vengeance. I hope the conservatives have learned from their last campaign though and stay the course standing on platform issues instead of just saying "it's time for a change...".

[sherpahigh]

Do you really see the all-consuming quest for profit making our society a better place today, Sherpa? I don't. Wealth is divided rather unequally in our world.

I don't believe it's an all-consuming quest and it's obviously not the only aspect to a healthy society. Looking back at my statement, I could see how it could be misinterpreted. I'm not some money hungry ass trying to get mine at all costs.

I do believe that a healthy economy is reliant upon strong competition. Goods and services improve when there is competition. The desire to provide a better product or service is pretty much non-existent when you're the sole provider.

Would you rather we live in a socialist or communist society? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I should probably refrain from posting in these threads on a music website. I probably don't come across the way that I actually am. In reality I am economically conservative and socially liberal.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Also, if you think that nepotism and cronyism do not exist within government then you are very naive.

I didn't say that.

For the past three and a half years, I've worked as a business consultant, working with companies all over the country. Helping organizations change and improve is my job. In fact, I've worked at nothing but helping various companies change and improve for about seven or eight years now.

I'm not the one who's being naïve.

I haven't said anywhere that the public sector is more efficient. I've simply said that sweeping generalizations about competition and efficiency don't hold water in the real world. You have to look at individual cases.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The same sex marriage issue was not an announcement. It was an honest answer to a direct question. As much as I disagree with him on the issue, he handled it the only way he could have.

Whether you call it an announcement or an answer, many people -- and the people in question are Conservative supporters and conservative pundits -- have offered the rationalization I described, which was the point.

(Edit re your edit: I think you are right, in fact. I think it was a response to a question. But I'm not sure.)

Regardless, the risk that it will be resurrected when he loses his momentum, as he probably will, is just as real.