Bizud

Yeah, fast ferries were a blunder, but there were no other programs like it, and that's not related to the health of the economy. Four more years of Liberals, eh? Fuck you, BC. You depend on liars to give you information, you'll elect their liar friends. I also note that the STV referendum will almost certainly fall short of the 60% double majority needed to pass, despite having more than a majority in favour of it (looks like 57% now). How will the Liberals react to this clear indication that most people do want some kind of electoral reform? We all know the answer to that, the answer is "nothing." See you in 2009, after the Liberals have ignored the wishes of the electorate, broken more campaign promises, run a few more deficits, sold a few more state assets, gotten BC slapped with a few more fines for violating of Canada Health Act, and forced a few more workers to accept pay cuts. "More prosperity for BC," eh? Fuck you. Not if you're a student, nurse, teacher, senior citizen, homeless person, young worker, single parent, or unemployed. At least now there are enough fucking opposition members to sit on every committee.

What a day. Now they support the budget, but still oppose the NDP's proposed amendment to axe the corporate tax cuts. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...nach050517.html

Belinda Stronach is not beholden to "the whole western half of the country." She represents the voters of Newmarket-Aurora, and she will have to answer to them one way or another. This is not a west vs. rest issue. I live in BC and don't want an election yet. The majority of Canadians agree. We want that budget passed, because it's got a lot of things we need in it. Same goes for the east. I want that same-sex marriage legislation passed. And I want things to cool down in Quebec so that the Bloc won't sweep every seat there and hold the balance of power in the new parliament. The Conservatives have lost their lead in the polls, both in Ontario and nationally. An election now would lead to another Liberal minority, but one where a Liberal/NDP alliance could not have anything close to a combined majority - instead, the Bloc, with at least 65 seats, would hold the balance of power, free to choose which party will govern, and free to make demands for that. And, in a perfect position to bolster the separatists, hoping for a PQ win in Quebec in 2007 and a successful referendum in 2008. That's what Belinda Stronach says, and I buy it. Do I think those are her motives? Of course not, she's in it for the job, like all of them are. But that doesn't mean what she says isn't true.

Cast my vote for Doug Brown (and yes to STV) at ten this morning. Pay close attention to the part where Gary Collins forecasts economic growth during the Liberal "Golden Decade" to be, wouldn't you know it, about 3%, the same as it was during the 90's.

Whatever, you're a lost cause. Anyone else, read this and then be the judge. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/bcea/tab1.htm http://strategicthoughts.com/record2005/provgdp.html http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/14/Rem...ucturalDeficit/ http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/V...clinics20050513

Am I the only person that can't help but read the title of this thread as "Korean War EEE?"

I think in about five hours we're going to find out the NDP blew this election by allowing it to be fought in terms of compassion versus the economy. No tradeoff is necesary, we were in fantastic shape before the Liberals took over. Reducing the debt, huge budget surpluses, etc.

The only ridings where voting Green makes any sense are ones where the NDP candidate is even less likely to win than the Green - Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Vancouver-Point Grey.

I think that if I were in some position where I would need to be hooked up to another person in order to live, it would be morally correct to sacrifice my life for that person's freedom. I mean, we don't force people to donate kidneys to save another person's life, so why force a mother to donate the use of her body to save a fetus?

Belinda Stronach has joined the Liberals. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rals050517.html

Which is why you should vote NDP, the best party for reducing the debt. You rube. Fifty bucks says we'll see at least one deficit budget from Gordo in the next few years.

We've had this one before, I think, and we're both repeating ourselves. The fact is that the economy was in great shape already when the Liberals took over. Vote NDP to return to that prosperity. Don't think of this in terms of the economy vs. the compassionate choice. The NDP are the sound economic choice.

Here we go, hostility to unions. I'll be back later or something, I'm going shopping, but that crap is where I generally tune out. You know someone's not going to listen when acquiescing to union demands sets off alarms but acquiescing to business demands doesn't. There are other ways to stimulate a modern economy than by capitulating to business interests, which are rarely the same as the public's interests. 'Ta.

I know the line, Matt. Deregulate, privatize, low taxes, cut services, user-pay. We know where that road leads and we don't want to go there. Consider the implications of what you advocate. Consider the impact on people. The training wage is just not enough for most people, who also can probably only find part-time work, to earn a living. Justify it however you want, but if it isn't paying the worker enough than it isn't doing what it's designed to do, and other considerations have to be secondary. You say that leads to fewer jobs, but then why did BC see record job creation during the NDP years? Yep, more nonsense. Ever heard of the third option - take in more revenue and put more money from the public coffers into funding the education? Students are the people that can least afford to pay for university tuition, shifting more of the burden onto them is absurd. RAV Line, yeah, I know. That and the bridge in Kelowna. This is standard SoCred politics all over again, you butter up the voters with nice local projects that make the town look pretty, while college students are eating their one meal a day at the local soup kitchen because their welfare cheque covers rent and almost nothing else. We can afford that, but we can't afford to keep the Coquihalla publicly-owned? Oops, wait! We just found out, we can afford to keep the Coq public, which had nothing to do with the mass protests by you 91% of the people who opposed us selling it! Everyone says the province was in disrepair. Show me the goddamned proof. http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/14/Rem...ucturalDeficit/

Vote Liberal tomorrow if you want to continue to piss away the legacy that NDP governments have left us with. Vote Liberal to approve of the privatization of BC Rail, BC Ferries, and BC Hydro, all of which the Liberals promised not to do. Vote Liberal to approve of the massive jump in tuition fees and the cuts to student grants. Vote Liberal to approve of cutting the minimum wage to 6 bucks an hour for new workers. Vote Liberal to approve of turning a massive surplus into a massive deficit and lying about it. Vote Liberal to approve of enforcing retroactive pay cuts on hospital employees, and limiting workers' rights. Vote Liberal to approve of the near-privatization of the Coquihalla. Vote Liberal to approve of tax cuts and service cuts that have left the economy of the province no better than it was four years ago. Vote Liberal to approve of the abolition of the BC Human Rights Comnission. Vote NDP to take back our province. Thanks.

I'd also like to point out the difference between "human" and "person." Suppose we built a thinking robot. It's definitely not human, but it's self-aware. Is it a person? Does it have rights?

Which is wacky. Just because something is alive doesn't mean killing it is murder. I swatted a mosquito the other day. "Ah, but this is a person." Well, not under Canadian law, and I think in this instance the law is correct. The fact is that any explanation that relies on the existence of a soul or a higher power cannot be a sound basis for abortion legislation, because those are not secular beliefs.

It's illegal for abortions to be done in any case except by a qualified medical practioner - that includes, oddly enough, a woman inducing her own miscarriage. Other than that I don't believe it's regulated at all, which is fairly rare in the world and something I'm quite happy for. First of all, I don't believe that what the fetus will be is fixed at conception at all. It will be a human being, true, but that has no bearing on what kind of person it will be. I italicize "will" to emphasize that I don't believe a person has yet developed in the fetus. Second, a frame doesn't turn into a house on its own; builders turn it into a house. A fetus does not turn into a person on its own; the mother turns it into a person by allowing it to grow inside her body. She does this with consent, since it is immoral to remove from someone control over their own body.

I also want to point out to anyone thinking of voting Conservative "just to spite the Liberals" should remember that Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives tried (and very nearly succeeded) in banning abortion. If you think these Conservatives won't, you're insane.

Not in Canadian law. A fetus is not legally a person, and is considered part of the mother, until it is born alive. Abortions at any point are legal in Canada. Sheesh, even in the US the partial-birth abortion ban was struck down.

Oh, wow, got me there, captain semantics. ...oh no? If Albert Einstein was aborted, we'd never have known what we were missing. That argument just makes no sense. I mean, wow, my girlfriend and I aren't having any kids; think of all the possible potential we're wasting! Everyone should have lots of kids so we have lots of "great people" like Einstein!

I used to think he was no good for the party, or at least not as good as he was said to be - for all the talk of revitalization, the NDP won fewer seats under Jack than under Alexa in '97. I've since had a change of heart, but I guess the real test is this election.

Jack Layton is awesome, seriously. Look at the policies and decide, don't just go with the knee-jerk "NDP can't run teh country!!" reaction. Harper is an extremist, pure and simple. He's in favour of missile defence and support of Pax Americana. He's openly in favour of two-tier health care (it wasn't so long ago that even Stockwell Day couldn't come out and say that - my, how things have changed), and probably privately in favour of abolishing everything from medicare to the Canadian Wheat Board to equalization payments (note, which is the one province in Canada where those aren't considered absolutely raving loony extremist positions?) - he was very recently the president of a secretive lobby group, the National Citizens Coalition, which was originally created to fight against medicare, the CWB, and immigration. You can tell from his statements on the matter that he's opposed to the deals Martin's been brokering to give more money to the provinces. What else, uh, let's see, same-sex marriage legislation? Kyoto? This new budget, which most of us are more pleased with than its predecessor, that Harper can't stand because (oh no!) big business doesn't get an even bigger handout this time? Would the cons be a decent party if they ditched this pyscho? Maybe, but since this is a party of people who by and large like Stephen Harper, what makes you think anyone better would come along? Look at the people who would become cabinet ministers if Harper's PM. Monte Solberg. Stockwell Day. Jason Kenney. Jay Hill. Yeah, real decent party. Don't kid yourself, these people are miles away from Joe Clark's PC's.

A developing person is no more a person than a seed is a tree. Potential is meaningless; if I destroy a pile of bricks, am I blowing up a building?

The "vote NDP to stop Harper" message should be fought hard. It elected several Conservatives in ridings where the NDP should have won (we lost Dick Proctor and Lorne Nystrom, to name just two, and in fact were completely shut out of Saskatchewan, of all provinces). People need to think about voting tactically, and sometimes it's a legitimate choice, but voting Liberal to keep out a Conservative when the Liberal in your riding would otherwise be a distant third is pretty stupid. Fortunately I don't think it's going to fly with most voters this time around. Conservatives who can't vote: Stupidly (some would say "honourably") Ed Broadbent has offered to sit the vote out if Darrell Stinson can't make it (cancer). Why is this not needed? Because a Liberal MP died recently, and it's not like the Conservatives have been having one of their people sit votes out until the by-election. Stinson's absence would just even the score. In fact, if you want to get really honest, if both Conservative MPs with Cancer (Stinson and Dave Chatters) aren't there, I still wouldn't recommend Ed sitting the vote out. Why? Because the speaker doesn't "get to" vote unless there's a tie. Think about it this way: 99 elected Conservatives. Two can't vote. 135 elected Liberals. Other than the two who defected, two can't vote. That makes it even in my mind.