How Will You Vote

[redleafjumper]

The important thing is to have a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds to represent what is a diverse country.  The Conservative party has the most gender, ethnically and employment background diverse MPs of the parties in the last parliament. 

I quite like Infanteer's fitting allusion to Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. Pinafore:

"...Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!..."

Funny how art captures liberal life.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

I will continue to vote conservative until the party proves to me that they are as corrupt as the liberals at which point I guess I will resort to NDP. Its amazing to once again see the election adds from all parties that bombard us with their "promises".

How about a party making this statement: "If my party is elected, I will guarantee the following election promises will be implemented within 6 months of being in power or I will personally resign"

All we hear is what they promise based over 10 years or BS comments like old Jean's promise to get rid of the GST all together.

 

[AoD71]

...like old Jean's promise to get rid of the GST all together.

Yea. That would be nice.

 

[rifleman]

OR this Scrapyard could be a front for some grizzly things going on "behind closed doors", ie; money laundering! This thought reminds me of "Gone in 60 Seconds"!

If the latter was true, then he is a prime candidate for office. ;D

 

[Monsoon]

Now that that shower of horsesh*t has subsided:

You are a sanctimonious slice of urine

I'm pretty sure there was a posting on another board a couple days ago warning people to focus on debating ideas and not attacking the author.  I trust that holds as true for people participating in the forum as for litigious journalists - it's not just the law, it's a good idea.

I'd welcome a small businessman if it meant one less lawyer in Parliament...

And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an effective legislator:
- Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;
- Proven ability to think critically;
- Knowledge of government organizations and their function.

A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.  Maybe the scrapyard operator has these abilities, but I have no particular reason to believe that he does given his CV.  The bottom line is that there are very few people who can make the jump straight to federal politics and be effective in the role.  Everyone else should expect to have to gain some political experience at the municipal level, or by working in or closely with government or in some other way - you know, down in the "grass roots".  I don't think that should be beneath anyone who aspires to federal office.

So other then your Ontario media fed opinion that the Conservative party candidates are dim, give us one good reason...just one, why the Conservative Party can not lead this country better then the past Liberal government has?

Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.  The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.  They haven't yet, so I'm unwilling to vote for them.  You don't have to like that - I really don't care.  I guess you can just keep complaining about how those stupid Ontario losers don't vote for your party if you don't want to find out.  And I'm not from Ontario, by the by.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
Your battleship awaits you, your Excellency.

While still uncomplimentary, this insult at least has the benefit of being opaque.  It leaves the reader puzzling what on earth the writer was talking about and causes them to forget that there was actually no argument brought against the points you raised.  You folks should take lessons from the master, here.

Well the Conservative candidate in my riding is a Rhodes scholar with degrees from Oxford and Princeton (..and if that's not enough, he used to play for the Ottawa Roughriders.)

Good, it sounds like you have a lot of reasons to vote for him.  I wish he was running in my riding.

Umm.. doesn't that make him something of a small businessman / entrepreneur?  Maybe his self-employment / independence isn't fancy enough for you?  Maybe he should apologize for being such simple little man and step aside.  Surely he couldn't have anything useful to add.  [end scarcasm]  You are bloody arrogant.

It's not a matter of "fanciness", it's a matter of knowing a thing or two about government.  I respect self-employers, but he's going to need some experience in government before he gets my vote. Compared to the Liberal candidate in my riding (long career in broadcast media, former provincial cabinet minister, current federal cabinet minister), he can't compare with his existing experience.  Just getting the nomination and running the riding's campaign isn't enough.

Hands on environmental knowledge

I see what you're trying to get at here, but you've got to be kidding about that last one.  The man owns an urban lot that he piles scrap cars in; he's not an environmental engineer.

 

[Infanteer]

While still uncomplimentary, this insult at least has the benefit of being opaque.   It leaves the reader puzzling what on earth the writer was talking about and causes them to forget that there was actually no argument brought against the points you raised.   You folks should take lessons from the master, here.

The clown on the end should have been the give-away that your statement was the winner of the Army.ca "Post of the Month" award - your prize is in the mail.

Just because I love it so much:

Christ, the Conservative candidate in my riding owns a scrapyard, and this is an urban riding!   It galls me to imagine someone with so little to recommend him cruising to a parliamentary seat on the back of a backlash against the Liberals.

...you ever hear about not judging a book by its cover?   What does running a scrapyard have to do with the ability to be a good legislator?   There are plenty of people with humble origins that have made good representatives.

You give a list of vaunted characteristics that seem to come with passing the Bar, but I look at consecutive government scandals and at the forefront of all of them I see folks who are "experienced with politics, have knowledge of the law and government and have a proven ability to think critically."   Seems Mr Chretien was the epitome of that statement.

It's too bad you left "character" out of your requirements.   Instead you chose to lift your nose, open your mouth, and "remove all doubt"....

 

[dutchie]

Nice waffle there, sir.

And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an effective legislator:
- Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;

Well, AFAIK, most of the nitty gritty legal crap is done by ADMs, advisors, etc - the non-elected civil servant SMEs. The average backbencher relies on those folks. The average effective backbencher MP brings ideas, leadership, and common sense...IMHO.

A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.   Maybe the scrapyard operator has these abilities, but I have no particular reason to believe that he does given his CV.  

Have you bothered to find out? Or are you just assuming he doesn't? In my books, a smart voter researches the candidates in his riding prior to coming to a conclusion on the best candidate to represent him. If a candidate's party precludes the voter in supporting him, regardless of the candidate's credentials or abilities, then that's fine. But you didn't say that. You discounted this candidate based on his occupation/social class.

Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.   The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.  

Again, it really is YOUR responsiblity, not your right, to use due diligence when voting. Maybe we should all just look at ethnicity, gender, age, social class, occupation, and sexual orientation when choosing candidates. After all, you appear, by your own admission, to have considered this man's occupation and class over his politics or abilities. Maybe we should all be so goddamed ignorant.

 

[Monsoon]

Nice waffle there, sir.

Didn't you mean to say, "Wow, an officer and an elitist.  This villain has it all, doesn't he guys?"  By the way, where do you think I waffled?

Well, AFAIK, most of the nitty gritty legal crap is done by ADMs, advisors, etc - the non-elected civil servant SMEs. The average backbencher relies on those folks. The average effective backbencher MP brings ideas, leadership, and common sense...IMHO.

You've been misinformed.  For an MP to be anything more than a highly-paid seat-warmer requires actual trade knowledge in the working of governments.  Does an infantry Major need to know anything about section attacks?  By your logic, no.

Have you bothered to find out? Or are you just assuming he doesn't? In my books, a smart voter researches the candidates in his riding prior to coming to a conclusion on the best candidate to represent him. If a candidate's party precludes the voter in supporting him, regardless of the candidate's credentials or abilities, then that's fine. But you didn't say that. You discounted this candidate based on his occupation/social class.

I certainly tried out find out more about him.  This was in the last election and his website had literally no information other than that he was the owner/operator of a scrapyard.  I find it telling, however, that you jumped to the conclusion that I was biased against him for reasons of class rather than that he had no evident professional ability to do the job.  It really speaks to your insecurities.

Again, it really is YOUR responsiblity, not your right, to use due diligence when voting. Maybe we should all just look at ethnicity, gender, age, social class, occupation, and sexual orientation when choosing candidates. After all, you appear, by your own admission, to have considered this man's occupation and class over his politics or abilities. Maybe we should all be so goddamed ignorant.

So that's going to be the Conservative party's campaign slogan in this election, "Go find out for yourself, asshole"?  Well, with that winning formula for success, all they have to do is make sure the victory party is well-stocked with cheetos and wait for the votes to roll on in.  Going out and "selling" yourself is so passé these days.  Fast fact: people judge you on the information you make available to them, like when you assumed that I was a classist dickhead because all you knew about me was that I was an officer - remember that?  If all you tell people is that you're the owner/operator of a scrapyard, your professional suitability for the job is going to be judged solely on that.

 

[Armymedic]

Fortunately I don't have to give "one good reason" why I don't think the Conservatives are up to leading the country.   The burden of proof is on them to prove to me that they are.   They haven't yet, so I'm unwilling to vote for them.   You don't have to like that - I really don't care.   I guess you can just keep complaining about how those stupid Ontario losers don't vote for your party if you don't want to find out.   And I'm not from Ontario, by the by.

Never said you were from Ontario, just that your opinion the Consv are dim is fueled by a bias in the Ontario media against the (Reform)Conservative Party...I know cause I do live in Ontario, and see the news, and do shake my head at the subtle differences in coverage between the two primary parties.

You are right that the Consv party needs to provide you with the burden of proof that they worthy of governing, as all parties do. I believe they are. It is the Conservatives who are bringing forth the planks of thier platform, telling all of us what thier goals and main efforts are going to be once they are elected.

On the flip side, the Liberals seem to be just reacting to Conservative platform annoucements. IMHO doing a fair to poor job of matching the clear desicsive statements Harper is providing. Their reaction to Harper's GST cut announcement is case and point.

So to answer my own question for you: to me the Liberals have shown me that they are no longer worthy of leaing the country due to thier lack of direction, clear leadership, and poor intiative so far in this election campaign.

 

[dutchie]

You've been misinformed.   For an MP to be anything more than a highly-paid seat-warmer requires actual trade knowledge in the working of governments.  

So this Uber-Liberal you're voting for was ineffective as a Provincial legislator when he started out, as you stated that his background was broadcating....right? The way you post, a guy either has to spend 6 years or so getting a Law degree, or he has to work his way up through the backend in say, Policy and Planning as a civil servant. No room for entreprenuers or other hard-working intelligent 'regular folk'. Lawyers and Poli-Sci SMEs only please. Very enlightened.

I find it telling, however, that you jumped to the conclusion that I was biased against him for reasons of class rather than that he had no evident professional ability to do the job.  

You stated/inferred two things about this candidate - that he was not capable of being a decent MP, and that he was a scrap yard owner. I assume that his status as a self-employed person is not what preculdes him in your eyes, so I can only summize that it is the blue-collar class that you were referring to.

So that's going to be the Conservative party's campaign slogan in this election, "Go find out for yourself, *******"?   Going out and "selling" yourself is so passé these days.  

Obviously not. However, if you are suggesting that we just sit back and get fed by the media on the qualities of the candiates, you're a fool. If you could care less who is your MP, and are more concerned with the leader and the Party policies, then this man's job matters little, and it's the party that matters. The only time the MPs credentials really matter is in reference to how well he will represent you in Ottawa, and what he can or is willing to do for your riding. Mass media is great for telling you what the leaders say and propose, but are not as good at telling you about individual candidates and their ideas on issues important to the riding and Canada as a whole. That's why if you care at all about what he will do for the rinding, you HAVE to research the various candidates.

Fast fact: people judge you on the information you make available to them, like when you assumed that I was a classist fool because all you knew about me was that I was an officer - remember that?

I was judging you on your idiotic and ignorant post, not your rank.

By the way, where do you think I waffled?

You were getting flamed for an obviously retarded post. Instead of owning up to it, you tried to weasel your way out of it. Hence the waffle.

 

[armyvern]

And I'm no more fond of the McGill Law route to federal office than you, but let's look at some things required of an effective legislator:
- Detailed knowledge of the law, its practice, and its implementation;
- Proven ability to think critically;
- Knowledge of government organizations and their function.
A lawyer requires all of these things and a scrapyard operator requires none of them.  

Wow Hamiltongs you have me completely flabbergasted with this ill-thought out diatribe.
Legislator's need to be willing to serve their country (ie put one's country before self), in the interests of the nation. One does not need any kind of degree or million dollar severance package to be capable of doing this.

Quite frankly, the "lowly commoner" may be much more adept at being able to pull this off than the high priced suits as eveidenced by the current situation and past liberal and conservative scandels, politiking and cover one's ass mentality all federal parties seem to do so well at.

In essence your quote above says:

A jury of my peers is good enough and has enough reasoning, deductive skills and intelligence to find my ass guilty in a court of law and send my butt to jail for life if required, BUT

They do not have enough reasoning, deductive skills or intelligence to be running for office where they would have the opportunity to determine whether those same laws or practices should be overhauled etc etc.

Wow, sky is getting to be quite the purple haze in here isn't it?? Condescending attitudes seem to do that to people.

 

[Monsoon]

So this Uber-Liberal you're voting for was ineffective as a Provincial legislator when he started out, as you stated that his background was broadcating....right? The way you post, a guy either has to spend 6 years or so getting a Law degree, or he has to work his way up through the backend in say, Policy and Planning as a civil servant. No room for entreprenuers or other hard-working intelligent 'regular folk'. Lawyers and Poli-Sci SMEs only please. Very enlightened.

The "Uber-Liberal" in question (since I gather you think I made her up) is Liza Frulla, the Heritage Minister.  The point I was making is that she didn't just cruise into federal politics, she worked her way up through progressively more high-profile positions in the private sector, spent a few years as a political commentator, and went into "entry-level" politics as a provincial MP.  I admit she skipped the municipal step, but I'd argue her knowledge of government was established enough that that was warranted.

I definitely wouldn't say someone is suited to hold federal office simply on the basis of having finished a law degree.  Obviously there are a huge number of possible ways of working your way up, but I would suggest that "small business owner; missing step; federal MP" isn't one of them.  Note that this view of the world also rules out that nitwit Justin Trudeau from sashay-ing onto the federal scene without putting his time in like everyone else - it has nothing to do with class.

You stated/inferred two things about this candidate - that he was not capable of being a decent MP, and that he was a scrap yard owner. I assume that his status as a self-employed person is not what preculdes him in your eyes, so I can only summize that it is the blue-collar class that you were referring to.

I didn't refer to class; everyone else did.  You can ask them what they were talking about, but that would really tell you more about them than me.

Obviously not. However, if you are suggesting that we just sit back and get fed by the media on the qualities of the candiates, you're a fool. If you could care less who is your MP, and are more concerned with the leader and the Party policies, then this man's job matters little, and it's the party that matters. The only time the MPs credentials really matter is in reference to how well he will represent you in Ottawa, and what he can or is willing to do for your riding. Mass media is great for telling you what the leaders say and propose, but are not as good at telling you about individual candidates and their ideas on issues important to the riding and Canada as a whole. That's why if you care at all about what he will do for the rinding, you HAVE to research the various candidates.

Which I did.  I found that the Liberal candidate had a very successful career and years of government experience at different levels, while the Conservative candidate had nothing in particular to recommend him to the job of federal legislator.  The decision seems pretty obvious.  In other news, the Bloc candidate (who's likely to win, in fact) is a 26-year old with a computer science degree and no work experience at all.  I don't think he should be serving as a federal MP either.

You were getting flamed for an obviously retarded post. Instead of owning up to it, you tried to weasel your way out of it. Hence the waffle.

It's called an argument.  I think if you'll cool the knee-jerk for a second and reflect, you'll find that it's actually a pretty reasonable one.

Wow, sky is getting to be quite the purple haze in here isn't it?? Condescending attitudes seem to do that to people.

???

 

[redleafjumper]

Liberal plans to ban handguns give me yet another reason to vote my lifestyle and support the Conservatives.

 

[McG]

The poll options were moderately limitted, so I've added the option "other."  If you are one of those people that does not want to vote for any of the big parties, then be sure to give the little ones a look.  Here is a quick selection of some of the Parties:

Liberal Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
New Democratic Party
Green Party
Canadian Action Party
Freedom Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Canada
Grey Party of Canada
Bloc Québécois
Progressive Canadian Party
Communist Party of Canada

... and also have a look here: http://www.elections.ca/intro.asp?section=pol&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false

 

[Glorified Ape]

Care to elaborate by citing policy or would you prefer to stick with a pedantic personal attack as your primary justification?

Matthew. 

A pedantic personal attack, eh? Please consult the dictionary before using words you're unfamiliar with:

pe ·dan ·tic (pÉâ„¢-dăn'tÄ­k)
adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

Saying that Harper is as attractive to me as a herpetic sore is neither pedantic, as it does not involve book learning, formal rules or an ostentatious concern for either, nor is it a personal attack as it makes no judgement of his character, physical appearance, intelligence, or anything else - it only demonstrates his lack of political appeal to myself.

As for my issues with the Conservative platform, I've gone over that in another thread quite some time ago:

Agree:
1. Military spending - they're promising a 1.2 (or 1.7, can't recall) billion dollar/year infusion for the next few years - that would be great, assuming they could actually do it. I believe they could and, though I'm not likely to vote for them, would look forward to it if they got into power.
2. Gun registry - It hasn't worked and it isn't likely to work. It was a waste of money. They want to scrap it and I'm inclined to agree, though it seems a waste now that the infrastructure/etc. has already been established.

Disagree:
1. Foreign policy - by the sounds of things - namely making broad references to encouraging "democratic ideals" (complete with rhetoric) and policing "rogue states", the Conservative foreign policy sounds strikingly like that of the US, which I can't get behind in its current state.
2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.
3. Criminal sentencing - The Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with.
4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate against the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority.
5. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.
6. Business - cutting corporate subsidies isn't necessarily a bad idea, but to which businesses is the question. By virtue of their need, small business needs adequate subsidies more. The cuts Harper's pushing aren't going to hurt big business, they're going to hurt the small ones.
7. Universities - Harper's plan isn't to fund universities better, but to increase the number of loans available for students. Cut tuition costs and they won't need so many loans, won't accrue such staggering debts, etc. Instead, he's just offering more pogey.
8. Ambassador to US - making him a cabinet member? Christ. Enough. Establishing ANOTHER bureaucracy just to deal with Canada/US stuff? We already have one and it's quite sufficient. The Conservative penchant for Ameriphilia is one of their most disturbing characteristics and another reason why I won't vote for them.

You Sir, should cut off your nose, cause you can't see anything past it. There are 2 viable alternatives. Both the Consv and NDP have ideas how they can run this country better then the past goverments of the last 12 yrs. No wait, the last yr or so the NDP have been running the country...so the Liberals could hold gov't.

And you, sir, should refrain from making asinine opening statements which make broad assumptions based on very narrow information. I offered a response to the question of how I would vote, with a short explanation why. If you wished to pass judgement, you should have asked for clarification (as Cdn Blackshirt did) before making assumptions as to my abilities of perception.

The NDP is not a viable alternative - they will never receive a majority, nor are many of their policies realistic. Their entire economic platform seems centered around a dislike for corporate tax cuts, which they proudly boast of having shot down. While I don't necessarily disagree with curbing corporate tax cuts, using it as a foundation for your platform is extremely weak - it's a one-trick pony. They'll "balance the budget" but don't say how, meanwhile they promise all sorts of increased social spending with no increase in taxes, either corporate or public. As much as I agree with some of their social policies such as affordable education, the NDP seems big on talk and short on substantiation. Combined with about 0% chance of being elected in my riding, the NDP is not, to me, a viable alternative. If I had to choose between the Cons or the NDP, I'd go NDP but that's not the situation we're in.

As for the Cons, I already went over that.

 

[Infanteer]

1. Military spending - they're promising a 1.2 (or 1.7, can't recall) billion dollar/year infusion for the next few years - that would be great, assuming they could actually do it. I believe they could and, though I'm not likely to vote for them, would look forward to it if they got into power.

Agree with you here.

2. Gun registry - It hasn't worked and it isn't likely to work. It was a waste of money. They want to scrap it and I'm inclined to agree, though it seems a waste now that the infrastructure/etc. has already been established.

Agree with you here as well - the general ideological approach of the Liberals to firearms bothers me (as I've established before), and I'm not even a recreational shooter (as I said, I have some inherited long-guns locked up).

Disagree:  1. Foreign policy - by the sounds of things - namely making broad references to encouraging "democratic ideals" (complete with rhetoric) and policing "rogue states", the Conservative foreign policy sounds strikingly like that of the US, which I can't get behind in its current state.

Well, the Liberals haven't been much better.  I don't know what's worse, preening to the US or suckholeing France because your son-in-law is a major shareholder in their largest petroleum consortium - Bush or Desmarais, you lose either way, no?

2. Healthcare - I agree with some of the reforms put forward by the Conservatives but there's also an agenda, I believe, in the party to pursue two-tiered healthcare which I don't support.

The Liberals are the worst, but all parties really bother me with their ideas on Health Care because they all pander to the easy "more money" option.  I don't mind two-tiered health care as it already exists and it will help to show us how our antiquated Kim-Jong Il delivery system is no good.  I consider it an agent for positive change; as long as universal coverage is maintained (and a healthy balance is brought to management of health care) I could care less who is delivering it.

3. Criminal sentencing - The Conservatives want a "3 strikes" policy similar to the US where 3 violent offences earn you a dangerous offender tag (and thus an interminable sentence). On top of that, they want to have 14 year olds tried in adult court as a SOP for violent/repeat offenders - not something I agree with.

Why not.  I think we've established that jail isn't a deterrent, but that's not what tough sentencing needs to be for.  Bruce Monkhouse babysits these assholes everyday; listen to him.  We are not dealing with these people in the manner that we should.  Story the other day was about a guy with 42 counts that were all tied to sexual indecency and children moving to a community that didn't want him and was at risk to re-offend.  Guy with 15 prior counts of car-theft kills a family man while outrunning the cops in a stolen vehicle.  Karla Holmolka takes part in the brutal rape, torture and slaying of two teenage girls and we let her out?

C'mon.

4. Gay marriage - Harper wants to rescind the case and have parliament (under his government) legislate against the matter (IE outlaw it). I support gay marriage and I have no desire to see the parliament legislating against it, which it will undoubtedly do under a Conservative majority.

Agree with you here - definitely an eye-scab or whatever you mentioned earlier; this smells of pushing us into bed with these kinds of people.  Oh well, at least the Conservative Party will allow me to possess copious amounts of firearms so I can keep them off my property.

5. Fixed election dates - Why? The limit is 5 years and the ability of the PM to call an election anytime within that period allows for more frequent consultation of the electorate. Sure, the PM can call it when his ratings are high, but such are the advantages of the incumbency. It's not undemocratic.

Disagree; what's wrong with taking the politics out of election dates?  We have this in BC right now and it isn't that big of a deal, but if we are going to tool around with parliamentary democracy, it has got to be thourough and not just tinkering.  I want to see the Senate fixed, Quebec addressed, the nature of the PMO and the GG addressed.

6. Business - cutting corporate subsidies isn't necessarily a bad idea, but to which businesses is the question. By virtue of their need, small business needs adequate subsidies more. The cuts Harper's pushing aren't going to hurt big business, they're going to hurt the small ones.

Tax cuts don't bother me.

7. Universities - Harper's plan isn't to fund universities better, but to increase the number of loans available for students. Cut tuition costs and they won't need so many loans, won't accrue such staggering debts, etc. Instead, he's just offering more pogey.

Disagree - university isn't that expensive; I paid for it through working for the military (just as you are).  Canada's students seem to be a big pack of whiners.  Why should it be free (or near free)?  So they can sit around in undergrad for another couple years because they just like being a student and don't want to get out into the real world?  I remember taking part in varsity athletics in one of the countries largest universities and going to small colleges in the US and seeing how real funding makes a difference.  I'm all for making people earn their education - even if it be through a short period of service like the US GI Bill.

8. Ambassador to US - making him a cabinet member? Christ. Enough. Establishing ANOTHER bureaucracy just to deal with Canada/US stuff? We already have one and it's quite sufficient. The Conservative penchant for Ameriphilia is one of their most disturbing characteristics and another reason why I won't vote for them.

Agreed.  That's just silly.

Problem is, I could find a list just as long for the Liberals, and to me there are some even more disturbing implications.

I'm still hoping for a Conservative minority.  It will give them a shot at governing and yet keep them honest.

 

[vangemeren]

I'm just curious, how long ago did you attend university?

 

[UberCree]

University debt usually equals the price of a car by graduation.  Harldy an everwhelming amount of debt for an outstanding investment.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm just curious, how long ago did you attend university?

Two years ago.

University debt usually equals the price of a car by graduation.   Harldy an everwhelming amount of debt for an outstanding investment.

Exactly.  Expecting everybody else to foot your university bill is just another example of how people in this country wish to abrogate all personal responsibility to somebody else.

 

[vangemeren]

Exactly.  Expecting everybody else to foot your university bill is just another example of how people in this country wish to abrogate all personal responsibility to somebody else.

I don't expect anyone to give someone else the responsibility to pay my bills. It's just that they are rising faster than inflation. If they kept pace with inflation that would be fine.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030812/d030812a.htm