So this entire thread was pointless...it appears we all owe Winnipeg our gratitude. Imagine that mr.x...something happening somewhere other than Vancouver! Who would've thought!

Overall I'd say that we are center-left when it comes to media. With some arm-twisting I might say even middle of the road. But one thing the Canadian media isn't is right-wing.

I guess it depends on your personal views. If you're right-wing, a centrist paper would appear left-wing, and if you're left-wing, then a centrist paper could appear rightist. Bill O'Rielly likes to show clippings from what he calls the "far left toronto globe and mail" on his show when he's berating Canada.

Discourse is even more complicated in the sense that simple one side of the fense or the other statements can't hold, anymore. Well, at least not in Canada. One can be an economic conservative, but quite liberal on social issues. What if you're ecomomically liberal but socially conservative? Whoa, then you're not going to have much of a voice!

I think a big problem is that ridings are not based on population. For example, if Toronto had the same MP/constituent ratio as PEI, Toronto would elect four times as many MPs as it does today. In other words, a vote in PEI is worth four times as much as a vote in Toronto. This partially explains why the federal government neglects Toronto. I think ridings should be based on population.

PEI is an exception and gets 4 times as many MPs as it should, giving it a grand total of...4.

When PEI joined Canada one of the conditions was that it would be guaranteed a minimum of 4 MPs at all times even though its actual population right now only warrants 1 or maybe 2 MPs. Either way, PEI has basically no say in any federal politics so I wouldn't worry about this too much.

Okay, I read through that link. I happen to agree with just about everything he said save the war on Iraq. Even then, I only disagree with his opinion on the matter considering the time the comments were made. Had you asked me when the US initially invaded Iraq I would have said absolutely they should. This was a supposedly 'illegal war' (as though there is a law that permits war written somewhere; i.e. all wars are illegal) but 'illegal' wars happen all the time and for far less credible reasons.

You are wrong. All wars are not illegal, although many that the US has been fighting in post-WWII era are. After the WWII, the US, like every other nation that was a part of the UN, surrendered its ability to wage war, giving the UN Secuirty Council the monopoly on war making decisions. The fact that there are other illegal wars is an absolutely horrid excuse for supporting the Iraq one.

As a side note, I don't think people have any idea how horrible a war is. The fact that many of their lives will be irrevocably ruined at best, and terminated at worst should bother us a hell of a lot more than it seems to.


Hey, I'm not white-washing what's happened in Iraq, in hindsight, I'm still not sure that I wouldn't support it again even knowing what I know now. But that's just my personal opinion and this thread isn't about the war in Iraq otherwise.

What is it about, then? We can't just sift past everything the Conservative government has argued for and say, 'yes, that may have not been a good idea, but that's not what this thread is about.' And let me illustrate how everything ties in below:


Here's the thing though : What do the Liberals need to do to convince some people that their present incarnation is corrupt and amoral? They are ripping us off blind. Throwing away our money. Stealing it.

But throwing our money away subsudizing a war we would get scraps for, as well as a supreme international crime as defined by the UN, is immoral on a much more grand scale. Being responsible for Canadian and Iraqi lives seems a lot worse. In a case where millions would be lost for a horrible reason, I choose the sponsorship scandal as the lesser of two evils.



They aren't actually doing anything for gay rights (which I know so many people here have an interest in) since they left it up to the courts to decide.

The reading of the bill is happening right now, so, it's more than Conservatives have done or will do.


They haven't reinvested our money in infrastructure at the rate needed to maintain it.

True, especially in the case of cities. Why, on the other hand, we would trust a certain other party that has dismissed cities as just another lobby group is beyond me.


We are at odds with our biggest trading partner in a game of tit-for-tat that Canada can only ultimately lose (and don't kid yourself, the US is and will remain our biggest customer and supplier until Canada picks up and moves to the south Pacific or something) and Paul Martin is rapidly becoming the most over-hyped politician this country has ever seen.

Well, indeed, it has been a tough time for Canada, due to US policy changes. To not be at odds at present, however, is to go to a bloody war, and trade away some of our sovregnity.

The Sun chain of papers is definitely right wing, no doubt about that IMO. The others....from my perspective they go from center to left.

Let's take a look at 4 major newspapers that get published in Toronto:

Toronto Sun - painfully right-wing
National Post - right-wing. Centre? A party that prefers deregulation in 99% of situations, which will stick up for business over ethics come hell or high water isn't in the centre. The odd article that goes the other way is supposed to make it centre-right, I guess...
Globe and Mail - centre
Toronto Star - centre-left

^ That is just hilarious! :hilarious

I posted exactly what i heard from my local newscast that day.

I don't see how proportional rep would eliminate seperatism. Proportional representation sounds good, but our political system is also designed to make regions count somewhat more in some cases to represent large geographical areas, as well as individual voters. I think that this aspect is fair too. If there were only ten people living in some huge remote Arctic island, maybe their votes should count more than those of ten people all living in one room in downtown Vancouver. That is because these ten people are representing more than just themselves, ie tax dollars, ecology, resources, etc.

I don't see how proportional rep would eliminate seperatism. Proportional representation sounds good, but our political system is also designed to make regions count somewhat more in some cases to represent large geographical areas, as well as individual voters. I think that this aspect is fair too.

How is it fair? It's a slap in the face to the democratic process. I can think of many better ways to satisfy the minority. Not only does the current system skew our votes based on population (which was the previous grievance), but it encourages strategic voting since causes HORRIBLY UNFAIR vote splitting. Say 30% vote for NDP, 30% vote Liberal, and 32% Conservative, the Conservatives win the riding... NOTHING fair in that.


If there were only ten people living in some huge remote Arctic island, maybe their votes should count more than those of ten people all living in one room in downtown Vancouver. That is because these ten people are representing more than just themselves, ie tax dollars, ecology, resources, etc.

And the people of downtown Vancouver are not representing those very same things, plus astronomically higher infrastructure expenditures?

In any case, balancing out minorities is important, but that doesn't mean we should have our hilarious plurality system. A mixed-member PR system entirely solves the minority equation, while giving everyone a voice, instead of completely discounting the votes of those people who did not vote for the winning party (by a simply majority no less!) in any given riding.

You are wrong. All wars are not illegal, although many that the US has been fighting in post-WWII era are. After the WWII, the US, like every other nation that was a part of the UN, surrendered its ability to wage war, giving the UN Secuirty Council the monopoly on war making decisions. The fact that there are other illegal wars is an absolutely horrid excuse for supporting the Iraq one.

Okay, the rest we can agree to disagree on IMO but this one requires a response.
How could any war be legal? I mean, we're talking about the killing of people here so who is actually going to say "Good idea. It would clearly be beneficial for all involved if you two went and slaughtered thouasands"? When was the last time somebody actually stood up and said, "that war was legal so it's all good" ? Come on now, we're talking about a matter of ethics (and philosophy to some degree as well) and no war is ethical. Just because the UN says it's illegal doesn't count for much. These are the same people who stood by and watched Rwandan's massacre each other....why would I place any faith in their judgement? As far as I'm concerned the UN is the contemporary League of Nations : Impotent and mired in bureaucracy and posturing. Feel free to have faith in it if you like but I for one don't anymore. In any event, my point is that from an ethical perspective no war is 'legal'. Just because the UN sanctions something or doesn't means little as far as this is concerned. Too many agendas at work with the UN and very little action. That they deemed the US invasion of Iraq 'illegal' means as much as when they ignored the 117 times Saddam broke the treaty he signed to secure peace after the first Gulf War. They didn't say anything then so why should anybody place value in their credibility?

Let's take a look at 4 major newspapers that get published in Toronto:

Toronto Sun - painfully right-wing
National Post - right-wing. Centre? A party that prefers deregulation in 99% of situations, which will stick up for business over ethics come hell or high water isn't in the centre. The odd article that goes the other way is supposed to make it centre-right, I guess...
Globe and Mail - centre
Toronto Star - centre-left
On this we are going to have to just agree to disagree I think.

Okay, the rest we can agree to disagree on IMO but this one requires a response.
How could any war be legal? I mean, we're talking about the killing of people here so who is actually going to say "Good idea. It would clearly be beneficial for all involved if you two went and slaughtered thouasands"? When was the last time somebody actually stood up and said, "that war was legal so it's all good" ? Come on now, we're talking about a matter of ethics (and philosophy to some degree as well) and no war is ethical.

Ethics and legality are two entirely different concepts; you're mixing them up. Some wars can be legal, but not necessarily ethical (e.g. Gulf War).


Just because the UN says it's illegal doesn't count for much. These are the same people who stood by and watched Rwandan's massacre each other....why would I place any faith in their judgement?

#1: the US voluntarily acknowledged the monopoly of the UN Security Council to wage war. So, yes it does count for much. In fact, a war act not authorized by the UN Secuity Council is considered a 'supreme illegal act.' These acts are punishable by the World Court, which the US no longer convenientely recognizes since it was found guilty in the Nicaragua incident.
#2 Funny you bring up the Rwanda incident, considering it is the US that torpedoed the peace effort to it.


As far as I'm concerned the UN is the contemporary League of Nations : Impotent and mired in bureaucracy and posturing. Feel free to have faith in it if you like but I for one don't anymore.

You're going to need a more detailed case against the only institution which prevents the complete rule of the strongest for me to respond to it... And indeed, even the incompetent LoN (which is actually completely different since it was not a world institution, but a Western one) was better than what followed.


In any event, my point is that from an ethical perspective no war is 'legal'.

Even from an ethical perspective, a war can be legal. From a legal standpoint, the question is even more cut and dry.


Just because the UN sanctions something or doesn't means little as far as this is concerned. Too many agendas at work with the UN and very little action.

Too many agendas? THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT! It's a world institution aimed at preventing an agenda monopoly!


That they deemed the US invasion of Iraq 'illegal' means as much as when they ignored the 117 times Saddam broke the treaty he signed to secure peace after the first Gulf War. They didn't say anything then so why should anybody place value in their credibility?

Well, obviously you know very little about what the UN did. The resolutions were drafted after the first Gulf War, including forcing the compliance of UN Weapons Inspection, which indeed turned up nothing. In fact, this is a clear demonstration that UN can work, since the inspections were almost complete, and the inspectors predicted nothing would be found. And nothing was found.

Ethics and legality are two entirely different concepts; you're mixing them up. Some wars can be legal, but not necessarily ethical (e.g. Gulf War).




#1: the US voluntarily acknowledged the monopoly of the UN Security Council to wage war. So, yes it does count for much. In fact, a war act not authorized by the UN Secuity Council is considered a 'supreme illegal act.' These acts are punishable by the World Court, which the US no longer convenientely recognizes since it was found guilty in the Nicaragua incident.
#2 Funny you bring up the Rwanda incident, considering it is the US that torpedoed the peace effort to it.




You're going to need a more detailed case against the only institution which prevents the complete rule of the strongest for me to respond to it... And indeed, even the incompetent LoN (which is actually completely different since it was not a world institution, but a Western one) was better than what followed.




Even from an ethical perspective, a war can be legal. From a legal standpoint, the question is even more cut and dry.




Too many agendas? THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT! It's a world institution aimed at preventing an agenda monopoly!




Well, obviously you know very little about what the UN did. The resolutions were drafted after the first Gulf War, including forcing the compliance of UN Weapons Inspection, which indeed turned up nothing. In fact, this is a clear demonstration that UN can work, since the inspections were almost complete, and the inspectors predicted nothing would be found. And nothing was found.

Okay, we've said our pieces now, let's get back to our corners and come out fighting some other time. :)

I remember reading what mr.x said in a newspaper as well - many media were duped. And to be fair, BC saved the world from SARS.

^ :cheers:

How is it fair? It's a slap in the face to the democratic process. I can think of many better ways to satisfy the minority. Not only does the current system skew our votes based on population (which was the previous grievance), but it encourages strategic voting since causes HORRIBLY UNFAIR vote splitting. Say 30% vote for NDP, 30% vote Liberal, and 32% Conservative, the Conservatives win the riding... NOTHING fair in that.




And the people of downtown Vancouver are not representing those very same things, plus astronomically higher infrastructure expenditures?

In any case, balancing out minorities is important, but that doesn't mean we should have our hilarious plurality system. A mixed-member PR system entirely solves the minority equation, while giving everyone a voice, instead of completely discounting the votes of those people who did not vote for the winning party (by a simply majority no less!) in any given riding.

Sow what about a PR House of Commons with a Triple-E Senate? You can kill two birds with one stone (Western Alienation/unfairness of the FPP system).

^ well, BC didn't really save the world from SARS. The Cancer agency a block away from the BCCDC discovered the genetic code for SARS which is the key to finding a vaccine for the disease.

For those who don't live in BC, have a look at this site, which explains how proportional representation could work. Do you think this would work for most Canadians?

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full

I actually do like the idea of proportional rep, but I think someone misunderstood some of my points, as this is a complicated issue. I wondered how it would dissuade separatism, also, my other point was somewhat misleading, as it had to do with the amount of representation given to underpopulated areas; ie. the populations of electoral districts can vary somewhat because they include very large unevenly populated geographical areas.

Sow what about a PR House of Commons with a Triple-E Senate? You can kill two birds with one stone (Western Alienation/unfairness of the FPP system).

I don't know... If we do a mixed-member PR, I would think we could do district caps/quotas, so I'm not sure if the senate would be needed.


For those who don't live in BC, have a look at this site, which explains how proportional representation could work. Do you think this would work for most Canadians?

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full

I actually do like the idea of proportional rep, but I think someone misunderstood some of my points, as this is a complicated issue. I wondered how it would dissuade separatism, also, my other point was somewhat misleading, as it had to do with the amount of representation given to underpopulated areas; ie. the populations of electoral districts can vary somewhat because they include very large unevenly populated geographical areas.

So, BC's referendum is on the single transferable vote? I actually do prefer mixed-member PR quite a bit, but STV is still much better than f-p-p. Do you know what the support for the STV is in BC Joey?

That's right. In other words, they saved the world...

^ speaking of "immature fuck nuts" from the do you hate toronto thread. Apparently their not just from Vancouver. Wow.

It wouldn't dissuade seperatism, it would just stop Bloc Quebecois from having artificial majorities when their vote percentage doesn't warrant it.

oa