[BlackRose]

Originally posted by TerranC:

quote:

---

Long post folks, if you're not interested, just stay clear of this one.

Ditto

One thing I do want to mention before delving further into this is that i notice you taken a look at the Green Party platform. If you did you may notice the little thumbs for 'love it' or 'hate it' on each policy or view. Its a personal touch but it does show that they are at least receptive and are willing to go to the effort of at least seeing what we do/dont like about their platform Any other parties do this?

Stephen Harper sings a tune I like on Education, Health Care, Armed Forces etc But the guy scares me on Same Sex Marriage, (not on abortion, I believe him that he wont press that hot button.) Still I dont think he has enough reign on his people to manage them effectively and a lot of his people seem downright RABID.

How so? By saying that Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that any other deviation is ungodly? Some radical MPs from every party preach that tune; it's just that the Conservatives haven't made tolerance towards metrosexuals official policy.

I totally agree, however there are elements in the conservitave party that scare me with their views and I'm not sure Stephen Harper is up to the task of wrestling with the Opposistion parties and his own on the issues. If enough of his people push for certain things he'll either cave or get swept aside with a non confidence vote. Issues that many coservitives feel strongly on:

Death Penalty
Marriage (Same Sex)
Abortion
US Foreign Policy (making ours more consistent with them)

Remember that the Conservitive party is now a throw together of two different right wing parties that didnt see eye to eye. There has already been a lot of trouble containing those elements which are far larger in the conservitave party than people would believe by reading your point about them being radical.


So I was more than mildly surprised when I discovered I had another REAL alternative. The Green Party. They are hovering somewhere between 7 and 10% of the popular vote AND with every vote they get that places them OVER 2% they get a 1.75 in funding to better portray themselves.

Popular votes don't win seats.

You're right, Unpopular politicians and parties seem to win seats right now. I'm not the only one that sees a problem with this

Myself I've read all the platforms and to be honest I was quite surprised at what I found in the Green Party's Platform. They are not about to sack the military (THE NDP wants to phase out all offensive weaponry) Instead they want to reform it into a quick response force that can go just about anywhere to combat terrorism or keep the peace. Sounds reasonable.

From the Green Party's Website:

To refocus Canada’s security capabilities and maximize their effectiveness, the Green Party will create an “International Affairs and Global Security Agency” to coordinate and fund the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs (excluding trade and citizenship). Our international efforts to achieve peace and sustainability can be best attained by coordinating our diplomatic and military capabilities, existing aid and development. Having one agency to coordinate all of our international efforts will maximize our potential contributions.

Yeah, I bet it will.

Not enough for me to take issue with but an educated guess points me in the direction of sarcasm See below.

Create a RRDF that combines the efforts of civilian specialists and diplomats with military units.

Ensure that these units work together, in a coordinated fashion, to protect civilians and eco-systems.

Mix civilians and diplomats with military units to combat terrorism, keep the peace, and protect the environment; That sounds mighty naive to me, and dangerous to bout; we've seen and are seeing civilian contractors, diplomats, and fully-armed solders alike get taken down one by one in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Saudi Arabia; what makes you think that this RRDF can live up to its goal?

**We've also seen what having multiple agencies with no co-operation can accomplish.

CIA/FBI - on 9-11
CIA/Military Mp's - On prisoner conditions
Governemnt/Intellegence Agencies - On Iraq WMD etc
List goes on, America is a good example of compartmentalized agencies and look at all the good they've accomplished. In fact they seem to be recognizing this huge problem and moving towards joining or at least creating more co-operation between them.

You say the policy is naive, I say its naive to have hundreds of departments running around each with their own agenda and mandate and no cohecive mission between them.

Canada’s security at home should be managed by one department. Search and rescue, coastal patrol, airborne maritime surveillance and disaster assistance would all be coordinated under one roof. A merged and enhanced National Reserve and Coast Guard would share the mission to protect our society from internal and external threats.

There's a reason why the National Reserve and the Coast Guard are separate organizations; it's more efficient when one organization sticks to its job. If the Green Party wants to increase the coast guard's size by cutting a part of the national reserve and merging that part with it, more power to them, but merging to different organizations into one to handle two jobs at once is, IMHO, dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? See my above reasoning, the US is a great example of having thousands of departments for just about anything and 100's more departments for managing those departments. The whole operation is expensive and seems to be getting shot full of holes right now in the US.

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."

What?! That doesnt sound 'Green' to me, it actually sounds responsible!

No, that sounds conservative to me.

That was my point as well.

They also want to use Canada's influence to reorganize NATO (not scrap it like the NDP). Instead of 5 Veto Holders they want 15, 5 of the wealthiest, 5 of the most populous and 5 elected countries to form a larger more rounded security council. I'll be damned if that doesnt sound good too!

You mean the UN security council. And the NDP wanted to scrap NATO in favor of getting a fleet of "6 Aurora Long Range Patrol Aircraft, 12 non-nuclear submarines, 18 frigates, and a fleet of helicopters." This was back in 1987, a good 17 years ago, when Russia was still the USSR. Jack Layton has said that the NDP will commit itself to NATO; and I believe him on this fact; it would seem foolish to reject an organization that offers deterrent against threats abroad. About that 15 nations who would hold veto power in the UN securiy council;

Let me stop you right there,(your right btw I mixed up NATO and UN) perhaps I was unclear they want to REMOVE VETO POWER all together. Right now you've got a minority holding sway over a majority, or do you believe that France or Russia can best represent the views of the Middle East? Or the US for that matter. Right now a lot of people see the UN as inneffective at dealing with concerns not posed by the western world, probably because the UN is heavily favoured to the western world.

1how would you measure wealth? GDP per capita? Are you prepared to give Luxembourg and and the Cayman Islands veto power over 200 nations? or perhaps by raw GDP itself; thus letting the US and China retain their vetos, and yet giving Germany and Japan veto power, which would cause unparalleled furour in asia and europe? and by population alone, the world would certainly be alarmed at the fact of Indonesia ganing veto power at this time, should the greens have their way. A security coucil with the US, Germany, Japan, and Luxembourg on one side and with China, Indonesia, the Bermudas and the Cayman Islands one the other plus 5 other nations would certainly create mutual co-operation.

All very frightening in your view, here is what the Greens actually say about it. Removing the VETO would alleviate a number of your concerns (sorry for the misconeption). Here is the actual GP quote -

"Propose a reform of the UN Security Council to eliminate permanent memberships and vetoes. Instead, representation on the Security Council will be awarded to the five most populous nations, the five wealthiest nations (per capita) and five other nations elected from the general assembly."


They plan on turfing the wasteful, ineffective GUN REGISTRY as well.

So does every other party, and then some.

Both the NDP and the Liberals still have it as part of their platform,

NDP 'Want Gun Control but are concerned about the cost of the registry'

Liberals 'Want to cap the cost (of the registry) at 25 Million per year'

They want to implement a balanced set of Tax Cuts and Increases That:

*Raise taxes on harmful activities such as pollution, waste and inefficiency.
*Use tariffs when necessary to discourage unsustainable industries and human rights violations. (READ getting read of things that often end up replacing jobs in CANADA, as sweat shops always will and always do produce faster and cheaper than we will)

You do realize that almost every economic and daily practices (such as cutting down trees for softwood lumber, which I am informed as being one of the most important industries in BC, your home province, and riding a car with a bad muffler) could be considered polluting, don't you? And tariffs to discourage unsustainable industries (which I must assume that they mean the current energy sector by that) and human rights violations? So the Green party would impose taxes each time we import power and gas from the US and abroad, while virtually prohibiting third world products (which I am sure were made in inhygenic factories in god-knows-where) from reaching our shores by taxing them? And expect the Canadian economy to fuction and grow all the while?

In a word, Yes.

If the industry is unsustainable why not phase it out or replace it? BECAUSE it makes too much money!

Its not just tree hugger science anymore that states there are alternatives to the heavily polluting industries we rely on but there is no incentive to change. I read that as an incetive to change. Tax breaks to inovative technologies that are least wasteful/harmful to health/environment that already work and more taxes on the opposite.

About your view on taxing the factories set up in third world countries are you arguing that this helps them in some way? Was our country built like that? or the US? In a way yes, but then we overthrew our task masters and built up our own economy. I think the trend is now going in that direction with the Third World countries as well and things might get ugly as those wars wont be fought with muskets and wooden ships but with Suicide bombers and hijacked planes. We cannot continue to rely on Slave Labour for our plush toys.

They also take a strong stance on Health Care providing incentive for Canadians to eat Healthier and excercise (which I think most of us will admit has a lot to do with the strain on our health care). All of this means that they will actually take the helm on the problem not just throw more money and a ailing system. They also plan on reducing pollution and cleaning up water (again who else does that?).

High praise for a party that would more or less advocate euthanasia.

Your right and I'm guessing your against euthanasia. As I said before if you dont like that policy click teh little 'thumbs down' on their platform and make your voice heard. Do the other parties give you that oppurtunity?

One of the arguments there is the cost of keeping people alive WHO DONT want to be a part of that. They want to die but lack the strength to take their own lives. The doctors and nurses are required to spend time with that patient etc. and our dollars are required to keep them alive. Yet they dont want to be? So while your waiting to get your hip replaced so you can start work again (as your only 40 years old) your doctors and nurses and the hospital bed needed to get you that surgery is being kept by a person who doesnt want to be there, a person who wants to opt out of the service that causes them all that pain and suffering, they are tired and want to be done.

Tough issue, perhaps it needs a tough examination rather than the 'statis quo'.

The Green Party will:
Reduce the long hours that Canadians are working.

Advocate for more time spent engaging in outdoor activities.

Work to decrease the pollution that is weakening our immune systems.

Work to reduce overstress, which is a leading cause of health problems.

Respect the rights of the terminally ill to refuse treatment.

The one thing that scares me but probably makes others happy is the plan to reduce the standard work week for all canadians (stress=poor health). If they can pull that one off i'd love it, dunno how it can be done tho!

You and me both. Although I expect it'll go down in flames once everybody starts to take advantage of it.

Potentially on the surface I agree with you. Guess we'll have to see what they mean by it at the debate. Opps, they wernt invited

All in all the Green party platform (to me) seems the most comprehensive. I really get the feeling of a party that intends to govern Canada as if it was a life long job, not a 4 year term before we have to worry about it again (screw around for 3 years and then make false promises for 1 year).

They do have that effect on people, don't they?

I'd say for a reason!

btw prior to this i'm usually a staunch conservitive (because of economics not right wing views). I'm a supporter of what Klein did in Alberta, but a detractor of what Campbell does in BC (not as bad as his NDP predecessors tho).

In all fairness, Klein managed to pull it off because the odds were on his side; Gas, a market for Gas, and at the time when Klein was first elected, a rising price trend for gas. Not all provinces can be expected to pull off the "Klein Formula".

Nor can the country, yet i'm inferring that your a conservitive voter (from your post)?

All quotes taken from the Green Party Website: http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/index.php?p

Edit: bad grammar edited [/QB]

---