Why do countries nationalize their resources?

[rocketboy]

Conservatives understand that education is necessary in order to produce individuals who will amount to something and become an integral part of the business world in one way or another. Education is a must for a strong economy, without future generations to take the place of other successful people in society the economy will fall.

Liberals understand issues from a different perspective. They don't see how they can make the country better, they only see how they can lie and decieve in order to maintain power. They aren't looking out for the citizens of Canada, they are only looking out for themselves. They are the pigs.

You say "the liberals will do a lot for education". Where did you get this notion? In the past, what is it, 15ish years, have the Liberals done anything to help education? The education system is in shambles, at my local high school (which I do not attend thank god) they call the gr 12 class "potential grads" because it's likely that most will fail. This isn't a special case...the Liberals have destroyed public education...along with public health care, the justice system, national defense, international relations, the economy, gun control...must I go on?

 

[scorpa]

Liberals may address it on their website, but the way I see it they have had plenty of time in power to actually do something about it and never have. Maybe instead of wasting an insane amount of money on having people register their guns among other things, that money could have been put into something that will actually see results such as education. There are way to many poor schools out there that are barely functioning for governments to not take notice. My high school actually ran out of paper halfway through the year, and its happened more than one, I don't think it will be open much longer. When I graduated it offered the bare minimum courses, I was lucky I was even able to take physics as they wanted to cancel it. Kids come out of that school, not knowing about any of the opportunities availible to them. I just don't see why none of the parties are more concerned about the state of education, you would think they would want a more educated, knowledgeable public, but I guess not.

 

[rocketboy]

Liberals may address it on their website, but the way I see it they have had plenty of time in power to actually do something about it and never have. Maybe instead of wasting an insane amount of money on having people register their guns among other things, that money could have been put into something that will actually see results such as education.

EXACTLY! They are hopeless.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Conservatives understand that education is necessary in order to produce individuals who will amount to something and become an integral part of the business world in one way or another. Education is a must for a strong economy, without future generations to take the place of other successful people in society the economy will fall.

Liberals understand issues from a different perspective. They don't see how they can make the country better, they only see how they can lie and decieve in order to maintain power. They aren't looking out for the citizens of Canada, they are only looking out for themselves. They are the pigs.

You say "the liberals will do a lot for education". Where did you get this notion? In the past, what is it, 15ish years, have the Liberals done anything to help education? The education system is in shambles, at my local high school (which I do not attend thank god) they call the gr 12 class "potential grads" because it's likely that most will fail. This isn't a special case...the Liberals have destroyed public education...along with public health care, the justice system, national defense, international relations, the economy, gun control...must I go on?

I didn't say the liberals would do a lot for education. I said they would do a lot more than the conseratives. A lot more than nothing isn't very much.

The conserative solution is to privatize everything. Sure, they might let health care stay public, but it would degenerate due to conservative tax cuts. Education would be better in wealthy communities under a conservative government. The poor would have little chance of success. I am not saying the liberals do much better, but, with the NDP, they are are accomplishing things.

 

[scorpa]

You say it as though all the liberals need is a chance and they will do something for education. What's been stopping them the past few years that they have been in power from supporting education? They may say that they will do something, but I think that they have proved they will do nothing. As has been said before, we are stuck picking the best of a bad bunch, no party is even close to being good in my opinion, but I do think that we need to see change from what we have now. The liberals have had their chance to prove themselves and failed dismally, I just don't think they deserve to stay in power.

 

[Treadstone 71]

NDP. Liberals are too corrupt and a counter-example to Fermat's Last Theorem will be found before I vote for CPC.

 

[rocketboy]

Here's what I don't understand. Most people agree that change is needed, and that a Liberal govt. is out of the question due to the corruption and the lack of government when it's needed. So why do people still vote for them? Are they that afraid of a conservative govt.?

NDP. Liberals are too corrupt and a counter-example to Fermat's Last Theorem will be found before I vote for CPC.

CPC as in the communist party? A vote for the NDP is pretty close as far as Canada goes IMO.

 

[scorpa]

I was watching the news last night and apparently right now if a vote was taken conservatives would win but a minority government would be formed. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that traditionally, the conservatives biggest problems were gaining votes in the eastern areas which tend to be more supportive of the liberals. I think this time they are gaining more support in the east and might actually be able to pull it off. It's to bad that it will end up being a minority government though.

 

[rocketboy]

I was watching the news last night and apparently right now if a vote was taken conservatives would win but a minority government would be formed. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that traditionally, the conservatives biggest problems were gaining votes in the eastern areas which tend to be more supportive of the liberals. I think this time they are gaining more support in the east and might actually be able to pull it off. It's to bad that it will end up being a minority government though.

Yes it is too bad, but it is a start! Perhaps if a conservative government is given the chance people will lose their fear of "the right wing" and they will see how much better Canada is, and in the following election we will have a majority!

I agree, the biggest difficulty is in the east, and Quebec. Also in the big cities I think the Liberals tend to traditionally win more seats.

 

[scorpa]

It's true it is a start. But with a minority government won't it be much harder to implement change? The leader of the minority government will constantly have to comprimise with the opposition, which if their views are different enough could lead to a political deadlock. Hopefully this would not happen, and the conservatives will be given a full chance at making their government work.

 

[ShawnD]

The trush is, there is a solution if people would just see it. Two-tier. If one wishes to wait in line for hours on end to find out their tumor cannot be treated for another 8 months, then they can feel free to do so. But people should not dismiss private health for those who CHOOSE it. If one can pay to have that tumor removed that day, why should they wait?

My feelings exactly. A few years ago, my mom needed surgery to remove a small piece of bone on her foot which was causing her a lot of pain when she wore shoes. She was on a waiting list for 5 months to have the surgery to remove that piece of bone. Both of my parents have excellent health insurance, so it would be more than reasonable to have this problem fixed by private health care, but there just aren't any private hospitals.

Having 2-tier health doesn't just benefit those who can afford it, it benefits those who choose to stay with the public health system. Suppose you're #10 in line for surgery. 5 people ahead of you decide they want to get the problem fixed immediately, so they go to private health care. Suddenly you're #5 in line, but you're still in the public line. Everybody wins. Who loses?

I'm personally kind of disappointed with the stances all of the major parties seem to take on education...or should I say that none of them seem to make an issue of it. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places but it didn't seem to me that any of them really appeared to address the issues of rising tuition, class sizes and all of that stuff.

How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

 

[ComputerGeek]

My feelings exactly. A few years ago, my mom needed surgery to remove a small piece of bone on her foot which was causing her a lot of pain when she wore shoes. She was on a waiting list for 5 months to have the surgery to remove that piece of bone. Both of my parents have excellent health insurance, so it would be more than reasonable to have this problem fixed by private health care, but there just aren't any private hospitals.
Having 2-tier health doesn't just benefit those who can afford it, it benefits those who choose to stay with the public health system. Suppose you're #10 in line for surgery. 5 people ahead of you decide they want to get the problem fixed immediately, so they go to private health care. Suddenly you're #6 in line, but you're still in the public line. Everybody wins. Who loses?
How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

I think the best solution is single payer health. Private Point of care but the government pays (and regulates the prices)

then hospitals can get donations and such to maintain good and up to date facilities, and the people can get well baby visits, prescription coverage, and many other things.

if you want more care options (such as bariatric surgery, or no co-pays, etc) then buy some supplemental insurance.

it is similar to two-teir, but everyone gets the same speed of care (moderately fast care) like in the US now.

 

[ShawnD]

I think the best solution is single payer health. Private Point of care but the government pays (and regulates the prices)

What you suggested is how Alberta's telephone system works. The one phone company is Telus, it's privately owned, but it's government regulated. It actually works quite well.
I completely support your proposed healthcare system.

 

[ComputerGeek]

What you suggested is how Alberta's telephone system works. The one phone company is Telus, it's privately owned, but it's government regulated. It actually works quite well.
I completely support your proposed healthcare system.

That is how the phone system worked(and still works) after the ma Bell break-up in the 80's here in the US too.

now however, I fear that with SBC in control of 2/3 of the US market again, we might be seeing a return to the bad old days.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Two tier health care is unacceptable. Every individual should have the best possible access to medical care. It's a fundamental human right. To give the rich better access to medical care is hiearchical and inhumane. If one person gets the best, everyone should get the best. Conservatism comprimises the poor for the benefit of the elite. The NDP wants everyone to be the elite. Though many leftist policies seem difficult to implement, they are possible to implement; therefore, we should be supporting leftist policies. If private health care becomes popular, the proletariat should burni down bourgousie property around the country.

Thankfully, I don't see private health care becoming popular in this country. If the conservatives win the election, the other parties will support very few conservative policies. Remember, the bloc aligned for political reasons - not policy reasons. They are social democrats.

 

[rocketboy]

Two tier health care is unacceptable. Every individual should have the best possible access to medical care. It's a fundamental human right. To give the rich better access to medical care is hiearchical and inhumane. If one person gets the best, everyone should get the best.

So you're saying that if somebody can afford to save their own life by going to a private center to get treated, that they shouldn't be able to because some other people don't have that ability?

Life isn't about equality man...some people work hard, and can afford better things. Just because others can't doesn't mean these hard working people should be deprived of these better things. Take a scholastic example, should somebody with a 95 average not be allowed to have marks that good because another only has an 85? No, he/she worked for those marks and deserves to have better grades than the other person. Be realistic, society is not equal, never has been, and never will be.

Conservatism comprimises the poor for the benefit of the elite.

Compromises the poor for the benefit of the elite? That is quite a negative way to put it, in fact, they don't compromise the poor at all. In the case of a two-tier health care system, they would be simply providing more options. For some, public health care will remain their option...with less lineups because those who have the private option will be out of the waiting room. They are not sacrficing the poor.

The NDP wants everyone to be the elite. Though many leftist policies seem difficult to implement, they are possible to implement; therefore, we should be supporting leftist policies.

The NDP has a sheltered idea of a utopia that is so far from real life I'm surprised anybody takes them seriously. They want everyone to be elite...well sorry but that is never going to happen. There will always be a hierarchy. Even in an "equal" society, there will be those who work harder, or are better-liked than others. These people will automatically begin to form a new type of "elite". No matter how hard you try, no matter what situation you put society in, there will be a hierarchy, there will be those who are deemed as more "elite". It may not be money declaring it, but in some way people will rise the social ladder. The only way I can think of to make an "equal" society is to remove all emotion and individuality. Perhaps if society was composed of robots there could be equality. For robots do not think for themselves, they have no feelings/emotions, do not judge one another, do not strive to be better, they simply do what they are programmed to do.

We humans are not robots.
We humans have feeling/emotion, we strive to do better, we think for ourselves, we are unique and individualistic...WE ARE NOT EQUAL.


I would LOVE to know how you plan on implementing a system where social heirarchy is removed. Go on, do your best...describe to me, any system you can conceive in order to make society "equal". I have no doubt that it is impossible to do without removing what makes us human...and you wouldn't want to do that would you? That would make you "immoral".

-jonathan

 

[scorpa]

How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

There is a lot of truth to what you just said. $3200 is definitely not bad, but I am currently pay over $5000 which I suppose still probably isn't considered that bad, I hear it is going to be going up about 12% next year. I am in a class right now that has over 450 students in it, and in two of my classes there aren't enough seats resulting in people having to sit on the floor in the aisles. The labs are a great size about 20 people, my smallest class is 40 (english) but all of my science classes increase rapidly from the smallest of about 250 which isn't to bad. I love my university and am really not complaining about it. My beef is with the junior and senior high schools...a lot of them are dirt poor, and are facing closure because the money just isn't there. I mean my school actually couldn't afford paper...that's bad.

 

[Treadstone 71]

CPC = Conservative Party of Canada

 

[ShawnD]

My beef is with the junior and senior high schools...a lot of them are dirt poor, and are facing closure because the money just isn't there. I mean my school actually couldn't afford paper...that's bad.

Your school didn't have paper because it's not the school's responsibility. The extra paper you find in classrooms is paid for by the teachers, and it shouldn't be their responsibility either. It's the parents who are to blame if there's a lack of paper. Parents need to stop being idiots and just buy things for their kids already.
The other point is that schools are a provincial concern. Each province has a different school system, some provinces even have a different number of grades. I think it was Ontario that had 13 grades up until 3 years ago; Alberta has 12 grades. Are they different because of the federal government? No, they're different because schooling is under provincial control.

 

[rocketboy]

Anybody watch the leader's debate?

What did you think?

 

[revelator]

Here in my riding, and the neighboring ones as well, I see the most support (judging by lawn signs only) for Liberals , followed closely by the Conservatives . There's a few NDP, and even 1 or 2 Christian Heritage Party . Most of the talking heads I've been listening to are saying that a lot of the Toronto and surrounding ridings are going to go Liberal. Seems we have a leftist stronghold down here. I figure this is a result of Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution. It's his legacy that's screwed Conservative politicians in Ontario.
Also, for what it's worth, I've noticed in my riding (Mississauga-East) both the Liberals and Conservatives seems to be having a problem with having their signs defaced.

If the conservatives win the election, the other parties will support very few conservative policies. Remember, the bloc aligned for political reasons - not policy reasons. They are social democrats.

This is pretty much why I'm not worried about a Conservative win. They'll be impotent, considering the opposition is all left-leaning. Attempts at privatizing health care will be quashed easily, their attempt at turning around gay marriage laws will be quashed. Unless voters give the Conservatives a majority, they will be weaker than any of the other parties in a minority situation. They will likely be the shortest lived of any of the minority governments that could arise from the election.

 

[ShawnD]

They will likely be the shortest lived of any of the minority governments that could arise from the election.

Governments sometimes do get reelected you know.

 

[revelator]

Indeed they do. But if they ever hope to have a majority, they'll need to figure out a way to make themselves attractive to voters in Southern Ontario and Quebec.

 

[ek]

Scathing Liberal ads on tv tonight. Really tore Harper a new one.

I personally liked the "George Bush's best friend" one.

Good ads. Hopefully they turn the tide.

 

[revelator]

Gah, I'm reading the papers and the polls are showing a good lead for the Conservatives , with them gaining ground in Southern Ontario and Quebec!

In the last election, that ended up working against the Conservatives.

 

[revelator]

NEVER call Stockwell Day a fool in that degrading context. I met him in person at a conservative party MP gathering after the last election (I was working for MP Dale Johnston so I was invited). Let me tell you a story, which will hopefully depict why I get heated when people degrade him.

At this gathering, I met multiple MP's, I would go around introducing myself (15, almost 16 at the time) and talking to them. I went up to Belinda Stronach and introduced myself to her. She basically muttered hi, turned away and ignored me, as if I was some kid of unimportance not worthy of talking to her. I was shocked at her rudeness, and now that she's a Liberal it all becomes clear that her spot was never as an MP of the Conservative party...Liberals suit her much better.

So after that, I went up to Stockwell day to introduce myself. He greeted and shook hands with me, asked about what I did, conversed for about 5 before excusing himself to go talk to some other members. He didn't let the fact that I'm a kid prevent him from treating me as an adult, not only an adult, but with equal respect as he gave to other MP's. I respect him for that. He is a great man, and you cannot deny that he has the charisma everyone claims the Conservatives are lacking.

So I would be very interested in hearing why you see him as a fool...your comment was not supported, and from what you have said I see no reasoning behind your insult.

From your experience, I'd say he shows more consideration and politeness than do many politicians.

I call him a fool (just my opinion), mostly as a result of his creationist views, and the various stupid things he's said back when he was the Alliance leader.

During the 2000 election, Day makes a campaign stop at a high-tech firm in Ontario and gives a speech about the brain drain of skilled people from Canada to the US. Reporters quickly discover the owner of the company had moved from the US to Canada in 1992.

The very next day in Niagara Falls, Day makes another speech about Canadian jobs flowing south just like the Niagara River. Proving that Canadian news doesn't rely on the he-said-she-said "objective" journalistic style of the US, reporters take it upon themselves to point out that the Niagara River flows north.

In March of 2003, Day and Harper co-wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal in which they condemned the Canadian government's unwillingness to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I know that last one there only applies if your one of the folks who believes the War in Iraq is a terrible idea. I'll be happy to post reasons for my thinking Day is a fool, as I dig them up.

 

[revelator]

Some more Harper quotes that irk me..

Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.
(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.(Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002)

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.” (Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003)

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…”
(Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

"It was the Conservative party that urged the government to enter into negotiations with the United States on BMD in the first place. We supported the decision to be involved in missile defence through last summer’s amendment to the NORAD treaty."
(letter to the Ottawa Citizen March 04, 2005.)

 

[Dagenais]

Stephen Harper says he will the put the gay marriage issue to a free vote in the House. What he doesn't understand is that it doesn't matter how many people have a particular opinion if that opinion is fundamentally prejudiced and fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally "wrong" depends on who you ask. There are plenty of people who think Harper's stand on gay marriage is fundamentally right.

Plus, he seems a lot more understanding this time around. He's realized his strict approach last year was what lost him the election.

I'm voting conservative this time around because I'm very strongly opposed to gun control.

Harper just made his announcement about gun controls on CBC a few days ago. His stand on gun control and violence involves more time in jail than Martin's (meaning, more money for us to pay for cells).

I can' bring myself to vote Conservative. One reason being is his willingness to drag us into America's wars.

Martin and the Liberals' unwillingness to support the USA, and their recent disparaging of Bush and his party is moronic. Insulting your #1 trading partner? Not smart.

That's exactly it. It's the "lesser of the evils" situation.

The "lesser of evils" according to the last election was Martin. Voting for him is what got us this corrupt(evil) Government, voting for him again will only prove to him that it's okay to be evil, because he'll just get re-elected again.

 

[ShawnD]

Harper just made his announcement about gun controls on CBC a few days ago. His stand on gun control and violence involves more time in jail than Martin's (meaning, more money for us to pay for cells).

I don't exactly support the increased jail time idea, but I do believe that more people having guns would curb crime at least a little bit.
When Britain passed a few laws making it virtually illegal to own guns, crime dramatically increased. Their gun ownership is dropping while their crime is increasing. On the othe side of the coin, America's gun ownership is continually rising while crime decreases. Since comparing two countries is hardly fair, let's throw a few more in. Australia's crime rate also exploded when guns were made illegal. One particularly scary statistic for Australia is that armed robberies increased 170% just after guns were made illegal. If gun ownership lead to problems, we would expect a country like Switzerland to have insane crime. Switzerland is the most heavily armed country in the world (the law basically requires every man to own a gun), yet Switzerland's crime rate is fairly low.

If we want to cut spending on jails, start by reducing crime. Citizens should be armed to the teeth.

 

[Smurf]

gah, I was beginning to like harper, but now it seems like everything I hear makes him more and more of a monster.

 

[Dagenais]

I forgot to add that another reason I'm voting for Harper over Martin is: Chinese redress.

Martin refuses to do it. Harper is pressuring him to do it.

 

[revelator]

The "lesser of evils" according to the last election was Martin. Voting for him is what got us this corrupt(evil) Government, voting for him again will only prove to him that it's okay to be evil, because he'll just get re-elected again.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't support the thieving Liberal Party.

 

[scorpa]

Ughhh the closer we get to the election, the worse everyone looks. At this point I am probably going to go conservative, but I really hate that they all suck so bad.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Harper is just as bad as Bush. I can't believe how many people are going to vote for the conservatives. Of course, those who warned them will be saying "I told you so" later, but I would still rather see the country not go to hell.

Libertarianism is one thing, but social conservatism is horrible. Voting for the conservative party shows that you care more about money than social justice.

 

[ek]

Many people used to think blacks were "fundamentally inferior". Some still do.

So just because some people believe something makes it potentially right? Or less prejudiced and morally reprehensible?

I don't think so. There are some issues in the world which are totally black/white, right/wrong.

It's like me saying Jews can't go to schools. Instead they must go to separate "Instructional Institutes". Does that sound right to you?

It blows my mind how people can still believe this right wing neo-con bull****.