HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:04:01 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
 <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca>

In article <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN
LAROCQUE) says:
>
>In article <93009.1617472893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>Subject line speaks for itself. People voting Reform as a protest could end
>up
>>with a Tory/Reform majority government if the Tories are able to recover even
>>modestly in the polls.
>
>So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.

The NDP are communists? Either you know nothing of the NDP or you don't have
a clue what communism is!

>And the BQ are separatists. What a pathetic collection of heroes you can
>choose from.
>
>Mulroney's greatest crime is that he isn't a real conservative and hasn't
>made the fundamental changes that Canada needs. This country should wake
>up and smell the coffee. Any party that believes that government spending
>can solve Canada's problems is just going to make things worse.
>
>
>
>
>--
>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING*
>*
>**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be
>**
>**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW
>**
>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING*
>*
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:40:35 GMT

In article <93010.1848122893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Anybody who's ideas are so weak that he has to resort to hyperbole over
>reason, indeed anyone who can't even spell ideology lacks ability.

Anybody so pretentious, so ideologically correct as to get up and fume
over the misspelling of the word ideology should look up the word
"human being" in a dictionary. We all make mistakes. So shut up or
spell "Potato" or something.

So what's your argument - or is that with the latest five-year plan?
-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:26:46 GMT

In article <0m78wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

I brilliantly write:
>> So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.

>Anyone who can't distinguish moderate social democrats from communists
>isn't likely to inspire confidence in anything else he says, either.

Anybody who can't take a little hyberbole and who's idealogy is offended
so easily lacks confidence in himself.

>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
>Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
>instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne

-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:47:08 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <schuck.726786898@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>>IMHO that is wishful thinking taken to the extreme. Recent experience
>>in BC shows that all the opposition has to do is *nothing* when up
>>against a hated/incompetent government. The NDP/Harcourt just sat
>>around and waited for the Zalm/Socreds to self-destruct.
>>
>>
>>The Liberals will win the next election if Chretien stays away from
>>policy debates and allows the voters to vote out the hated Tories.
>>
>>[...Lot's of my own cynicism deleted...]

>Well, you've just explained exactly why our system is failing, and why
>I am pleading for people to vote anything but Liberal.  We have to
>stop voting masochistically, and begin voting strategically.  We only
>punish ourselves by voting blindly just to throw the bums out and not
>to force the opposition to be just as accountable for having realistic
>and sensible policies.

I agree thats what we *should* do, but we [as in Canada] won't.

Voting for one party or the other will *not* reform the system.

Canadians should stop being sheep [myself included] and do the only
thing that will truly reform the system -- burn Ottawa to the ground,
and start over somewhere else.

Nothing less will change the system.

PS In case of government monitoring, I do not *really* recommend
   the above course of action. :) Nudge nudge, wink wink.



Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:30:17 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca> <93009.1804012893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan10.031508.1286@csi.uottawa.ca> <93010.1355462893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <93010.1355462893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>There's a difference between what Communists say socialism  isand what
>socialists say communism is. This is my understanding, Classical marxists want

oops, make that "what socialists say socialism is."

>the abolition of capitalism and it's replacement with a system run by and for
>the working class. Socialists want this done through parliament and by
>democratic evolution, Communists want it done through violent revolution.
>
>The NDP is not in favour of violent revolution and thus are not Communists,
>further more, the NDP does not call for the aboliton of capitalism but for
>making capitalism more equitable, thus they are not Marxists and in the
>Marxist use of the phrase they are not socialists but social democrats.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:38:03 GMT

In article <93010.1400542893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>I don't particulary think a Tory-Reform coalition would be very
>>stable...the whole point of the next election should be to deny
>>Chretien a majority, which will then force all three parties to
>>get new leaders, and we would then have a second election within
>
>We have had a number of minority Parliaments and provincial legislatures,
>never in my recollection has this resulted in all three main parties getting
>new leaders.
>

Mulroney will be leaving soon one way or another, whether he wins or
loses...even in the scenario of a slim Mulroney majority, which is
considered an impossible scenario, he would only likely stay on for
a couple of years.

If Chretien doesn't get a majority, he is toast.

The same probably applies to McLaughlin, who will likely lose a lot
of seats in Ontario to the Liberals, and leave the NDP a western
regional party like Reform.

The logic is simple, if Chretien cannot produce a majority, and
McLaughlin can't hold onto the NDP base, they both are toast, and
Mulroney's time is up.  The only way we get stuck with one of these
dinosaurs is to give Chretien a majority.

>>a few years, if not sooner, having cleaned out the barn, and an
>>election based more on issues, rather than just throwing the
>>bums out.  Replacing Mulroney with a Chretien majority would
>>be a catastrophe for Canada.
>>

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:51:12 GMT

In article <J578wB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>> Socialism is ideologically incompatible with limited democratic
>> government based on individual rights.  Social democracy or democratic
>> socialism is at best social majoritarianism and only transiently
>> stable.  Democracy is ultimated rooted in the idea of popular
>> sovereignty, and that individuals have rights, both concepts which
>> are at odds with socialism who see the state as the holder of 
>> sovereignty and the dispenser of privileges...rights having no
>> existence.  A socialist government can be dressed up to look
>> like it is compatible with democracy temporarily...mixing democracy
>> and socialism is like mixing oil and water.
>> 
>
>This is more of your right wing fantasy world, Gerald. It's YOUR
>concept that "socialism sees the state as the holder of sovereignity". 
>It's easy to knock down phoney straw men you set up yourself. One of 
>the precepts of socialism that draws many of it's adherents is a 
>fundamental respect for ALL individuals, not just those with power
>and money. 
>

I notice that you didn't say that the precepts of socialism is a
fundamental respect for the "individual rights" of ALL individuals.

What socialists call respect is basically state paternalism.

Gerald
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:52:26 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The next federal election
 <1993Jan11.053256.5885@mdivax1.uucp>

In article <1993Jan11.053256.5885@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
Robinson) says:
>
>As well, it will be almost impossible for a minority government to make
>many of the hard decisions that will have to be made this decade.  For
>example: Would a minority government be able to close a sizable number of
>military bases? Would a minority government be able to pull the plug on
>Hibernia? It's a new world out there, and I have doubts that a minority
>government would have the ability to lead us into it. I suspect that a
>minority government would simply do as little as possible to rock the boat.

Basic point here: since Canada remains a democracy, the actual voters bear
the responsibility for these problems. I can imagine a minority (or
coalition) government where the MPs all voted against more spending
because their constituents were bombarding them with mail demanding they
do something realistic about the deficit... or else.

If we play the eternal sleazy game (I put up with your pork, you condone
mine) until Canada's credit rating runs out, let's not blame it on the
politicians or the political system.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:42:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.192748.2875@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>It is not as if the minority government would last very long...it won't
>have time to be an extremely bad government.  What we need is a real
>policy debate and a new set of leaders to engage in that policy debate,
>so in the second election which would follow relatively soon after,
>Canadians could make an enlightened decision about the direction they
>want the country to take, and not burden the country with an incompetent
>leader like Chretien for 5 years at such a crucial time in our history.

I wish I could share your confidence that this would give us better
candidates.  Unfortunately, the trend is towards blandness, towards
looking the right way on TV and saying the things the pollsters tell
them to say.  This is not likely to give us "a real policy debate".

Who do you think would replace Chretien?  Who would replace Mulroney?
Would you really feel that an election between Kim Campbell and Sheila
Copps would be much of an improvement?  (Or if the grits go for an
outsider, we'd wind up with Paul Martin - again, I'm far from convinced
this would be an improvement - the man is a virtual Mulroney clone!)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics,sci.econ
From: rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo)
Subject: Re: Brief Mathematical Analysis of Taxation/Welfare Systems
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:40:23 GMT


Please!  Send a copy of your analysis to Hillary Clinton,
that way, Bill is sure to see it.

Send copies, too, to tax-bill Bradley, of New Jersey.
And while you're at it, why not send copies to the House and
Senate restaurants, racketball courts, salons, gymns, and pool.
That way all the influential people in government will see it too.


Tony Rizzo

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:39:29 GMT

In article <schuck.726786898@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>What we need is a real
>>policy debate and a new set of leaders to engage in that policy debate,
>>so in the second election which would follow relatively soon after,
>>Canadians could make an enlightened decision about the direction they
>>want the country to take, and not burden the country with an incompetent
>>leader like Chretien for 5 years at such a crucial time in our history.
>
>IMHO that is wishful thinking taken to the extreme. Recent experience
>in BC shows that all the opposition has to do is *nothing* when up
>against a hated/incompetent government. The NDP/Harcourt just sat
>around and waited for the Zalm/Socreds to self-destruct.
>
>The provincial liberals *lead* the NDP in the polls despite the
>drubbing the BC media have laid on the Gordon Wilson Liberals, and
>almost no policy alternatives offered.
>
>Thats how the Tories got in in 84. Thats how the Ontario NDP got in.
>
>If I was a Liberal and Jean Chretien started opening his mouth and
>started debating policy I'd sue him for gross negligence.
>
>The Liberals will win the next election if Chretien stays away from
>policy debates and allows the voters to vote out the hated Tories.
>
>The Liberals can avoid losing votes to the NDP by pointing out the
>icompetence of the NDP in Ontario and BC.
>
>And finally the Liberals can reap the benefit of a Reform party strong
>enough to pull lots of votes from die hard tories types and not strong
>enought to appeal to middle/left voters.
>

Well, you've just explained exactly why our system is failing, and why
I am pleading for people to vote anything but Liberal.  We have to
stop voting masochistically, and begin voting strategically.  We only
punish ourselves by voting blindly just to throw the bums out and not
to force the opposition to be just as accountable for having realistic
and sensible policies.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:30:07 GMT

In article <schuck.726433074@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Kim Campbell is just like any other Mulroney minister, she has no
>policies of her own because you aren't allowed to have any.

QED all politicians with federal experience are necessarily clueless.

Do you think that ALL of the bills proposed in Parliament come
exclusively out of Brian Mulroney's imagination?  I think it hardly
possible.  He hasn't got enough time in the mere 24 hours available to
him each day.

One of the things that the current govenment has in its favour is the
fact that they have been able to get a great deal of legislation
passed.  They have been FAR more effective at this than many of the
previous governments.

And Mulroney simply doesn't have the TIME to be the sole "idea person"
in the cabinet.  Think what you like about the solidarity of the
cabinet.  But it does NOT mean that all ideas come out of Brian's
head.

If your comments were true, then it would impossible for anyone who
has been involved with the Tory government to be elected Prime
Minister.  And your argument seems to be that being involved with
government, and not being PM, turns people into idiots.

If you had suggested the "taint" of having been associated with an
unpopular Brian Mulroney would hurt Campbell, I'd have to agree.  I
might disagree on the degree to which it would affect Campbell, but
not that it could be a problem.  However, you never suggested that
THAT would be the problem.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim B. Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:48:18 GMT

A number of people have expressed a desire for a minority government.
Whereas I would agree that a minority situation might be more likely to
keep a government honest in a certain respect, it also seems to me that it
could be the worst of all possible worlds. As I see it, with a minority
government, not only will the government be shoveling handouts to its
friends as is the usual case, but in addition the party that is keeping the
government in power will also be able to direct various forms of pork to
its supporters - thus, we see more than the usual amount of pork barreling.
As well, it will be almost impossible for a minority government to make
many of the hard decisions that will have to be made this decade.  For
example: Would a minority government be able to close a sizable number of
military bases? Would a minority government be able to pull the plug on
Hibernia? It's a new world out there, and I have doubts that a minority
government would have the ability to lead us into it. I suspect that a
minority government would simply do as little as possible to rock the boat.

On a separate topic, a number of people have also expressed the belief that
the BQ will elect a large number of Quebec MPs. Well, on CTV's Question
Period today (Sunday, Jan 10) Craig Oliver had on  3 political reporters.
One of them was Don Braid (Calgary Herald, I believe), one was from the
Globe and Mail (somebody Coyne), and a third who I did not recognize and
cannot remember the name of. All three said the same thing wrt the BQ;
namely that the high degree of support that that party is now enjoying
will evaporate on election day as Quebecers repeat the pattern they have
exhibited on past occasions and vote for the party that they think will be
able to provide the most positive results for Quebec, i.e., the party that
will form the government.  And since the BQ not only has no chance of
forming the government, but also is unlikely to have any influence in a
minority government, the BQ will not receive Quebec's vote to any great
extent. I thought that this was a convincing argument, but it should be
noted that all three reporters were from CHQ and thus could be guilty of
not correctly reading the mood in La Belle Province.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:07:30 GMT

In article <6Lg4wB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>There is nothing in socialism inherently incompatible with democracy. 
>It's perfectly possible to be a socialist and a democrat. You are 
>confusing economic systems with the form of government. It's no more 
>axiomatic that socialist systems are undemocratic than to state that 
>capitalist systems are democratic. Life in Pinochet's Chile may have been 
>under a capitalist system, but it was hardly democratic, for example. 
>Personally, I abhor totalitarian regimes of any stripe.
>

Socialism is ideologically incompatible with limited democratic
government based on individual rights.  Social democracy or democratic
socialism is at best social majoritarianism and only transiently
stable.  Democracy is ultimated rooted in the idea of popular
sovereignty, and that individuals have rights, both concepts which
are at odds with socialism who see the state as the holder of 
sovereignty and the dispenser of privileges...rights having no
existence.  A socialist government can be dressed up to look
like it is compatible with democracy temporarily...mixing democracy
and socialism is like mixing oil and water.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:15:01 GMT

hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus) writes:

>In article <schuck.726278884@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

  
>>I disagree. Remember what it did for Perrin Beatty.
>>
>>Nothing but trouble. 
>>Big squabble over submarines. Overruns on ship contracts.
>>The Peace groups always want less money spent. 
>>The big bucks end up going to US defence corporations like for the F-18.
>>If you agree with the US , then you are nothing but a US toadie, and
>>if you disagree, the Yanks dump on you.
>>
>>Defence Minister is a stepping stone to obscurity.
>>
>>Justice Minister, on the other hand , brought Trudeau into the limelight.
>>
>>Bye bye Kim.
>>
>>

>Well, I guess just to get my 2 cents in, I in turn disagree.  Her
>Defence post is the combination of Defence + Vet Affairs (which
>can be played up as a promotion); Mulroney has been suggesting that
>Canada, the US, France, [some other country I forget], and the
>Organization of American States use military intervention in Haiti
>which would put Campbell in the spotlight

Military intervention in Haiti? 

What a wonderful opportunity to really step in a pile of shit.
Not the kind of spotlight a leadership candidate wants.
Junior partner in a military intervention where success depends on the
senior partners and 100's of chances to screw up.

> (not to mention that
>Mulroney is apparently the top candidate to fill the position at the
>head of the OAS); and making Campbell Defence Minister (and the
>*first* female one) will make her appear strong (as compared to guess
>what other leader?).

Mulroney as head of the OAS? Don't they have enough trouble?

>Besides, Campbell comes accross as the "new generation" problem
>solving candidate, the Conservatives are well advised to follow Bill
>Clinton's path for the Canadian election.

What problems has Kim Campbell solved? 


Newsgroups: can.politics