Michael R. Barrick

i picked the ndp, though i was considering green as well...though i don't think you are adverse to liberal policies i can't see you respecting the way they've handled themselves as of late...i wouldn't think you would respect hedy fry either for various reasons...i can't see you voting conservative even if you did support some of the thinking as i think many of their policies would offend you...i agree that you are generally socially liberal, but economically i think you lean towards conservatism...if the ndp are serious about not increasing the deficit it may appeal to you...i would think the green policies on the environment might rub you the wrong way considering the industry you are in...though you might agree with some of them too...i believe you are too proudly canadian and sophisticated to pass up the opportunity to exercise your democratic right...i will be interested to see where your vote ends up...

From:

You strike me as some sort of red Red Tory - socially progressive but fiscally conseravtive. The problem is figuring out which muddled party now represents that point of view. It isn't the Liberals and it isn't the Regressive Consrevatives either.

* * *

Provincially I have voted Green Party the last two or three elections - but in the Federal Election my vote will make a hard swing to the right... and be cast for the NDP. The last three elections I have voted Marxist-Leninist but for two reasons I've decided otherwise this time around to support the federal NDP.

1) Well, there is no Marxist-Leninist candidate in my riding this election... so even if I wanted to vote for them, I'm kind of stuck doing so...

2) Unlike the provincial NDP which I think are a bunch of egotistical intellectual know-it-all morons, I really like some of Jack Layton's policies. Now, while his his policies of higher taxation of the rich perhaps don't go far enough for my likings (i.e. the Marxist-Leninists would probably shoot the rich, instead of just taxing the rich), it is still more radical and extreme in content than anything else the rest are putting forth as policy.

From:

I quite like that way of putting it - so much more concise than "socially progressive and fiscally conservative".

From:

hmmmm i kind of like that shoot the rich policy...i do agree with the distinction between the federal and provincial new democrats...though we'll see if the provincial new democrats can pull their heads out of their asses...i've been interested in some of what jack layton has been saying...and i'm certainly more worried now that they are saying stephen harper has a chance of forming even a minority government...i'd rather see a liberal/ndp coalition, so i hope enough ndp'ers get the call...if not maybe even a liberal/bloc coalition might not be bad, as they are saying that would be good for the provincial autonomy, though lord knows our province doesn't need more power at the moment...ha ha...

From:

i'd rather see a liberal/ndp coalition, so i hope enough ndp'ers get the call

I think that this is the only possible coalition option.

I cannot see Bloc or NDP forming a deal with the Harperatives, and the Liberals won't align with the Bloc or Harperatives.

Actually, looking from a strategic, long-term point of view, you know a brief, minority Conservative government might not be a bad idea. Everyone would see just what a bunch of fucks they are and will lose votes in the election following the disolusion of a minority coaltion. A year or so of crummy Conservative rmisrule might go a long way to keeping them out of power over the long term.

I think a Liberal-NDP coalition is the only feasible possibility, but the problem here is that NDP influence in government might actually make the Liberals look better than they are come the next election after this one.

From:

it is true, maybe a taste of the conservatives would open people's eyes to just how frightening they really are...though the numbers are showing them gaining, i really don't see the people voting for them in the numbers which are showing now...after all come election day most people go with what is comfortable and i see ontario staying liberal for the most part...but it's sure a wake up call for the liberals...i actually would like to see a minority government to humble the liberals...and i hope they have to hook up with the ndp so that it tempers their right leanings...but you are right that might actually benefit the liberals as they would look better than what they actually are as they would have to temper their policies to gain ndp support...but maybe it would be better for the country in the long run...and hopefully people would see the benefit of a minority government and keep that balance in future elections...

From:

I agree, I think minority governments are the best of both worlds. It makes more parties and more MPs held more accountable because they just never know if this day will be their last in office/power.... keeps them on their edge.

I for one tire of the Dictatorship of the Majority and the confortable menrality it creates to do fuck-all nothing for four out of five years.

From:

i agree with that sentiment...

From:

This is why I'm glad the Tory vote isn't split anymore. With a split conservative vote the right can't even manage to be the official opposition so the Liberals had no accountability on a national level. It's disturbing (and oxymoronic) that a Québec separatist party is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. How is a party whose very exisitence is rooted in the self-interest of one province supposed to be a decent watch-dog for interests of the rest of Canada?

From:

very true...though i'd prefer an ndp opposition rather than either a conservative or bloc opposition...but even better if they are a part of the minority coalition i suppose...

From:

opulence-9.livejournal.com

I say you'd vote Anarchy
becuase you are old

yeah I don't really know you that well do I :P but this voting stuff reminds of when Clint and I would destroy our ballot by drawing in the Anarchy sign and putting a check mark next to it... (all the Kwantlen college cool people were doing it)

From:

valerian.livejournal.com

I say you'd vote Anarchy
becuase you are old

ROFL!!!!!!!!
You now, we might all accomplish more by doing that, come to think of it...
;)

From:

I'm not saying this is what I am going to do, but this is exactly what I had in mind with the "Intentionally mutilate ballot" option.

From:

opulence-9.livejournal.com

hee hee well I guess some things stay alive, but like they ever give us any other choice eh?

From:

While you are socially liberal and support public programs, I can see you being so disgusted with the Liberals that you would never vote for them. While the NDP might a next best thing, they have no chance of winning so you might as well spoil the ballot, however, you are no longer a University student, so you would soon not vote than spoil your ballot, so I think you will vote Conservative, but feel really really guilty about it. But at least you know that a Western Voice will be heard.

From:

I think you will vote Conservative, but feel really really guilty about it. But at least you know that a Western Voice will be heard.

If regionalism is the reason which tips the scales and causes Michael to vote for the Conservatives, well... I think you are way off the mark there.

Michael does not strike me as someone who falls for the trap of the "Western voice". I think he is way too intelligent to and sees through what is trumpeted as "Western alienation" in this country as nothing more than redneck discontent with social liberation policies which on the whole I think Michael agrees with.

The only parties that ever cry of western alienation and western underrepresentation are the right-wing parties - and they are using those convenient terms to mask their true colours and feelings - namely, opposition to social rights and legislation. You never hear of the NDP complaining or using the Western Alienation trump card. It is nothing more than a redneck disguise.

I would like to think that if Michael were concerned about which party represents his voice, that he'd vote Liberal before the Conservatives because it's a safe bet that he has much more socially in common with urbane Toronto, Ontario than redneck, biblebelt one-horse-town Hooterville, Alberta (pop.1500).

From:

I love how the "liberal", "Socially concious" love throughing around insults at those they don't agree with.

Better a hard working redneck than a socialist closet racist who wants to use my money to pay for their own cockamamy plans.

From:

I'm not even going to debate this one with you because we all know you see the world through Zionist-coloured glasses.

One man's Aryan Master Race is another man's biblical right... if you catch my drift...

From:

Yawn, same divel from the "left" which wants ethnic Cleansing of Jews from Greater Israel.

From:

Ziv, I do believe that Israel has the same right as Palestine to exist - but it's arrognant Zionist racist fucks like you that make me have little sympathy or love for Israel.

Keep up the good work, buddy...

Honestly, you Zionists are no better than the fucking Nazis trhemselves. I guess that exlains why Israel so enjoyed getting blowjobs from their racist Afrikaaner-Nationalist friends in South Africa.

From:

Care to explain your point a little or are you just going to keep on with the Israel is apartheid, Israel is Nazi, garbage I deal with from Terrorist supporters all over downtown Montreal.

BTW, if ever bother reading the news, South Africa has been as close a friend to Israel as Canada, for the last 10 years or so, so what are you talking about?

From:

Well, Israel was even much closer to South Africa during the white-supremacist Nationalist regime whick governed between 1948-1994 before the ANC took power. I have heard/read that it was Israel that supplied South Africa some of their nuclear technology during the apartheid years.

My parallels with equating Zionism and the Nazi's stem from how both regieme were built on racial supremacy doctrines - where both groups think they are entitled to the land of others due to ethnicity and race.

The Germans had their Aryan masterrace claptrap while the Zionist believe they are the chosen people - in both cases it sounds and reads and smells like racism to me.

One would think that Israel more than any other ethnic group would have learned from the holocaust that racial supremacy theories are garbage - but apparently they haven't.

From:

What race is a Jew?

Where is there a doctrine of of Jewish Supremacy? That is other than being the military might in the Middle East.

What does Chosen people mean?

You talk so much without knowning anything it is comical.

From:

What race is a Jew?

Well, Jews for a start... The Jewish people are somewhere in that great grey area between religion and nationality/ethnicity/race.

They are a religious group first and foremost but you cannot deny that there is a sense of common Jewish culture and nationality that almost all Jews identify with that say Irish, Italian, and /or Ukranian Catholics or Protestants or other religious groups don't have. That common cultural bond is what makes them a nation of people on the same level as other national groups.

Where is there a doctrine of of Jewish Supremacy? What does Chosen people mean?

These are part and parcel - Jews as far as I understand Judeo-Christian beliefs and the creation of Israel believe that they are biblically entitled to the land of Palestine because they are the chosen people of God. They see their entitlement to Israel as a biblical right over the rights of all others. That belief in essence corrosponds to almost every other racial-entitlement theory that were in vogue less than a hundred years ago. Zionism is that doctrine of racial entitlement as it applies to Jewish people and it is no different than say the "White Man's burden' argument which most European nationalities used to justify their colonisation practises. There are also subtle aspects of Jewish doctrine that reinforce that cultural supremacy - one example is segregated cemetaries from the rest of everyone buired. The fact that Jews have to have their own, separate section of a cemetary while the rest of the Christian, Sikh, Bhuddist, etc. dead can seem to get alone quite find just reinforces that the Jewish dead are better than the dead of others. Otherwise, why the separate section? I have seen this for a fact as I live across from a cemetary in which this is the case.

From:

A nation and a race is very different, there are Asian Jews, (East) Indian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, you name a race and there are Jews. A culture and a religion, but hardly a race.

Jews are entitled to the Land of Canaan, "Palestine" is a Roman derivation of the Biblical people the Philistines which no longer exist. The land was loaned to the Jewish people. Jews are not entitled to it as it is granted by G-d. No person owns the land.

The Chosen, which the Jewish people are Chosen for, is to follow G-d's laws and commandments.

The belief of Religous supremacy, that is to say, that one religion is better than all others occurs in Judaism as it does in most other religions. However, that being said, if one (you) want(s) to convert to Judaism, let me know, I can arrange for you to get into a conversion program.

Zionism is not a racial doctrine, it is the belief that Jews should be in the land of Judea, not that other people shouldn't live there, but rather, that Jews should live there. Zionism as the religion, say anyone can live in the land, but that Jews are to live there, while Modern Zionism spearheaded by Theodore Hertzel was that Jews should by up the land in the region and move there. There is nothing in either doctrine which prevents other people from living there as well.

But I would also add, that Zionism can not be racist as Judaism is not a race.

I would like to also point out, that if one if a global minority, then for ones securite, one needs to be a majority somewhere.

Do you really want to know the rational behind Jews having their own sections in regular cemetaries? Jews the religion, is different from other religions, we are not pluralist, we believe that every other religon is wrong. We need to be buried together so as to be a constantly reminded that we are different and other, from the rest of society. We have our laws of seportation as to prevent us from assimilating into nothing.

Our religion commands us to be buried apart, if you force us to be buried with others, then you are preventing us from practasing our religion in death. Or do you believe that Europeans haven't done enough to prevent Jews from having religous freedom?

From:

A nation and a race is very different, there are Asian Jews, (East) Indian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, you name a race and there are Jews. A culture and a religion, but hardly a race.

Well, I would have to disagree - if it walks and talks like a race, then it must be a race or ethnic group.

It's the cultural issue that is the root identity of any nation. The Jewish people have all the trappings of being an ethnic group and frankly I cannot see what is wrong with that. If anything it puts them on a stronger, equal footing with other national groups.

Jews have transformed into a race on account of the nature of Israel's creation. Judaism is the only religion that has actually sought out a homeland for itself - and that in itself sets itself apart from other religions. We do not hear of the striving need for a specifically Catholic homeland... or a Buddhist homeland, or even it may be argued an Islamic homeland.

Jews are entitled to the Land of Canaan. Jews are not entitled to it as it is granted by G-d

On a political scale, this sounds A LOT like an ideology.

we believe that every other religon is wrong

Well, the Krauts had the same views that they were right and everyone else were wrong... again, a blurring of religion into national ideology.

Our religion commands us to be buried apart, if you force us to be buried with others, then you are preventing us from practasing our religion in death. Or do you believe that Europeans haven't done enough to prevent Jews from having religous freedom?

As I observed earlier, non-Europeans don't seem to have an issue with being buried with Europeans... so you cannot argue that Europeans are preventing you from practising your religion. Do you think that Buddhists and Sikhs with plots at Mountainview Cemetary feel like their religion is being subjugated?

Zionism as the religion, say anyone can live in the land, but that Jews are to live there

Wow! ... this sounds a lot like the Germans' requirement for living space in Russia and elsewhere.

From:

That is all well and good that you disagree but I don't need a gentile to tell me a Jew, what is and is not a Jew. You are entitled to your opinions, wrong though they might be.

Explain to me how there are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and ever other race of Jew, for Jews to be a race, they would have to have a uniform colour.

Catholics haven't called for a country of their own? Does the term "Lateran Accords" mean anything to you? And speaking of nations formed by religion, what about the Indian Independence Act of 1947? Though I suppose it's to be expected that a socialist won't be up on his history. As for homeland, Buddists have Tibet, Muslims have Lybia, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan, Niger, Nigeria, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, United Arab Emorates, Saudi Arabia, Malasya, Indonisia, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan... to name a few, while Christianity, has Canada (Anglican, Catholic in Quebec), Netherlands (Luthern), Germany (Luthern) Italy (Catholic), England (Anglican), Ireland (Catholic), Greece (Orthodox), Spain (Catholic). These countries are not countries in which in the majority are of the religion but rather where the religion specified is the official state religion.

But while discussing homelands, there wasn't a need until Europe's last go at genocide against Jews. Previous to Europe's machination of Jew-Murder, many Jews commented how Berlin was the new Jerusalem. It was only after being kicked out of everywhere else that we put out collective foot down and went home like everyone keeps telling us.

On a political scale, I am talking about the religion, The religion believes that G-d made the world and it belongs to him. The land was gifted to the Jews.

As for religious pluralism. If I believed that some other religion was right, wouldn't I go out and become a member of that religion? I might -- it isn't like I paid for the membership so I feel I have to stay with it.

Fine, so some non-Europeans have no issue being buried with others. Let them, no one is stopping them. Jews want to be buried with their co-religionists. That section of the cemetary is owned by a synagogue, so it isn't costing the good Sikhs and Buddhists any skin off of their teeth. Some war veterans like to be buried with war veterans, nuns usually get buried with nuns, some people like to be buried near movie stars, and a great number of people like to be buried in theme park styled cemetaries in California. And how exactly is this a big deal?

Judaism doesn't call for Jews to live in Egypt (in fact it is forbidden by religion to live there since the giving of the Torah), nor do Jews want to go into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or any other country. We just want to live in the country of our religious heritage. Or are you saying the Germans don't have the right to live in Germany?

From:

your silence is defining

From:

I figure that we're both deaf dogs barking at each other, so there is really little point to continue...

From:

saturn13.livejournal.com

even though i'm working for the kennedy stewart campaign, kennedy has had my vote since the start of the nomination process. i have been an ndp member for 15 years now and have been working on election campaigns for 20 years. kennedy is one of the best candidates that i have ever worked for.

From: