# Canadian election



## groovetube

Ok let's move into an election thread, from the there -might- be one, thread. Harper is reportedly headed to Rideau hall as I type.

How about this, no references to polls as nyah nayhs. More about actual policy. Less swiping things like, "the coalition", or references to Harper as a nazi. Or Jack as Taliban jack, the sort of thing to light the powder keg. Is it possible?

I'll try.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


----------



## Max

Sure, I'll play. May 2 date... thankfully that's relatively soon. One grows weary of these side shows.


----------



## groovetube

jimbotelecom said:


> Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


I think Iggy had to. The coalition thing was a dirty word, and if he rules it completely out at the start, he can use the 2004 letter Harper sent to the GG with the bloc's, ndp's signature to counter him.

As to whether Iggy will hold his own, or go down in flames, I guess we'll see how good a campaign both he and Harper run.


----------



## Max

Agree with Groove. "Coalition" is indeed a dirty word. Iggy's putting all his eggs in one basket. Time will tell.

I'm thinking at this point it's going to be yet another Conservative minority.


----------



## SINC

I still think the Liberals cooked their own goose by forcing an election. It seems to me that if people are tired of elections, they just might vote Conservative to end the continuing runs of elections not even two years apart on average with no change. Call it a retaliation vote or whatever, but that is the biggest danger the Liberals face given the lack of confidence in Iggy that even long time Liberals admit is an issue.


----------



## Lawrence

I wonder if the Tories will have their little PC Youth clubs again like they did in the 70's,
I remember drinking beer at one of these clubs when I was 12 years of age.
Loved that, Drinking under age was okay with the PC party back then.


----------



## Lawrence

jimbotelecom said:


> Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


All he has to do is give us beer and wine in the grocery stores
and the Liberal majority vote will be sealed.


----------



## Max

LOL

I missed out on that one. I too would have hobnobbed with the Young PCs if brew was involved. Alas, I grew up in Ottawa and we'd cross the river to get our hands on Brador. Boy, choices in beer back then were nothing less than dismal. But je digress.

Sinc, that's a distinct possibility... the Libs cooking their own goose. But I'm also thinking that HarperCo has a knack for bringing trouble to its own doorstep. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few weeks.


----------



## PenguinBoy

jimbotelecom said:


> Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


Good move by Ignatief.

Canadians do not want a "Coalition with Separatists and Socialists", if this option were on the table it there is a good chance it would result in a Conservative majority.

If the Liberals want a shot at forming a government, courting "progressive" voters is not the way to get there. There aren't that many of them, and their votes are already split between the NDP and the Greens.

The key to success is the centre, ideally fiscally conservative and socially progressive. The Conservatives know this, which is why they are currently occupying this space.

If the Liberals want to get back in, they need to reclaim the centre, and nudge the Conservatives further to the right.

Perhaps they should claim "Balanced Budgets" as their own - point out that Liberals balanced the books, and that Conservatives ran us into deficit and want to run up deficits further with out of control spending on "Jets and Jails".

They could also hit hard on the G20 as a "Billion dollar boondoggle" that trampled civil rights, paint the long form census as an ideological move, and hit hard on Bev Oda.

They could also position themselves as the natural choice for federalist voters in Quebec.

This would not be enough to get them back in power this go round, but it ~might~ hold the Conservatives to a minority and position them for further gains in the future.

On the other hand, a coalition does nothing for them in the long run, and ~might~ hand the Conservatives a majority in this election.


----------



## groovetube

Just watched Duceppe, holding that infamous coalition letter with Harper, him, and Layton signing, and called Harper a liar.

I was rather surprised as Duceppe was rather quiet about that in the past. Hopefully, that will be dropped at some point and the campaign focuses on real differences in policy. Well, I can hope...


----------



## eMacMan

jimbotelecom said:


> Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


Given the reneged promises from recent years I would not put much faith in that. I mean various Politicians have promised us:

Out of Afghanistan in 2009, make that 2011, oops I meant 2014.....

If I am elected the GST is dead....

No more corruption...

Could list a lot more I am sure, but those should suffice.


----------



## Lawrence

Possible campaign slogans

Better Layton than never?
Harping for a Harper government again?
Liberal For Liberty?


----------



## Ottawaman

> September 9, 2004
> Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General Rideau Hall 1 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
> Excellency, As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
> Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
> Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
> Gilles Duceppe, M.P. Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
> Jack Layton, M.P. Leader of the New Democratic Party


Stephen Harper - hypocrite


----------



## Sonal

Good post, PenguinBoy.

I'm predicting a narrow Conservative majority at this point. Iggy trying to make this an ethics issue isn't a smart move, IMO, since it's not like the Liberal Party's hands were clean on that score either--people's memories are longer than he gives them credit for. Harper's "we have to focus on the economy, let's not waste time and money on silly elections" plays as very reasonable-sounding compared to Iggy's passionate "This is inethical! We can't stand for this! Get them out!"

Harper's was only 12 seats shy of a majority last time, his approval is higher than ever, and he's a seasoned campaigner. If he can keep his party sounding calm, reasonable and focused on the economy, I think he could pull off a majority. 

This will be an interesting campaign.


----------



## Dr T

Max said:


> ... "Coalition" is indeed a dirty word.....


This is the success of the Harper Conservative propaganda machine.

As Jack Layton pointed out, one of the best governments that Canada has had, when Pearson was PM, would qualify for the Harper Conservative label of "coalition". 

But the traditional meaning of "coalition" is a formal coalition, with members of all coalition parties in cabinet. That's what we see right now in the coalition govts of Australia, Britain, Germany, etc etc. The Pearson era was not such a formal coalition: the NDP supported the minority govt on condition that the govt bring in progressive legislation, like the health care system we take for granted now. 

Harpo himself seems to now use "coalition" in a different sense. He seems to mean, if two political parties vote the same way, they are a "coalition". In this sense, then every time he has called for a vote in the Commons, he has been asking for the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, to join him in a "coalition". 

But none of this matters. The attack ads - what used to be called propaganda - seem to be having an effect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Sonal said:


> I'm predicting a narrow Conservative majority at this point.


At this point ... this would be my prediction too.

I think the Liberal party may be headed for a collapse in their vote, with the main beneficiaries being the Cons and some to the NDP and Bloc. If the Liberal collapse is bad enough, it could leave the Bloc as the Official Opposition. Imagine that.

The prospect of having Harper with the dictatorial powers that Parliament will give his PMO in a majority scenario, until 2015 or '16 should have Canadians worried. Unfortunately the opposition is split. There will have to be a uniting of the and centre and left if this scenario occurs.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Dr T said:


> This is the success of the Harper Conservative propaganda machine.
> 
> As Jack Layton pointed out, one of the best governments that Canada has had, when Pearson was PM, would qualify for the Harper Conservative label of "coalition".
> 
> But the traditional meaning of "coalition" is a formal coalition, with members of all coalition parties in cabinet. That's what we see right now in the coalition govts of Australia, Britain, Germany, etc etc. The Pearson era was not such a formal coalition: the NDP supported the minority govt on condition that the govt bring in progressive legislation, like the health care system we take for granted now.
> 
> Harpo himself seems to now use "coalition" in a different sense. He seems to mean, if two political parties vote the same way, they are a "coalition". In this sense, then every time he has called for a vote in the Commons, he has been asking for the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, to join him in a "coalition".
> 
> But none of this matters. The attack ads - what used to be called propaganda - seem to be having an effect.


Couldn't agree more. Harper is a hypocrite on the coalition issue. But his framing of the issues seems to be what sticks in the media, likely through having a bigger war chest. The fact that his government has been held in contempt by Parliament seems to be already forgotten.


----------



## Max

Plus the G20 has come and gone... it's fast fading in the public's rear view mirror and trying to fan the flames won't work. This government has an excellent propaganda machine working for it, no doubt. Attack ads may be a sad measure of what the public will fall for, but they are proven tools. And agreed, the Harperites have a lot of money to throw around.

Iggy doesn't do himself any favours, either. The man has little presence. Campaigning about ethics will probably backfire on the man.... but I suppose hope springs eternal in Liberals' hearts.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...his framing of the issues seems to be what sticks in the media...


He's already done it. Harper is framing the election right out of the box with broad, sweeping gestures. Iggy will be stuck niggling on particulars that will seem like old news to many Canadians--a little old man chasing Harper round the edges with a pin.


----------



## eMacMan

Sonal said:


> Good post, PenguinBoy.
> 
> I'm predicting a narrow Conservative majority at this point. Iggy trying to make this an ethics issue isn't a smart move, IMO, since it's not like the Liberal Party's hands were clean on that score either--people's memories are longer than he gives them credit for.....


Ignats probably does not remember that fiasco as he was out of the country and seemingly out of touch with the country as well.


----------



## Macfury

I was checking the CBC site to read up on Ignatieff "Swearing off coalition" and found some very cogent thoughts by a Liberal supporter entered below. Worth thinking about:



> wow the con paid posters worken hard today lol harper will lose big time guys he screwed with the biggest senior club 100's of thousand member s stronge CARP will seek it revenge and then the 800 thousand seniors who didnt vote last unnessary election called by harper will vote this time around and its going to be very bad for the harpieliesalot crew and dont buy those poles 2500 people poled in con riding s lol the numbers are very differant then what the harpie controlled media says to believe harper here for american interest not CANADA S !!!!!


----------



## eMacMan

Maybe time for a poll:

Who would you like to see as Canada's next Prime Minister:

Harpo

Ignats

Layton

May

Duceppe

None of the Above

I really don't want no stinkin' election

Perhaps the preceding choices sanitized as the Mayor see fit.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> He's already done it. Harper is framing the election right out of the box with broad, sweeping gestures. Iggy will be stuck niggling on particulars that will seem like old news to many Canadians--a little old man chasing Harper round the edges with a pin.


I'm hoping that many Canadians can use critical thinking skills to see beyond the framing and posturing, but maybe not.

Just listened to both Harper and Iggy speak on the radio. One thing Iggy needs to do is speak using his diaphragm. His voice sounds whiny. Don't these guys hire speech coaches?


----------



## Dr.G.

I shall be voting NDP, since our sitting MP, Jack Harris, is a hard working and honest person. The Liberals would have to put up someone outstanding here in St.John's East for me to switch. I did vote for the Conservatives the first time around because the sitting MP, Norm Doyle, was a person who was also hard working and honest. I also wanted to give Harper a chance to see if he would keep the promises of openness and honest government that he pledged. Sadly, those promises were never kept.


----------



## Dr T

eMacMan said:


> Maybe time for a poll:
> 
> Who would you like to see as Canada's next Prime Minister:
> ....


I woud find a discussion of actual issues more interesting than yet another poll.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr T said:


> I woud find a discussion of actual issues more interesting than yet another poll.


As would every one else. Sadly with Ignats and Harpo that's not too likely to happen, although both Jack Layton and Elizabeth May seem quite willing to do so.

Were it not for EMs enthusiasm for a Carbon Tax I think she might make some real progress this time around as many of her other ideas are worthy of a second look.

Layto as always is handicapped by his lack of math skills. Not enough to promote ideas without coming up with a sound way to pay for them.


----------



## Dr T

eMacMan said:


> As would every one else. Sadly with Ignats and Harpo that's not too likely to happen, although both Jack Layton and Elizabeth May seem quite willing to do so.
> 
> Were it not for EMs enthusiasm for a Carbon Tax I think she might make some real progress this time around as many of her other ideas are worthy of a second look.
> 
> Layto as always is handicapped by his lack of math skills. Not enough to promote ideas without coming up with a sound way to pay for them.


But we could discuss issues HERE.

As I understand it, the Green Party does not propose any increase in taxation. They propose to change what get taxed and at what rates - tax the things that are to be discouraged - make taxation as much as possible a sin tax. 


Harpo's taxation policy - never explicitly presented, but discernible - is: Create tax credits. So first you have to have lots of cash flow (= corporations and rich people).


----------



## eMacMan

Dr T said:


> But we could discuss issues HERE.
> 
> As I understand it, the Green Party does not propose any increase in taxation. They propose to change what get taxed and at what rates - tax the things that are to be discouraged - make taxation as much as possible a sin tax.
> 
> 
> Harpo's taxation policy - never explicitly presented, but discernible - is: Create tax credits. So first you have to have lots of cash flow (= corporations and rich people).


True enough about the greens. Sadly they have bought into AGW myth and therefore consider breathing, getting to and from work, heating ones home and transporting groceries to be sins. 

Most of the rest of Canada view these as essential to life. As I say A lot of other good ideas will get lost with her obsession with a Carbon Tax. So many other environmental issues that are far more urgent than CO2 emissions.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> True enough about the greens. Sadly they have bought into AGW myth and therefore consider breathing, getting to and from work, heating ones home and transporting groceries to be sins.
> 
> Most of the rest of Canada view these as essential to life. As I say A lot of other good ideas will get lost with her obsession with a Carbon Tax. So many other environmental issues that are far more urgent than CO2 emissions.


I would consider voting for May because she seems to be fiscally conservative--but she's married to the single issue of the carbon tax to fund her ideas and that's out. It's almost as though the carbon tax would exist outside of time and space, magically generating revenue without causing massive inflation on almost every good and service while crushing Canadians economically.


----------



## Dr T

eMacMan said:


> True enough about the greens. Sadly they have bought into AGW myth and therefore consider breathing, getting to and from work, heating ones home and transporting groceries to be sins.
> 
> Most of the rest of Canada view these as essential to life. As I say A lot of other good ideas will get lost with her obsession with a Carbon Tax. So many other environmental issues that are far more urgent than CO2 emissions.


What are those other good ideas? Maybe there is something substantive there.

The basic Green Party concept is, shift taxes to what you want to discourage. The Harper alternative is to tax everybody expect the rich.

Choose between those, then figure out what to tax or give tax credits for.

The current HST regime taxes the purchase of small quantities of food, books, safety equipment, and a host of things that should not be taxed at all, if you adopt a principle that you do not tax necessities. But the current policy is, tax everything, and then give tax credits to the rich.


PS What is AGW? I don't get out much and don't know all these abbrevs.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I would consider voting for May because she seems to be fiscally conservative--but she's married to the single issue of the carbon tax to fund her ideas and that's out. It's almost as though the carbon tax would exist outside of time and space, magically generating revenue without causing massive inflation on almost every good and service while crushing Canadians economically.


Take away the carbon tax obsession and the Green party is head and shoulders above anything the rest of the parties wish to bring to the table.

Since most of my after tax budget goes to food, fuel, electricity and heating my home; a Carbon Tax would be extremely devastating from my point of view.

CPP payments would probably have to be doubled in order to offset the damage a Carbon Tax would do to Canada's seniors. 

Having said all that, we should recall that Ignats also fervently supports a Carbon Tax. 

The guy is really skewered. Fight it out over a traditional Liberal weakness ethics, or talk about issues and get hammered over the damage that a carbon tax would do to Canada's least affluent citizens. He seems destined to lead the Liberals into being an Ontario only party.


----------



## SINC

Dr T said:


> PS What is AGW? I don't get out much and don't know all these abbrevs.


AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic = Human impact


----------



## Dr T

eMacMan said:


> Take away the carbon tax obsession and the Green party is head and shoulders above anything the rest of the parties wish to bring to the table.
> 
> Since most of my after tax budget goes to food, fuel, electricity and heating my home; a Carbon Tax would be extremely devastating from my point of view....


I have not seen this obsession, because the few times when I get to hear the Green Party, they are usually dealing with other issues.

The Gordon Campbell BC Liberals brought in a carbon tax.

http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/notices/British_Columbia_Carbon_Tax.pdf

I guess that has had an effect, though I have not noticed it personally. But I don't get out much.

The Gordon Campbell BC Liberals also instigated an HST in BC, and I have really noticed the effects of that. Now there is 12% tax on things that used to be VAT free: some food, safety equipment, books. By the way, corporations do not pay HST, although they used to pay the old provincial PST.


----------



## hayesk

eMacMan said:


> Ignats probably does not remember that fiasco as he was out of the country and seemingly out of touch with the country as well.


Honestly, this "Ignatief was out of country for many years" is really getting annoying. Only the Conservatives seem to care about this.

And quite frankly, I have no love for Iggy either, but I'd rather have a Prime Minister that spent time in the USA than a Prime Minister who is trying to turn Canada into the USA.


----------



## hayesk

jimbotelecom said:


> Iggy has officially ruled out coalition govt. which is an idiotic move on the Libs part. The Libs must think they can out the vote and defeat the Cons by themselves. I doubt it.


Actually, I'd love to see a coalition. A coalition is a perfectly normal, if not common, and allowable part of parliamentary procedure. Harper's Conservatives, however, have shown repeatedly to have no respect for Parliamentary procedure or even follow it.


----------



## hayesk

SINC said:


> I still think the Liberals cooked their own goose by forcing an election. It seems to me that if people are tired of elections, they just might vote Conservative to end the continuing runs of elections not even two years apart on average with no change. Call it a retaliation vote or whatever, but that is the biggest danger the Liberals face given the lack of confidence in Iggy that even long time Liberals admit is an issue.


My prediction: another Conservative minority. Harper will be voted out as Conservative leader for not getting a majority. Ignatief will be voted out as Liberal leader for not getting anything.


----------



## SINC

Any coalition that has a separatist party given any part in governing my country is a treasonous coalition.


----------



## Lawrence

SINC said:


> Any coalition that has a separatist party given any part in governing my country is a treasonous coalition.


There's that "Coalition" word again,
It was a "Dion" fault of the Liberal party that such a word was introduced.

But it was a PC word that made it a broken record.

Get over it

Unless you want to use it as your platform


Then Fine use it, You dumb F.....


----------



## Max

Hey man, take a time out. It's not worth it and it makes you look bad.


----------



## SINC

dolawren said:


> Then Fine use it, You dumb F.....


You sure you're OK? I've never seen you post anything like this with such hatred and use such terms to a fellow member of ehMac.


----------



## Lawrence

SINC said:


> You sure you're OK? I've never seen you post anything like this with such hatred and use such terms to a fellow member of ehMac.


Okay...Taking it out of the park now,
Fielding too many posts at once is not a good thing to do.

I'll take a break now.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Any coalition that has a separatist party given any part in governing my country is a treasonous coalition.


Sinc, give it up. It's been shown very clearly Harper attempted the same thing in 2004, the letter is widely available with Harper, and the bloc signing, and would have HAD to get into bed with the separatists in a coalition to even try to attempt what he suggested to the GG. This whole coalition swiping is ridiculous, as BOTH the libs AND Harper have tried this avenue, despite what people try to spin it as.

Let's move away from this nonsense.

In an act of shameless promotion, I'm playing opera bobs tonight at the corner of ossington and dundas after 10pm with even Zappa on the set list with a bunch of good friends for fun. I'd rather clink a glass, than argue about this stuff.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Sinc, give it up. It's been shown very clearly Harper attempted the same thing in 2004, the letter is widely available with Harper, and the bloc signing, and would have HAD to get into bed with the separatists in a coalition to even try to attempt what he suggested to the GG. This whole coalition swiping is ridiculous, as BOTH the libs AND Harper have tried this avenue, despite what people try to spin it as.
> 
> Let's move away from this nonsense.


I have nothing against any two parties forming a union to form a coalition, but I draw the line at allowing separatists to be part of governing Canada. That is all I said about it and in the spirit of your request at the opening of this thread, I will withhold further comment on your telling me what to do.


----------



## Lawrence

I find it interesting that when Cuba chose to defend itself with missiles,
That we would find it so outrageous that a province would protect it's unique society with a party.

Sure, Granted they are a separatist party, But who exactly has been pushing them away?


Meech lake anyone?


----------



## BigDL

dolawren said:


> I find it interesting that when Cuba chose to defend itself with missiles,
> That we would find it so outrageous that a province would protect it's unique society with a party.
> 
> Sure, Granted they are a separatist party, But who exactly has been pushing them away?
> 
> 
> Meech lake anyone?


Let's look at the colonial effects of "shotgun marriages" of different language/ethnic groups and the catastrophic consequences say in Africa.

London decide a shot gun marriage of two British North American colonies to solve London's concerns with little regard for the colonists.

Given the choice of the reality of the Bloc or say Rwanda's handling of a colonial shotgun marriage, the Bloc as a grievance resolution mechanism is far more attractive to me.


----------



## Macfury

I think someone should go back and edit their post. I wouldn't want anyone to stumble on this place and see such blind hatred expressed at another EhMac member in good standing.


----------



## Macfury

dolawren said:


> I find it interesting that when Cuba chose to defend itself with missiles,
> That we would find it so outrageous that a province would protect it's unique society with a party.
> 
> Sure, Granted they are a separatist party, But who exactly has been pushing them away?
> 
> 
> Meech lake anyone?


Meech Lake, no-one. More arguments positioned firmly inside the cult of victimization. How about a little personal responsibility?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

SINC said:


> I have nothing against any two parties forming a union to form a coalition, but I draw the line at allowing separatists to be part of governing Canada.


Stephen Harper didn't draw the line at including the Bloc being part of a coalition in 2006 when it suited him. He is a hypocrite on this issue.

As Duceppe said today, which made me ALOL (Actually Laugh Out Loud), "Everybody wants to climb into bed with us, but nobody wants to marry us."

Iggy has finally got his talking points together today and ruled out a formal coalition with any other party.

But the first day of the campaign we have Harper calling him a liar on that issue and Iggy calling Harper the same. Not a good start.


----------



## SINC

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Stephen Harper didn't draw the line at including the Bloc being part of a coalition in 2006 when it suited him. He is a hypocrite on this issue.


No issue there. I disagreed with it then and I still do. Harper/Iggy, it matters not.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Don't forget the Cons have a history of dealing with independentistes namely Lucien Bouchard. There are also a fair number of separatists who work within the fed public service. If a Bloc member accepted a ministerial position in a coalition I would not object. This likely will never happen.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

SINC said:


> No issue there. I disagreed with it then and I still do. Harper/Iggy, it matters not.


Good for you.

One point I'd like to make, that Harper and his people always gloss over is that nobody has ever suggested that the Bloc be a part of a governing coalition and the Bloc themselves have said that they would not take part in a governing coalition.

If you are talking about supporting a party in the Parliament with Bloc votes, then using that logic, every party has been in a coalition with every other party at some point.

The glossing over of distinctions is important for this Conservative wedge issue to be effective. Not only is Harper a hypocrite but he is also misleading whenever he uses the term "a coalition with the separatists". I hope this misleading fear-mongering loses him seats in Quebec.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> No issue there. I disagreed with it then and I still do. Harper/Iggy, it matters not.


With the comment "No issue there" is that agreement with the proposition that Harper is lying?


----------



## Ottawaman

Harper uses the coalition issue to distract voters from thinking about Conservative contempt, broken promises and lies.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> With the comment "No issue there" is that agreement with the proposition that Harper is lying?


One has to understand the difference between outright lying and using partial truths to try and further your cause. I agree Harper is guilty of the latter. And Iggy is just as guilty with some of his statements.


----------



## Ottawaman




----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The glossing over of distinctions is important for this Conservative wedge issue to be effective. Not only is Harper a hypocrite but he is also misleading whenever he uses the term "a coalition with the separatists". I hope this misleading fear-mongering loses him seats in Quebec.


It wasn't the same thing. The Liberal Party had a serious corruption issue and it was time to end their reign. The Conservatives wanted an election, not to take power. 

The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was a deal done in dark rooms and it was about taking over the country. This just after Harper won an election. 

It's a serious issue and each party needs to be honest with the public as to how they stand on a coalition.


----------



## Dr T

Vandave said:


> ...
> The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was a deal done in dark rooms and it was about taking over the country. This just after Harper won an election.
> 
> It's a serious issue....


You show a serious misunderstanding, one that has been fed by the Harperites.

We have a Parliamentary democracy in our country. (You confuse our democracy with the crony system of the USA, I fear.) 

Harper has never, ever "won an election".

In fact, no party had a majority after any of those elections in question. To form government, the leader of a party in Parliament must obtain the support of a majority of MPs, and maintain that support. In that latest Harperism, this kind of support is called a coalition, except that he never uses that term when he refers to the support he gets from the Bloc Quebecois, or the NDP, or the Liberal Party of Canada. He only calls it a coalition when the other parties vote against his minority government.

He misuses the term 'coalition' in the same way that he abuses our democratic system.


----------



## SINC

Dr T said:


> Harper has never, ever "won an election".


My how misinformed some folks are. 143 seats won to the nearest party's seventy some? Gimme a break.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> It wasn't the same thing. The Liberal Party had a serious corruption issue and it was time to end their reign. The Conservatives wanted an election, not to take power.


Huh? What is this revisionism? Duceppe was in the room with Harper and said Steve sang a different tune to him.



Vandave said:


> The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was a deal done in dark rooms and it was about taking over the country. This just after Harper won an election.


The coalition that was proposed, for about the millionth time on this board, was a Liberal-NDP coalition. Liberal-NDP coalition government only. This is a fact. 

The Bloc agreed to vote in support, only on issues of confidence and explicitly stated that they would not be a party to the government. If you take their agreement to vote in support as meaning "coalition", then Harper was seeking a "coalition with the Bloc" last week when he was in talks with them to support the budget based on HST money going to Quebec. 

You are using the same slippery and misleading language that Harper is using. There can be no coalition with the Bloc because the Bloc has refused and still refuses to take a role in government.

The charge of "taking over the country" is ridiculous. Parliament is the supreme body in this country, not the executive, meaning the PMO. This is also a fact. You should know this. We vote for our Members of Parliament, who in turn organize themselves into the government and decide on the executive. 

As you know we now have Christie Clark as Premier of British Columbia. She doesn't have a seat in the Legislature, she was working as a talk-show host the last time people voted for their MLAs. But she is the legitimate Premier under our system of Parliamentary democracy because the party in power had a leader who resigned and who then voted in this non-MLA as their party leader. Christie Clark did not "take over" the government of BC, because the government of BC is a by-product of the Members of the BC Legislative Assembly that the citizens of BC voted for. It is exactly the same thing in our federal Parliament.



Vandave said:


> It's a serious issue and each party needs to be honest with the public as to how they stand on a coalition.


I think Iggy did that today. Now when will Harper learn to be honest instead of lying and fear-mongering about something that won't happen?



SINC said:


> My how misinformed some folks are. 143 seats won to the nearest party's seventy some? Gimme a break.


Sorry SINC, but Dr T is stating a fact. Conservative Party candidates won more seats than any other party but not a majority of the seats in the House. The only election Stephen Harper won was in his own riding. Parliamentary tradition states that the party with largest amount of seats get first crack at trying to form a government. This party then gets to propose their leader as the Prime Minister. 

The only people to vote for Harper live in his Calgary riding. This is the way it works. Harper is trying to frame things as if he was voted into office like a President. He wasn't.


----------



## Macfury

A coalition to support the overthrow of the Conservatives, but then immediately thereafter not a coalition--except in certain matters. Got it!


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> A coalition to support the overthrow of the Conservatives, but then immediately thereafter not a coalition--except in certain matters. Got it!


I am sooo scared.

"Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand and Ukraine. Switzerland has been ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament from 1959 to 2008, called the "Magic Formula". The United Kingdom also operates a formal coalition cabinet between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties." Wikipedia.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> I am sooo scared.
> 
> "Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand and Ukraine. Switzerland has been ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament from 1959 to 2008, called the "Magic Formula". The United Kingdom also operates a formal coalition cabinet between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties." Wikipedia.


Why are you posting grade school information on coalitions to me? I couldn't care less who the Liberals try to get into bed with this time, whether separatists or not. I'm laughing at all of the fine parsing of the term "coalition."

What was devised by Dion, Layton and Duceppe was a coalition between the three parties. End of story.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Got it!


I don't think you did get it MF. Maybe you should re-read. Shall I give you a quiz?

Really MF, aren't you a little embarrassed to be countering a post full of facts with photo-op and a re-statement of the same misunderstanding?

Here's Duceppe and Harper shaking hands. Maybe they're plotting something, eh? Maybe Harper's going to hand Quebec $5 billion in exchange for his party voting with the government? 

*Coalition!!*












Macfury said:


> What was devised by Dion, Layton and Duceppe was a coalition between the three parties. End of story.


Never mind the facts then, eh? I guess grade-school is too difficult for you then?

Maybe you've heard this quote, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."


----------



## groovetube

man. I was going to say, its hard to believe people can't get over this whole coalition thing. Look at Guy Giorno's twitter, the guy opened an account and every tweet so far is an obsession over coalitions. What the hell is wrong with people?

The problem here, is the conservatives simply cannot accept that Canadians have given them a mandate, to work with the other parties, which is pretty much required to stay in power in a minority. Canadians did NOT say, they wanted a conservative agenda, they wanted Harper leading the government, and working with the opposition, end of story. That's democracy, and that's what Canadians clearly said, twice in a row. But the conservatives clearly, want to make such a cooperation, a dirty word, which says it all here.

Both Harper, and the liberals have attempted coalitions, whether or not Harper and co wish to be honest about it (which apparently they are not).

What I had hoped, was to recognize this sheer stupidity of shrieking "coalition! baaaaad!" nonsense and focus on more important things. This repeating of conservative talking points of utter nonsense about coalition stuff is useless. Completely, useless, and misleading.

It seems to me, that Harper and co. insistence of making the coalition thing stick is a knee jerk reaction because they have had success in shovelling this crap to voters. But this time, it could well back fire on them. The bloc has for the first time come out swinging on this issue, and is really nailing Harper on the fact that he, did, try for a coalition himself -including- the bloc, even though he didn't have the most votes. So much for the whole undemocratic nonsense they were peddling...

So I suppose, Harper may just have to focus on the economy. Except, unfortunately for him, he hasn't got the best record on this, given he has spent like a drunken sailor, so it will have to be about convincing voters it ain't so. There's no 55 billion dollar deficit, or, the opposition -made them do it-, or some other nonsense they can convince the light headed to buy.

The truth is, he had very little to do with the country's finances being in good shape to weather the recession. It was done before he took office. He merely broke some promises, and spent a lot of money.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> It wasn't the same thing. The Liberal Party had a serious corruption issue and it was time to end their reign. The Conservatives wanted an election, not to take power.
> 
> The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was a deal done in dark rooms and it was about taking over the country. This just after Harper won an election.
> 
> It's a serious issue and each party needs to be honest with the public as to how they stand on a coalition.


I wish some Canadians understood the how the House of Commons or for that matter their provincial legislature operate.

The Conservatives only won the first opportunity to see if they could find a way to govern.

The real issue that must be determined on the door steps during this election when the candidate comes looking for your vote is, can he/she work well with others. Does the candidate know when she/he has common ground with others and how to effectively communicate with other the value of the candidate's ideas.

As the Conservatives have demonstrated for the past five years they haven't any desire to work well with others. The word coalition seems to be a hot button issue for conservative supporters as well. Are we to conclude all of these people can't work well with others?


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> I wish some Canadians understood the how the House of Commons or for that matter their provincial legislature operate.
> 
> The Conservatives only won the first opportunity to see if they could find a way to govern.
> 
> The real issue that must be determined on the door steps during this election when the candidate comes looking for your vote is, can he/she work well with others. Does the candidate know when she/he has common ground with others and how to effectively communicate with other the value of the candidate's ideas.
> 
> *As the Conservatives have demonstrated for the past five years they haven't any desire to work well with others. The word coalition seems to be a hot button issue for conservative supporters as well. Are we to conclude all of these people can't work well with others?*


Sorry I don't agree. The opposition has been guilty of the exact same thing that you are saying about the conservatives. They have played obstructionist games in Committee and in the Senate (when they still had a majority). It takes two to tango and the conservatives have been far from being the only ones unwilling to dance.


----------



## JAMG

screature said:


> Sorry I don't agree. _*The opposition been guilty of the exact same thing that you are saying about the conservatives*_. They have played obstructionist games in Committee and in the Senate (when they still had a majority). It takes two to tango and the conservatives have been far from being the only ones unwilling to dance.


So when did the opposition loose the confidence of the house by being held in contempt of Parliment... How much do you want to bet the Cons try to make the election about Dion's Coalition and the "Defeated?" budget that nobody has voted on?


----------



## groovetube

they have been willing enough to have allowed the conservatives to stay in power for around 5 years. I'm sure that will get plenty of conservative talking points, but that happens.

Yes the opposition isn't innocent in this regard, but Harper's government has been very much one of anger, and a whole lot of finger pointing, to the point where conservative MPs have actually stood up in the house to blame something on the liberals when clearly it was totally batcrap crazy to think it were so.


----------



## screature

JAMG said:


> *So when did the opposition loose the confidence of the house by being held in contempt of Parliment*... How much do you want to bet the Cons try to make the election about Dion's Coalition and the "Defeated?" budget that nobody has voted on?


Your point is moot as what you suggest simply cannot happen as the Opposition does not form the government.


----------



## groovetube

I think he, er... knows that. 

jus' sayin...


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Never mind the facts then, eh? I guess grade-school is too difficult for you then?
> 
> Maybe you've heard this quote, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."


Gratuitous, can you get this straight? I don't care who forms a coalition with whom. I'm laughing at the current efforts here to paint the failed Dion/Layton/Duceppe stratagem as "not a coalition." 

Grade school? Please learn to match up the poster (MacFury) with the opinion (they all have a right to form a coalition with whomever they choose).

I would personally be more offended if the Conservatives formed a coalition with the NDP than the Bloc. At least the Bloc is open about its greed and doesn't present some sort of fake elitist sympathy for "the little man."


----------



## SINC

With poll results like these, I cannot understand how anyone could even consider an Iggy win. Stick a fork in him, he's done:


----------



## Macfury

Chantal Hebert at the _Toronto Star _compares the upcoming Iggy debacle to the political fortunes of Kim Campbell.



> In this campaign, Ignatieff is fighting the NDP, the BQ and the Greens for the anti-Conservative vote, on top of having to guard his right flank against the most concerted Conservative bid for centre-right Liberal votes in decades. In contrast with Campbell, Ignatieff is the only rookie leader in the race. His opponents all have one or more elections under their belts.
> 
> ...
> 
> Similarly, to avoid flaming out over the course of his electoral baptism of fire, Ignatieff simply cannot afford to lose an inch of ground in Ontario. His party is starting from nowhere across much of Western Canada and the Liberals are as close to extinction in Quebec as they have ever been.


----------



## groovetube

such dire predictions on day 2 of the election. I might remind you fellers, that in the case of Kim Campbell, it was the party that was riding high up in the polls at the beginning of the election that was crushed. But time will tell whether or not Iggy is capable of running a good campaign.

I'd say, it's far too early in the campaign to tell. My prediction now is either a slim majority for Harper, or he'll fall back into minority territory. Currently he seems to be banking on Canadians buying his complete lie about the coalition thing, which is really too bad, as I've said, if he wins, I'd rather see it over straight up policy, but you know that just isn't possible.

And macfury, I don't see where Chantel Hubert compares Iggy's political fortunes with Campbell, perhaps a reference to the fact that Iggy like Campbell is rookie in the campaign department. But it got you all excited I see 

Conservatives seem very intent on dealing a crushing blow to the liberals like 1993 because godamit, we'll gettim' back fer dat!


----------



## da_jonesy

Vandave said:


> The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was a deal done in dark rooms and it was about taking over the country. This just after Harper won an election.


Seriously? You do know how a parliamentary system works, right? 

While the Conservatives have successfully (i will even go so far as to say... adeptly) managed to spin the truthiness that a coalition is a bad thing (wait a sec... wasn't the Conservative, Reform, Alliance party a coalition?). 

The fact of the matter is that coalitions are a part of a parliamentary system and there are lots of example of that throughout the world.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> And macfury, I don't see where Chantel Hubert compares Iggy's political fortunes with Campbell, perhaps a reference to the fact that Iggy like Campbell is rookie in the campaign department. But it got you all excited I see


It would be here:



> While most Liberals would scoff at the notion of a 20-plus seat loss on May 2, Kim Campbell’s Tories went into the 1993 campaign in much better shape in the polls and with a more popular leader than Ignatieff’s Liberals . . . and finished with two seats.


----------



## groovetube

It wasn't like the GG letter with the signed agreement with the bloc and ndp was front page news either.

C'mon guys, this is almost insulting. How many pages do we have spend over this sheer stupidity? really? Is Harper and co -that- desperate that they have to cling to these lies rather than their record?


----------



## screature

da_jonesy said:


> Seriously? You do know how a parliamentary system works, right?
> 
> While the Conservatives have successfully (i will even go so far as to say... adeptly) managed to spin the truthiness that a coalition is a bad thing (wait a sec... wasn't the Conservative, Reform, Alliance party a coalition?).
> 
> The fact of the matter is that coalitions are a part of a parliamentary system and there are lots of example of that throughout the world.


Vandave is correct. 

NDP, Bloc in coalition talks before fiscal update: tape



> *NDP, Bloc in coalition talks before fiscal update: tap*e
> 
> Updated: Sun Nov. 30 2008 5:06:06 PM
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois held talks to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned.
> 
> NDP Leader Jack Layton was in talks with Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe for a "considerable period of time," reported CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife on Sunday.
> 
> Layton held a telephone-conference meeting with his caucus Saturday morning that was recorded by a Conservative member. According to the audio tape, Layton appears to take credit for the possibility of a coalition.
> 
> "Let's just say we have strategies. This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc a long time ago and locked them in early," Layton says. "Because, you couldn't put three people together in one or three hours. The first part was done a long time ago."


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It would be here:


how about a link to the article?

Sure, anything is possible macfury. It depends largely on how good a campaign Harper and Iggy runs. But I think at this point, it's silly to make such predictions this early. We'll know in a few weeks how things will turn out, as the next couple weeks will show who is resonating with voters. I don't think Iggy has a chance at government at the moment, but crazier things have happened.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Vandave is correct.
> 
> NDP, Bloc in coalition talks before fiscal update: tape


interesting. A coalition with the ndp and the bloc. No liberals.

It just gets better as we go.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Gratuitous, can you get this straight? I don't care who forms a coalition with whom. I'm laughing at the current efforts here to paint the failed Dion/Layton/Duceppe stratagem as "not a coalition."
> 
> Grade school? Please learn to match up the poster (MacFury) with the opinion (they all have a right to form a coalition with whomever they choose).
> 
> I would personally be more offended if the Conservatives formed a coalition with the NDP than the Bloc. At least the Bloc is open about its greed and doesn't present some sort of fake elitist sympathy for "the little man."


Apologies if I misunderstood your position. You appear to be defending the Conservative usage of the word coalition to mean that any agreement or deal with another party constitutes a coalition. Using the word in this way means that every party in the House has been guilty of a "coalition with the separatists" at one time or another. Using the word in this way means that yes, Dion and Layton were proposing a coalition with Duceppe. And it also means that Harper was also proposing a coalition with Duceppe in 2004.

And this is where the Conservative hypocrisy comes in. They are attempting to conflate the meaning you are talking about (any agreement with another party) with the usual understanding of the word coalition in the parliamentary sense meaning a _governing partnership with another party_.

If you like your understanding of coalition meaning a simple agreement, then you would have to concede my point that Harper's current vector of attack is hypocrisy. Maybe you already recognize this and just haven't mentioned it yet.

Others here seem to be not getting that distinction and in my haste I lumped you in with them. Again, my apologies.


----------



## Macfury

I agree with you on this one GA. What Harper intended earlier was a coalition of the very same sort. I differ from others here in that I see politics as making for strange bedfellows, so even a strategic alliance with the Bloc is OK with me, provided it results overall in more of what I want to see. Parsing this too carefully makes for very weak distinctions between the various degrees of "coalition."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Vandave is correct.
> 
> NDP, Bloc in coalition talks before fiscal update: tape


It appears, as GT says, that we do have to spend pages on this sheer stupidity. 

This article only suggests that the writer of it also doesn't understand the meaning of coalition in the parliamentary sense. Yes, the NDP spoke with the Bloc about potential strategies. Were there never any backroom talks between the Conservatives and the Bloc regarding support in the House? Yes there were, as exemplified by the signed letter in 2004 with Duceppe's and Harper's signature on it and as long ago as last week when they were negotiating with the Bloc over budget support versus $$$ for Quebec.

This is a non-story. 

And the link goes to a blank page for me.


----------



## SINC

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And the link goes to a blank page for me.


I thought so too at first, but if you scroll down a ways, the story is there.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> I agree with you on this one GA. What Harper intended earlier was a coalition of the very same sort. I differ from others here in that I see politics as making for strange bedfellows, so even a strategic alliance with the Bloc is OK with me, provided it results overall in more of what I want to see. Parsing this too carefully makes for very weak distinctions between the various degrees of "coalition."


Yes it does, I've even formed an ehMac coalition with (gasp) YOU on occasion. Yes, an evil coalition with the libertarians designed to thwart democracy.

But seriously, all I'm trying to do by defining this word is to make it clear what the Conservatives are doing when they are conflating the two meanings of the word designed to confuse the facts of what happened. Personally I see making deals with various factions as a good thing our politicians should be doing more of.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

SINC said:


> I thought so too at first, but if you scroll down a ways, the story is there.


Ah yes, so it does, thanks.

Now reading the article confirms that the unnamed writer of the piece got it very wrong.



> The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois held talks to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned.


This line is factually incorrect and somewhat ludicrous. There were no talks to form a "coalition party" as the writer states. He/She later states it correctly that there were plans to form a governing coalition with the Liberals, and the talks were to firm up Bloc support of this in the House.


----------



## eMacMan

I do wonder just how evil Harpo's vision of Canada's future is. Why else would he use failed coalition attempts to avoid telling us what that vision is?

This applies to all leaders. Stop telling me what you want me to believe the other guy said and tell me where you want to lead the country.

Clearly no-one other than Layto or May has any intention of leading us out of Afghanistan or away from Libya, Iran...


----------



## PenguinBoy

While a coalition may be constitutionally acceptable in a Westminster Parliament, it is *not* acceptable to a good chunk of the Canadian population.

As a result, anyone that attempts to form a coalition government can expect to be punished at the polls. As mentioned in my earlier post, Ignatief knows this, which is why he is ruling out a coalition. Harper knows this too, which is why he is bringing up the possibility of a "coalition of losers".

It doesn't really matter what is, or is not, a coalition or who considered forming one in the past. What matters here is how it is perceived by the public.


----------



## i-rui

eMacMan said:


> I do wonder just how evil Harpo's vision of Canada's future is. Why else would he use failed coalition attempts to avoid telling us what that vision is?


no need to wonder, just look to the south. tax breaks for the rich, while corporations pay no tax, mega prisons and a "for profit" justice system, and over spending for the military budget.

All the while crippling our political system with divisive non-issues and using an echo chamber to condition everyone right of centre to be distracted from the real important issues (like actual policy).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

PenguinBoy said:


> While a coalition may be constitutionally acceptable in a Westminster Parliament, it is *not* acceptable to a good chunk of the Canadian population.
> 
> As a result, anyone that attempts to form a coalition government can expect to be punished at the polls. As mentioned in my earlier post, Ignatief knows this, which is why he is ruling out a coalition. Harper knows this too, which is why he is bringing up the possibility of a "coalition of losers".
> 
> It doesn't really matter what is, or is not, a coalition or who considered forming one in the past. What matters here is how it is perceived by the public.


While I think that may be true in this political environment, this is due mainly to the demonizing of the C-word that Harper has done and adding in untrue fear-mongering about "the separatists". I can't produce a link right now and have to take off in a few minutes but I'm sure I saw some polling that indicated many were in favour of the idea of a Lib-NDP coalition. Certainly not Blue Liberals, who may defect to the Cons in that case. 

At any rate it's interesting that many Canadians think back to the Pearson-Douglas minority co-operation of the 1960s as some of the best government Canada ever had.


----------



## Macfury

PenguinBoy said:


> While a coalition may be constitutionally acceptable in a Westminster Parliament, it is *not* acceptable to a good chunk of the Canadian population.


Agreed. The fact that the Conservative effort was quietly mounted and resulted in nothing very public benefited Harper immensely. What Dion attempted was appalling to many Canadians, including Liberal voters and stuck in the collective consciousness because it was staged so very arrogantly.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> no need to wonder, just look to the south. tax breaks for the rich, while corporations pay no tax, mega prisons and a "for profit" justice system, and over spending for the military budget.


U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world! Higher than Canada's in fact.


----------



## groovetube

PenguinBoy said:


> While a coalition may be constitutionally acceptable in a Westminster Parliament, it is *not* acceptable to a good chunk of the Canadian population.
> 
> As a result, anyone that attempts to form a coalition government can expect to be punished at the polls. As mentioned in my earlier post, Ignatief knows this, which is why he is ruling out a coalition. Harper knows this too, which is why he is bringing up the possibility of a "coalition of losers".
> 
> It doesn't really matter what is, or is not, a coalition or who considered forming one in the past. *What matters here is how it is perceived by the public.*


indeed.


----------



## cap10subtext

Canadian politics make me want explode in a ball of rage right now. I wouldn't trust ANY of the current leaders or their cabinets with a Majority government, yet they keep dragging us back to the polls in a futile bid for power. Harper twists everything the other parties say or do into something sinister instead of showing any real platform Canadians can show confidence in (which makes people like me suspicious). What he doesn't seem to realize is that the type of politicking he's doing only increases voter apathy. I'd rather put a sardine in my eye than have to vote again only to see the same stupid result.


----------



## Macfury

I'd put a sardine in my eye to prevent the current Liberals or the NDP from increasing their power.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world! Higher than Canada's in fact.


the "rate" might be higher than Canada, but what they actually *PAY* is much lower because of their loopholes.

G.E. made over $40 billion dollars of *profit* last year and paid *NO TAX*, and actually got a $3.2 billion dollar *REFUND*.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the "rate" might be higher than Canada, but what they actually *PAY* is much lower because of their loopholes.
> 
> G.E. made over $40 billion dollars of *profit* last year and paid *NO TAX*, and actually got a $3.2 billion dollar *REFUND*.


No, the total share of government take paid by corporations exceeds most other countries. GE has been playing ball with Obama, so no surprise there.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I agree with you on this one GA. *What Harper intended earlier was a coalition of the very same sort.* I differ from others here in that I see politics as making for strange bedfellows, so even a strategic alliance with the Bloc is OK with me, provided it results overall in more of what I want to see. Parsing this too carefully makes for very weak distinctions between the various degrees of "coalition."


In fact we do not know this, as the word coalition was never raised in the letter. It was left open to interpretation. If one wants to fill in the blanks one is certainly welcome to do so. But there was never any official declaration of the possibility of a coalition or what form it may take and no agreement was ever signed, replete with photo op. It is pure conjecture and we will never know because there was never a written and signed proposal.

All we know is that the 3 leaders in Opposition asked the GG to "consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority".



> September 9, 2004
> Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General Rideau Hall 1 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
> Excellency, As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and *consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority*.
> Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
> Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
> Gilles Duceppe, M.P. Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
> Jack Layton, M.P. Leader of the New Democratic Party


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> In fact we do not know this, as the word coalition was never raised in the letter. It was left open to interpretation. If one wants to fill in the blanks one is certainly welcome to do so. But there was never any official declaration of the possibility of a coalition or what form it may take and no agreement was ever signed, replete with photo op. It is pure conjecture and we will never know because there was never a written and signed proposal.
> 
> All we know is that the 3 leaders in Opposition asked the GG to "consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority".


Hey screature, are you one of these guys perchance?

Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation' - CTV News


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It appears, as GT says, that we do have to spend pages on this sheer stupidity.
> 
> This article only suggests that the writer of it also doesn't understand the meaning of coalition in the parliamentary sense. Yes, the NDP spoke with the Bloc about potential strategies. Were there never any backroom talks between the Conservatives and the Bloc regarding support in the House? Yes there were, as exemplified by the signed letter in 2004 with Duceppe's and Harper's signature on it and as long ago as last week when they were negotiating with the Bloc over budget support versus $$$ for Quebec.
> 
> This is a non-story.
> 
> And the link goes to a blank page for me.


 Ok. The fact remains there was an intention and plan to bring down the government *right* after the election.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Hey screature, are you one of these guys perchance?
> 
> Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation' - CTV News


:lmao: I think you asked me of this before... Nope. Kinda wish I was though, that way I would be being paid for making these posts.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> :lmao: I think you accused me of this before... Nope.


Have I? I guess that it seems so obvious.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> In fact we do not know this, as the word coalition was never raised in the letter. It was left open to interpretation. If one wants to fill in the blanks one is certainly welcome to do so. But there was never any official declaration of the possibility of a coalition or what form it may take and no agreement was ever signed, replete with photo op. It is pure conjecture and we will never know because there was never a written and signed proposal


It was definitely open to interpretation. I have my own opinion and others have theirs. However, as I've said before, Dion actually DID something. He was even gleeful about it, making his transgression in the public eye far worse than anything that might have--but didn't--happen.


----------



## groovetube

open to interpretation?

Ok, how can this letter be interpreted then.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> open to interpretation?
> 
> Ok, how can this letter be interpreted then.


It only asked the GG to consult with the other parties if the House was dissolved. It did not set out a formal coalition. It was deliberately and carefully worded.

Only the Liberals and NDP have egg on their face for crafting and actually attempting to execute an unpopular coalition. Iggy is still carrying that monkey on his back, because people are reluctant to support a party that so quickly jumped into bed with the Bloc.


----------



## wwj

*Oh this is fun, just like in the House!*

As I wend my way through the thread, much of it reminds me of Question Period. Bickering back and forth, finger-pointing, accusations, it's this, no it's that. Sounds a lot like the truth-twisters in Ottawa, who can bend anything the way they want.

Also curious -- haven't seen a single female posting so far. Must be a guy thing.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It only asked the GG to consult with the other parties if the House was dissolved. It did not set out a formal coalition. It was deliberately and carefully worded.
> 
> Only the Liberals and NDP have egg on their face for crafting and actually attempting to execute an unpopular coalition. Iggy is still carrying that monkey on his back, because people are reluctant to support a party that so quickly jumped into bed with the Bloc.


and what other "option", would there be.

Let's get to the nitty gritty here, and move past innuendo. Conservative supporters seem reluctant to answer this.

Layton has come out today telling of the meetings with Harper in 2004. To the swing voters, this may spell a little trouble for Harper should Layton and Duceppe really clarify things regarding Harper's clear intent to in their view, circumvent democracy and for a government without the most votes and govern with an agreement with the bloc and the ndp.

Man this is the stuff of grade school, really. It's too bad Harper brings it down to this level, but I can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## Macfury

Well, Layton has garnered such respect among the Conservative electorate that this will be a game-changer. Sheesh! If anything, this statement will hurt Layton.



> “What Mr. Harper was intending to do, it’s absolutely crystal clear to me, was to attempt to become prime minister even though he had not received the most seats in the House."


Get it in writing next time, Jack-o!


----------



## SINC

wwj said:


> Also curious -- haven't seen a single female posting so far. Must be a guy thing.


And that would be a wrong assessment:




Sonal said:


> Good post, PenguinBoy.
> 
> I'm predicting a narrow Conservative majority at this point. Iggy trying to make this an ethics issue isn't a smart move, IMO, since it's not like the Liberal Party's hands were clean on that score either--people's memories are longer than he gives them credit for. Harper's "we have to focus on the economy, let's not waste time and money on silly elections" plays as very reasonable-sounding compared to Iggy's passionate "This is inethical! We can't stand for this! Get them out!"
> 
> Harper's was only 12 seats shy of a majority last time, his approval is higher than ever, and he's a seasoned campaigner. If he can keep his party sounding calm, reasonable and focused on the economy, I think he could pull off a majority.
> 
> This will be an interesting campaign.


Sonal is female.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Well, Layton has garnered such respect among the Conservative electorate that this will be a game-changer. Sheesh! If anything, this statement will hurt Layton.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it in writing next time, Jack-o!


it was in writing macfury. What I'm getting at, and what very few conservatives are unwilling to admit, is that the only real option that letter really presented was Harper forming a government even though he was 2nd place to Martin, and doing so without an election. His need for support of the bloc and the ndp is required, and there right on the letter is their signatures. What other option would there be?

As for the "conservative electorate", well Harper would be preaching to the choir. They quite willing to look past what happened in 2004, because they simply want Harper to be elected into a majority. It is however, the swing votes that Harper is having to work hard to get in order to get this majority. They, just may see through this coalition hypocrisy enough for Harper to lose credibility on this, if both Duceppe and Layton continue to loudly expose Harper's role in that 2004 agreement, whether vague or not, so he is taking quite a risk focusing so hard on this coalition thing, rather than focusing on why he is the best leader to have a majority.


----------



## Dr.G.

Last night, Duceppe held up his copy of the 2004 letter, with Harper's signature, to the media. If asked if Harper had a copy, all he said was "I don't know if he saved his copy, but I have mine if he wants me to send him a copy."

Duceppe continues to challenge Harper's past position on a coalition, reading from the letter he and Harper and Layton sent to the governor general in 2004 at a campaign event Sunday morning.

Duceppe told a Quebec audience that Harper was clearly after the job of prime minister then and is now trying to gain a majority "based on a lie."

"Stephen Harper didn't hesitate in the past to deal with dangerous socialists and separatists," he said.

Coalition question put to Harper - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## Max

wwj said:


> As I wend my way through the thread, much of it reminds me of Question Period. Bickering back and forth, finger-pointing, accusations, it's this, no it's that. Sounds a lot like the truth-twisters in Ottawa, who can bend anything the way they want.
> 
> Also curious -- haven't seen a single female posting so far. Must be a guy thing.


It's mostly that. A bunch of chest-beating and territorial stances. A bit of marking territory, too, for that matter. So it goes.

But while we're on the topic, I was reading something in the Globe about HarperCo looking for fresh ways to woo Canadian women. They've got the traditional male conservative territory covered, at least perceptually - get tough on crime, let's watch the money - but how does our grey eminence of a PM attract the women, when so few women are on his team? Not that the Libs are any better. The general homogeneity of Parliament Hills is something else entirely.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it was in writing macfury.


Show me the section of the letter where Harper says he wants to head up a coalition. I must have missed that part.


----------



## wwj

SINC said:


> And that would be a wrong assessment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonal is female.



Oops! I stand corrected. 1 out of 110? 

Thanks SINC. And apologies to Sonal.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Show me the section of the letter where Harper says he wants to head up a coalition. I must have missed that part.


Here's the letter, Macfury. 

2004 Letter from Opposition Leaders to GG

I assume that it would an obvious conclusion that Harper, as leader of the official opposition, would see himself becoming prime minister, and not the leaders of the NDP or Bloc assuming this role.


----------



## SINC

wwj said:


> Oops! I stand corrected. 1 out of 110?
> 
> Thanks SINC. And apologies to Sonal.


One thing you will learn in time is that Sonal is quite capable of holding her ground against any man here.


----------



## Vandave

wwj said:


> Also curious -- haven't seen a single female posting so far. Must be a guy thing.


This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## SINC

Vandave said:


> This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.


Yikes! *ducks and runs for cover*


----------



## Macfury

I've seen the letter, Dr. G. However it does not include any explicit plans following the proposed consultation. As I said, the letter is carefully worded.



Dr.G. said:


> Here's the letter, Macfury.
> 
> 2004 Letter from Opposition Leaders to GG
> 
> I assume that it would an obvious conclusion that Harper, as leader of the official opposition, would see himself becoming prime minister, and not the leaders of the NDP or Bloc assuming this role.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I've seen the letter, Dr. G. However it does not include any explicit plans following the proposed consultation. As I said, the letter is carefully worded.


I'll ask it again. What other possible interpretation would there be.


----------



## wwj

*Nudge Nudge*



SINC said:


> One thing you will learn in time is that Sonal is quite capable of holding her ground against any man here.


What I meant was that with a ratio of 110 to 1, perhaps debates like this are populated mainly by men because women know something that men don't about the value of such activities.


----------



## Macfury

It was an implied threat to Paul Martin, not to call another election. If Martin had called an election, the GG could have asked the second-place party if it wished to attempt to form a government, regardless of whether it claimed enough support from others to beat the ruling party in a house vote. Harper was making Martin aware of this distinction.

So while I believe Harper would have accepted the votes of the NDP and Bloc on an issue-by-issue basis, he would not have entered into a formal power-sharing agreement with them. Dion, on the other hand, formalized power sharing with the NDP in order to form a true coalition government.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Last night, Duceppe held up his copy of the 2004 letter, with Harper's signature, to the media. If asked if Harper had a copy, all he said was "I don't know if he saved his copy, but I have mine if he wants me to send him a copy."
> 
> Duceppe continues to challenge Harper's past position on a coalition, reading from the letter he and Harper and Layton sent to the governor general in 2004 at a campaign event Sunday morning.
> 
> Duceppe told a Quebec audience that Harper was clearly after the job of prime minister then and is now trying to gain a majority "based on a lie."
> 
> "Stephen Harper didn't hesitate in the past to deal with dangerous socialists and separatists," he said.
> 
> Coalition question put to Harper - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


Duceppe obviously has his own interpretations as to Harper's intent.... ones that he obviously would choose to interpret to his advantage... It doesn't mean that he is correct.... although currently it is to his advantage for you to think so....

If nothing else Harper has shown himself to be a "clever fox" sometimes to his own detriment. Thus the contempt ruling, he miscalculated what Miliken's ruling would be... or did he?... I think more than anything he is betting on a particular out come from the ruling and the resultant contempt ruling.... Time will tell soon enough.

Who knows what his true intentions were in 2004? Most likely he wanted to dangle Duceppe along for as long as he needed him, all the while waiting to drop him like a hot potato when the timing was right. Who would have thought that Harper would have learned a lesson from Trudeau when it comes to deceit when negotiating with separatists... for those of use who are old enough to remember "The Night of the Long Knives" .


----------



## screature

wwj said:


> What I meant was that with a ratio of 110 to 1, perhaps debates like this are populated mainly by men *because women know something that men don't about the value of such activities.*


Value has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of interest plain and simple. No need to try and put a judgmental spin on matters. Many times things simply are what they are.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It was an implied threat to Paul Martin, not to call another election. If Martin had called an election, the GG could have asked the second-place party if it wished to attempt to form a government, regardless of whether it claimed enough support from others to beat the ruling party in a house vote. Harper was making Martin aware of this distinction.
> 
> So while I believe Harper would have accepted the votes of the NDP and Bloc on an issue-by-issue basis, he would not have entered into a formal power-sharing agreement with them. Dion, on the other hand, formalized power sharing with the NDP in order to form a true coalition government.


what exactly, is the difference? It's laughable to try and create a distinction between the two, both end up with the same result. Harper would have taken power even though he did not win the election, and he could only govern with the cooperation of the both the bloc, and the ndp.

You can spend endless amounts of pages circling this, but it's simply lying.

Harper lied.


----------



## wwj

Max said:


> It's mostly that. A bunch of chest-beating and territorial stances. A bit of marking territory, too, for that matter. So it goes.
> 
> But while we're on the topic, I was reading something in the Globe about HarperCo looking for fresh ways to woo Canadian women. They've got the traditional male conservative territory covered, at least perceptually - get tough on crime, let's watch the money - but how does our grey eminence of a PM attract the women, when so few women are on his team? Not that the Libs are any better. The general homogeneity of Parliament Hills is something else entirely.



Hmm ... good question. 

Hegemony might be a more accurate term than homogeneity.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> what exactly, is the difference? It's laughable to try and create a distinction between the two, both end up with the same result. Harper would have taken power even though he did not win the election, and he could only govern with the cooperation of the both the bloc, and the ndp.
> 
> You can spend endless amounts of pages circling this, but it's simply lying.
> 
> Harper lied.


He need not have taken the invitation from the GG. He may have merely wished to forestall an election on terms advantageous to Martin, thus the implied threat. Can I see your interpretation as possible? Sure. But Dion, unfortunately for the Liberals, put any doubt to rest about his intentions by fully acting on them.


----------



## Vandave

wwj said:


> What I meant was that with a ratio of 110 to 1, perhaps debates like this are populated mainly by men because women know something that men don't about the value of such activities.


Gotta chip on that shoulder of yours?


----------



## mrjimmy

Vandave said:


> Gotta chip on that shoulder of yours?


No more than anyone else here I suspect.


----------



## mrjimmy

Max said:


> It's mostly that. A bunch of chest-beating and territorial stances. A bit of marking territory, too, for that matter. So it goes.
> 
> But while we're on the topic, I was reading something in the Globe about HarperCo looking for fresh ways to woo Canadian women. They've got the traditional male conservative territory covered, at least perceptually - get tough on crime, let's watch the money - but how does our grey eminence of a PM attract the women, when so few women are on his team? Not that the Libs are any better. The general homogeneity of Parliament Hills is something else entirely.


Perhaps he can do what he does best and try to scare them into thinking that the Liberals _really_ don't care about women, so by virtue, he does!

Who needs ideas when you have FUD.


----------



## Vandave

Only the NDP care for women because they endorse affirmative action. We need more affirmative action here at ehmac.ca. We should limit posts by men to restore balance.


----------



## BigDL

The word coalition is conservative code for Harper will hold his breath, flop on the floor and kick his legs until he turns blue in the face or until he gets his much coveted majority government.

Cry baby Harper.

Harper conjures the coalition boggy man because the conservatives have nothing else to offer.

The Conservative blew their wad on the action plan, action plan, action plan *Ad* nauseum. Then there was the other *Ad* nauseum see the other guy is a bigger stiff than our guy.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> The word coalition is conservative code for Harper will hold his breath, flop on the floor and kick his legs until he turns blue in the face or until he gets his much coveted majority government.
> 
> Cry baby Harper.
> 
> Harper conjures the coalition boggy man because the conservatives have nothing else to offer.
> 
> The Conservative blew their wad on the action plan, action plan, action plan *Ad* nauseum. Then there was the other *Ad* nauseum see the other guy is a bigger stiff than our guy.


Is that what you see? I see steely resolve on the part of Harper as he stays on message, an already defensive and increasingly desperate Iggy and a Jack Layton gone AWOL.

Duceppe? He'll fight like a wildcat to prevent majorities of either the Liberals or Conservatives, even if it means twisting the truth.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> He need not have taken the invitation from the GG. He may have merely wished to forestall an election on terms advantageous to Martin, thus the implied threat. Can I see your interpretation as possible? Sure. But Dion, unfortunately for the Liberals, put any doubt to rest about his intentions by fully acting on them.


nonsense.

What Harper did isn't much different than Dion. Both held talks and agreed to have cooperation in order for the second place guy to take power. Dion no more "acted" on it than Harper. Dion, was far more public, and open about his intentions however.

But look what's happened. Conservative supporters managing to go in circles around what is completely obvious, and very little attention on issues, and Harper's record.

Funny that. With Harper's record of reckless over spending, I suppose I'd be pretty interested in taking the voter's eye off the ball too.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Is that what you see? I see steely resolve on the part of Harper as he stays on message, an already defensive and increasingly desperate Iggy and a Jack Layton gone AWOL.


one person's message track is another person's skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record skipping record.......


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Is that what you see? I see steely resolve on the part of Harper as he stays on message, an already defensive and increasingly desperate Iggy and a Jack Layton gone AWOL.
> 
> Duceppe? He'll fight like a wildcat to prevent majorities of either the Liberals or Conservatives, even if it means twisting the truth.


increasingly desperate Iggy? It's 2 of the campaign. It seems the desperation and obsession with the dirty coalition is coming from somewhere else.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> increasingly desperate Iggy? It's 2 of the campaign. It seems the desperation and obsession with the dirty coalition is coming from somewhere else.


It'd be fun to see the world through your pink-coloured glasses for a minute. Maybe set up an "Alternate Universe" booth at the CNE and charge people a buck to look through 'em.


----------



## Max

Yes, the world is so much better viewed through thick blue glass. _Hoo boy_. Pot, meet kettle - you're going to get along like a house on fire.


----------



## BigDL

Cry baby Harper.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Yes, the world is so much better viewed through thick blue glass. _Hoo boy_. Pot, meet kettle - you're going to get along like a house on fire.


generally this is where he goes whenever a little sanity is attempted at the shrieking.

And to start with this Iggy's desperate! I'd love to look through... blah blah...

It is indeed shrieking. Perhaps it can get back down to, what were we talking about again? damn, hoodwinked by the shiny ball conservative tactics again!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It'd be fun to see the world through your pink-coloured glasses for a minute. Maybe set up an "Alternate Universe" booth at the CNE and charge people a buck to look through 'em.


Well that was rather intelligent, but I wasn't done putting the nails in the coffin that was "coalition! arrrghhh! Harper's was different!!!" 

Before moving on, I'm still mildly interested in how you see Harper, having been second, taking power without an election with the support of the bloc and the ndp as any different to what the liberals are being accused of.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> No, the total share of government take paid by corporations exceeds most other countries. GE has been playing ball with Obama, so no surprise there.


No it doesn't. The corporate tax rate is high in theory, but in practise it's quite low.

GE’s Scandalous Tax Breaks Are Rooted in Politics | BNET



> The idea that U.S. corporations are heavily or even meaningfully taxed is a canard (and this is true at the small end of the spectrum too). While nominal tax rates may appear to take a serious bite out of corporate earnings, a myriad of loopholes and income-shifting schemes allows companies to slip the taxman’s leash.


----------



## Ottawaman

Macfury said:


> Is that what you see? I see steely resolve on the part of Harper as he stays on message, an already defensive and increasingly desperate Iggy and a Jack Layton gone AWOL.


I see a Harper who stays on message so much that he can't deal with unscripted questions and usually blows off the press.


----------



## Max

Same here, Ottawaman. He sticks to script because he knows if he repeats it often enough it'll stick - and going off-script is a great way to lose control of the message.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Same here, Ottawaman. He sticks to script because he knows if he repeats it often enough it'll stick - and going off-script is a great way to lose control of the message.


Really? How is this different from any leader in Canada or around the world... going off script is a communications 101 failure.


----------



## groovetube

So far, as of day 2, Harper's message is to flagrantly lie to Canadians.

I haven't heard much about Iggy other than he was in Quebec.


----------



## BigDL

Ottawaman said:


> I see a Harper who stays on message so much that he can't deal with unscripted questions and usually blows off the press.


On Harper's NewConservativeParty©®™ (or the NCP Party if you will) campaign plane, reporter, Terry Milewski must be as welcome as a skunk at a garden party.


----------



## wwj

mrjimmy said:


> No more than anyone else here I suspect.


Accurate suspicion mrjimmy. No chip at all in fact.

Just wondering out loud why the other half of us (actually more than half) is so noticeable by their absence in this debate. But I digress. Back to the blather.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> On Harper's NewConservativeParty©®™ (or the NCP Party if you will) campaign plane, reporter, Terry Milewski must be as welcome as a skunk at a garden party.


Or yet another election anywhere in Canada except the PMs plane.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> No it doesn't. The corporate tax rate is high in theory, but in practise it's quite low.
> 
> GE’s Scandalous Tax Breaks Are Rooted in Politics | BNET


Once you work in the federal rate, the state rate, alternative minimum tax, non-deductible state tax, the effective corporate tax rate is close to 35% according to a 2009 Canadian study of 80 countries by Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz at the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary. Canada fared far better at 20.5 per cent.


----------



## kps

More than a month ago I got a call from the Con Party looking for financial support...I told them they'll have my vote, nothing else. Today, as I sit here in Thornbury tethered to my iPhone, I drove through Wasaga and lo and behold...good old Helena Guergis already had her signs all over the place.

Simple conclusion...Harper wanted this election, they've been planning for a while. So, all the talk of not wanting the election is a bunch of BS...but I'm still voting Con. Better Harper than Iggy. Iggy scares me more than Harper and that is saying a lot.


----------



## Macfury

Yep. The calls have been coming for over a month now. They knew it was coming.


----------



## wwj

screature said:


> Value has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of interest plain and simple. No need to try and put a judgmental spin on matters. Many times things simply are what they are.


So...would you say that all the comments in this thread are judgement-free? Like "Value has nothing to do with it."?


----------



## Max

screature said:


> Really? How is this different from any leader in Canada or around the world... going off script is a communications 101 failure.


It isn't different; never said it was. But the more rigidly you stick to script, the more it looks like you've got something to hide. The trick is to remain firm without appearing robotic or palpably desperate.


----------



## Max

wwj said:


> So...would you say that all the comments in this thread are judgement-free? Like "Value has nothing to do with it."?


Sounds like a pretty judgemental question there, wwj... does it have any value anyway?

Now where did I leave that dusty old winky emoticon.


----------



## wwj

screature said:


> Value has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of interest plain and simple. No need to try and put a judgmental spin on matters. Many times things simply are what they are.





wwj said:


> So...would you say that all the comments in this thread are judgement-free? Like "Value has nothing to do with it."?





Max said:


> Sounds like a pretty judgemental question there, wwj... does it have any value anyway?
> 
> Now where did I leave that dusty old winky emoticon.



Here come da judge!


----------



## Macfury

Max is the Pigmeat Markham of his generation.


----------



## Max

Indeed. And MF is the scallychinwag of his generation.... get to know us.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

wwj said:


> Here come da judge!


I'm not clear on the point you're making wwj. In this thread we're discussing the Canadian election. Might I suggest that you start a new thread where you can elaborate and discuss the viewpoint you have?

I think for the most party we're doing much better than Question Period here. Yes, it does sometimes get heated and occasionally over the top, but mostly it's pretty civil.

You're new here. Maybe you aren't aware that there is a history between many of the posters here, some of us have been debating and agreeing or disagreeing for many years, maybe even a decade for some. I personally enjoy the jousting for the most part and try to back off when I find myself getting too heated. Yes, it could be a male thing, and our egos can certainly be involved, I know mine does, but I try to keep my focus on issues rather than petty grievances (don't always succeed).

I get the impression from most who post here, from all political directions, that we do so because we actually care about these issues and their relevance to our country and our world. We also have fun debating, or we wouldn't do it.


----------



## Sonal

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're new here. Maybe you aren't aware that there is a history between many of the posters here, some of us have been debating and agreeing or disagreeing for many years, maybe even a decade for some. I personally enjoy the jousting for the most part and try to back off when I find myself getting too heated. Yes, it could be a male thing, and our egos can certainly be involved, I know mine does, but I try to keep my focus on issues rather than petty grievances (don't always succeed).


Yep. 

You see those thousands and thousands of posts? A lot of people on this thread earned 'em debating the same political views over the years.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Once you work in the federal rate, the state rate, alternative minimum tax, non-deductible state tax, the effective corporate tax rate is close to 35% according to a 2009 Canadian study of 80 countries by Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz at the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary. Canada fared far better at 20.5 per cent.


That's a bunch of BS. Again, on the surface people may think and see those numbers, but with the tax loopholes the US is one of the most corporate friendly countries in the word. 

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/taxchart2.png?tag=content;drawer-container

If the numbers really did add up the way you claim every corporation would simply move north to Canada and run their business from here. But they don't for the simple reason that they have an incredibly powerful lobby industry that allows them to control their government and maximize their profits. This is the model that Harper wants to erect for Canadians.


----------



## i-rui

kps said:


> More than a month ago I got a call from the Con Party looking for financial support...I told them they'll have my vote, nothing else. Today, as I sit here in Thornbury tethered to my iPhone, I drove through Wasaga and lo and behold...good old Helena Guergis already had her signs all over the place.


I'm sure she's running as an independent, correct?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> That's a bunch of BS.


Nice argument. No point going any further with that clincher.


----------



## kps

i-rui said:


> I'm sure she's running as an independent, correct?


Yeah....with deceivingly blue signs...as an "independent conservative". Go figger...LOL

Hope the voters of Bruce-Gray are smarter than that.


----------



## wwj

wwj said:


> Here come da judge!





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not clear on the point you're making wwj. In this thread we're discussing the Canadian election. Might I suggest that you start a new thread where you can elaborate and discuss the viewpoint you have?
> 
> I think for the most party we're doing much better than Question Period here. Yes, it does sometimes get heated and occasionally over the top, but mostly it's pretty civil.
> 
> You're new here. Maybe you aren't aware that there is a history between many of the posters here, some of us have been debating and agreeing or disagreeing for many years, maybe even a decade for some. I personally enjoy the jousting for the most part and try to back off when I find myself getting too heated. Yes, it could be a male thing, and our egos can certainly be involved, I know mine does, but I try to keep my focus on issues rather than petty grievances (don't always succeed).
> 
> I get the impression from most who post here, from all political directions, that we do so because we actually care about these issues and their relevance to our country and our world. We also have fun debating, or we wouldn't do it.




Chillax GratuitousApplesauce. We’re in Day 3 of a campaign with over a month left to run.

I am indeed a new poster, but I’ve been on ehMac for almost 8 years and I recognize many of the long-time posters. I also recognize that this thread is about the Canadian election. But I believe it’s also about the people who are contributing to the thread, and how they contribute. Because to me, politics is not just about the way we’re governed by party politicos in Ottawa. It’s also about the way we govern ourselves, and each other. We are an essential part of the body politic, and it’s that part I’m commenting on.

I assure you that I’m well aware of, and care about the importance of “the issues and their relevance to our country and the world.” But I’m also aware that our attachment to our opinions about those issues can easily lead to “I’m right you’re wrong” mindsets. And I believe we have more than enough of those in Ottawa.

So what do we accomplish by adding to them here? The joy of the joust? 

Then joust away.


----------



## Ottawaman

Questions limited, tempers flare




> When Stephen Harper was in opposition, in the 2004 campaign, he took every reporter's question during the daily scrum.
> 
> Things got testy at times. But everyone got one question.
> 
> Same with 2005/06. Over the campaign's eight weeks, every reporter got to ask him a question, every day.
> 
> In 2008, Stephen Harper's first as prime minister, there were so many reporters on the bus, we had to alternate days.
> 
> But now, in 2011, the questions are limited to four for those of us who are on the campaign plane at a cost of thousands of dollars a week.
> 
> And Conservative campaign staff wonder why everyone started shouting.
> 
> Anyone else who is applying for a job, even if they are reapplying, has to answer questions.
> 
> One hopes that tomorrow we get more


The Harper government wouldn't answer questions in Parliament either.


----------



## BigDL

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not clear on the point you're making wwj. In this thread we're discussing the Canadian election. Might I suggest that you start a new thread where you can elaborate and discuss the viewpoint you have?
> 
> I think for the most party we're doing much better than Question Period here. Yes, it does sometimes get heated and occasionally over the top, but mostly it's pretty civil.
> 
> You're new here. Maybe you aren't aware that there is a history between many of the posters here, some of us have been debating and agreeing or disagreeing for many years, maybe even a decade for some. I personally enjoy the jousting for the most part and try to back off when I find myself getting too heated. Yes, it could be a male thing, and our egos can certainly be involved, I know mine does, but I try to keep my focus on issues rather than petty grievances (don't always succeed).
> 
> I get the impression from most who post here, from all political directions, that we do so because we actually care about these issues and their relevance to our country and our world. We also have fun debating, or we wouldn't do it.


We have posters here that believe they are Mr./Ms. Speaker. The moderation of this thread are listed at the bottom of this page









People who have singed up as a member may post per the above screenshot. If someone believes the post is relevant respond with your own views. If you think the comments are irrelevant ignore them. Likely the person will become bored and fade away.

I don't think it is very welcoming in the sprite of this board especially to a new member to tell a member to buzz off and how they should and where they should post.

The members here by collective action of response or ignore generally moderate how the conservation flows.

If a member disagrees with a point of view attack the view not the person.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I don't think it is very welcoming in the sprite of this board especially to a new member to tell a member to buzz off and how they should and where they should post.


Then never do it! In the meantime, I don't see anything offensive.


----------



## groovetube

I hear Harper is gonna promise something really totally awesome for families, but uh, he can't deliver it until he like balances the budget and stuff maybe like 2014 or sometime after he likely will be voted out.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Then never do it! In the meantime, I don't see anything offensive.


+1 I think GA was actually polite and was just expressing his point of view... nothing wrong with his post in my books at all.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I hear Harper is gonna promise something really totally awesome for families, but uh, he can't deliver it until he like balances the budget and stuff maybe like 2014 or sometime after he likely will be voted out.


That sounds reasonable to me. A promise that costs nothing and makes everyone feel good.


----------



## groovetube

I wondered if he should maybe make the corp tax cut contingent on balancing the budget, or say those 30 billion dollar planes.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I wondered if he should maybe make the corp tax cut contingent on balancing the budget, or say those 30 billion dollar planes.


He should just say he's buying the planes to scare off the Russkies--then cancel the order later.


----------



## groovetube

I'm somehow thinking the "Russkies", couldn't care less about Canada's new handful of planes.


----------



## Max

Was listening to _The Current_ this morning as we were on the road. Of course, it was all about the election. Good round table of guests from left and right... some ex-Liberal senator (Smith?) made the point that in thirty years' time fighter jets will be unmanned drones. Never thought of it that way but I expect his prediction will come true. Deborah Grey was the designated Tory in the ring and she gave her trademark solid, stalwart delivery... she gave the impression of being continually surprised that anyone could seriously think of voting for anyone other than Harper. I had to laugh but I admire her dedication to the cause. She reminded me of our Sinc... right on message and firmly so.

Pretty much everyone on the panel agreed that the coalition as a talking point was will disappear within a few days because it's simply not enough to hang yer hat on. More substantial stuff will make its way into the mix shortly... and of course, it will be about money. Sounds about right.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

BigDL said:


> We have posters here that believe they are Mr./Ms. Speaker. The moderation of this thread are listed at the bottom of this page
> 
> View attachment 19095
> 
> 
> People who have singed up as a member may post per the above screenshot. If someone believes the post is relevant respond with your own views. If you think the comments are irrelevant ignore them. Likely the person will become bored and fade away.
> 
> I don't think it is very welcoming in the sprite of this board especially to a new member to tell a member to buzz off and how they should and where they should post.
> 
> The members here by collective action of response or ignore generally moderate how the conservation flows.
> 
> If a member disagrees with a point of view attack the view not the person.


Just to clarify, BigDL, I wasn't telling wwj to buzz off or attacking the person. That wasn't my intent in the least. I may not have communicated that well. This is one of the problems with a text-based medium and someone like me who can't always communicate my tone effectively. What I was trying to say was a suggestion only that wwj's line of questioning might be better and more thoroughly explored in a new thread dedicated specifically to the topic. Sorry if that didn't come across.

As well, I was attempting to defend our mode of political discussions here, which I think are mostly respectful and not nearly as vitriolic as you might see elsewhere. This is because of the particular history we have here on ehMac and the insistence by ehMax that we debate ideas, not attack each other. This is generally followed and I agree with it.

If you look further back in the thread, I enthusiastically agreed with an earlier post by wwj, because I think he/she was speaking the truth about politics in general. I welcome wwj's voice to ehMac.

I don't see myself as a moderator in the least. Anyone is free to ignore anything I might blurt out.



wwj said:


> Chillax GratuitousApplesauce. We’re in Day 3 of a campaign with over a month left to run.


I'm chillaxed ...

.......

......

.... ummm, what's chillax?


----------



## Max

Chill + relax = chillax

Like, dude!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Max said:


> Was listening to _The Current_ this morning as we were on the road. Of course, it was all about the election. Good round table of guests from left and right... some ex-Liberal senator (Smith?) made the point that in thirty years' time fighter jets will be unmanned drones. Never thought of it that way but I expect his prediction will come true. Deborah Grey was the designated Tory in the ring and she gave her trademark solid, stalwart delivery... she gave the impression of being continually surprised that anyone could seriously think of voting for anyone other than Harper. I had to laugh but I admire her dedication to the cause. She reminded me of our Sinc... right on message and firmly so.
> 
> Pretty much everyone on the panel agreed that the coalition as a talking point was will disappear within a few days because it's simply not enough to hang yer hat on. More substantial stuff will make its way into the mix shortly... and of course, it will be about money. Sounds about right.


That's funny, I'm listening to it right now as I type in British Columbia. They stagger it across the time zones.


----------



## Max

Good one indeed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Max said:


> Chill + relax = chillax
> 
> Like, dude!


ummm ... yo?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Just watched Steve speaking in Vancouver. Yesterday he spoke in Brampton. If you look at his podium there is no Con party symbol...the podium is emblazoned with a really ugly graphic that reads "Canada".
It will be interesting to see if the Cons follow through with this throughout the campaign. I realize there trying to create an image of the Cons as Canada's party, however, imagine all the new Canadians that they're trying to solicit when they go to the ballot and find out there is no Canada party candidate. Good luck with that Stevie.


----------



## i-rui




----------



## BigDL

I too heard Cry Baby Harper's announcement and as I predicted the NewConservativeParty (NCP) have nothing left. One day, some day, possibly.

MF will like the conservatives sharing sentiments with the Sally Ann by which I mean "Pie in the sky bye and bye."

____________________________not
Well! Was there ever a more ^ concrete proposal.


----------



## BigDL

I saw Ignatieff this morning and I thought he did a much better job with his speech than did Cry Baby Harper.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> I saw Iggy this morning and I thought he did a much better job with his speech than did Cry Baby Harper.


I guess you missed the lead post in this thread, judging by your "cry baby" name calling?



groovetube said:


> Ok let's move into an election thread, from the there -might- be one, thread. Harper is reportedly headed to Rideau hall as I type.
> 
> How about this, no references to polls as nyah nayhs. More about actual policy. Less swiping things like, "the coalition", or references to Harper as a nazi. Or Jack as Taliban jack, the sort of thing to light the powder keg. Is it possible?
> 
> I'll try.


----------



## dona83

This election is Jack Layton's time to shine. I like Ignatieff but he can't win this uphill battle this election, the Liberals will need a new leader.


----------



## groovetube

I will save my judgement of Iggy as a leader til I see his performance in this campaign.

Unfortunately for Jack, this election could come down to a 2 horse race.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I guess you missed the lead post in this thread, judging by your "cry baby" name calling?


I corrected the spelling of Ignatieff.

The Cry Baby Harper is message track as discussed earlier. While Mr. Harper remains on his lying message track regarding a coalition I hear him distinctly saying Cry Baby Harper.


----------



## SINC

It must be tough to be so jaded that you cannot comment objectively without resorting to name calling when gt asked we didn't. Carry on breaking the spirit of the thread, by all means.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> This election is Jack Layton's time to shine. I like Ignatieff but he can't win this uphill battle this election, the Liberals will need a new leader.


An interesting point, dona83. Personally, even though I am voting for the NDP here in St.John's East, I would truly have liked to have seen Ed Broadbent as PM. Did not happen. Stephen Lewis is another person who I would have liked to have seen as PM.

If the NDP does not make significant gains in this election, I think that Layton might use his health as the way to quietly leave the leadership role he has held for the past few elections. We shall see. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

That series of misguided policy attack photos on the previous page of the thread is pretty funny--delivered as facts of course. I hope this is the way the Liberals run their campaign.

It certainly is Jack Layton's last chance to shine-though I suspect only his supporters will notice if he does so or not.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Bunch of images....


Really... Post fail.... as another member here has so eloquently put it... I HATE SCROLLING.

Especially when there is no reward for doing so..... Lame.


----------



## screature

dona83 said:


> This election is Jack Layton's time to shine. I like Ignatieff but he can't win this uphill battle this election, the Liberals will need a new leader.


It could be his "swan song"..... 

I wish him the best in his recovery.... I heard from a friend whose mother is a doctor that the reasons for his crutches may be indicative of something much worse than he is letting on... I hope she is wrong for his sake.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Really... Post fail.... as another member here has so eloquently put it... I HATE SCROLLING.
> 
> Especially when there is no reward for doing so..... Lame.


6 people (maybe more) liked it. I guess you're in the minority (just like the conservatives).

oh i forgot, you're not a conservative...you're "non-partisan".


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> 6 people (maybe more) liked it. I guess you're in the minority (just like the conservatives).
> 
> oh i forgot, you're not a conservative...you're "non-partisan".


I'd have enjoyed it more if it didn't take up such a huge amount of real estate. Why waste everyone's time with the redundant images?


----------



## i-rui

yes, it must have taken all of 2 seconds to scroll past. Huge waste of time.

It's called an internet meme. the redundant image is the whole point. Sorry you don't get "it".


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> yes, it must have taken all of 2 seconds to scroll past. Huge waste of time.
> 
> It's called an internet meme. the redundant image is the whole point. Sorry you don't get "it".


Dull repetition with no pay-off is now an "internet meme"? Nice try.


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> yes, it must have taken all of 2 seconds to scroll past. Huge waste of time.
> 
> It's called an internet meme. the redundant image is the whole point. Sorry you don't get "it".


I don't know, I call it kind of irritating to scroll through. Couldn't it have been tiled in some way? Like, 5-6 in a line, which gives you your redundant, repetitive image without having to scroll?

EDIT: Oh, and a bit smaller so that 5-6 in a row didn't lead to horizontal scrolling....


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> It could be his "swan song".....
> 
> I wish him the best in his recovery.... I heard from a friend whose mother is a doctor that the reasons for his crutches may be indicative of something much worse than he is letting on... I hope she is wrong for his sake.


I hope so as well, screature. Our MP here in St.John's East, Jack Harris, is, in my opinion, a possible leadership candidate, but we are not sure if he wants the role. For now, he is content with being an MP and receiving over 50% of the vote in this riding, which is traditionally a Conservative riding. We shall see.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Dull repetition with no pay-off is now an "internet meme"? Nice try.


How ironic.

"Dull repetition with no pay-off" perfectly sums up Harper's tenure as PM.


----------



## i-rui

Sonal said:


> I don't know, I call it kind of irritating to scroll through. Couldn't it have been tiled in some way? Like, 5-6 in a line, which gives you your redundant, repetitive image without having to scroll?
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and a bit smaller so that 5-6 in a row didn't lead to horizontal scrolling....


i've doubled them up. any more than that and i think it will screw up the page's formatting.


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> i've doubled them up. any more than that and i think it will screw up the page's formatting.


That's a big improvement. Thanks.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Really... Post fail.... as another member here has so eloquently put it... I HATE SCROLLING.
> 
> Especially when there is no reward for doing so..... Lame.


According to the like option it's the number one post in this thread.


----------



## Sonal

jimbotelecom said:


> According to the like option it's the number one post in this thread.


To be fair, there's no dislike button....

Some things, you just love 'em or hate 'em, no in between.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> 6 people (maybe more) liked it. I guess you're in the minority (just like the conservatives).
> 
> oh i forgot, you're not a conservative...you're "non-partisan".


I really could care less who liked it... It has nothing to do with the content (i.e. your partisan reference) and everything to do with the delivery.... go ahead and post well reasoned posts as to why you HATE Harper and the Conservatives I have absolutely no trouble with that. Dominating a complete page with nothing original to say... that is my problem.. post a link or something. IMO it was a post FAIL and I am entitled to to my opinion last I checked.

If we are going to start bandying about how many "likes" a post gets as a "Badge of Honour" then may be I have a new reason not to like the "Like" feature... Thanks for that after I just had come to a different opinion.....


----------



## jimbotelecom

Oh Oh the Cons are at it again......

Tory candidate lobbied for F-35 jet firm - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## Max

_Quel surprise!_


----------



## Lawrence

"I can promise you the future"

Great campaign..."Not"


----------



## Macfury

dolawren said:


> "I can promise you the future"
> 
> Great campaign..."Not"


It being one of your favourite pastimes, I thought...


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> I am entitled to to my opinion last I checked.


never said you weren't. I simply responded by pointing out that several members enjoyed the post.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> It being one of your favourite pastimes, I thought...


What is a pastimes?


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> It being one of your favourite pastimes, I thought...


Trudeau actually sold the future to pay for the present,
But I never thought that the Tories would ever stoop to such a concept,


----------



## Kazak

jimbotelecom said:


> What is a pastimes?


"Pastimes" is correct as the plural of "pastime." We should assume dolawren's signature is an intentional pun.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Kazak said:


> "Pastimes" is correct as the plural of "pastime." We should assume dolawren's signature is an intentional pun.


OK I can bend.


----------



## Lawrence

Kazak said:


> "Pastimes" is correct as the plural of "pastime." We should assume dolawren's signature is an intentional pun.


Basically, It's the same as "Nothing is impossible"
An oxymoron, Or as they said in the 70's "a catch 22"

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Basically in lay mans terms...It's a trap.

The future is the trap.

But to promise the future is a political trap.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> I really could care less who liked it... :


 How much less could you care about popularity?


----------



## Sonal

dolawren said:


> But to promise the future is a political trap.


What else can someone actually promise? The past? The past is done.

How does any politician campaign without making promises about the future being better? "I'll see what I can do" isn't much of a winning slogan.


----------



## BigDL

dolawren said:


> Basically, It's the same as "Nothing is impossible"
> An oxymoron, Or as they said in the 70's "a catch 22"
> 
> Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
> 
> Basically in lay mans terms...It's a trap.
> 
> The future is the trap.
> 
> But to promise the future is a political trap.


The Conservatives seem to be "deficit financing" campaign promises. They've run of promises for this election so they are starting to promise for the following election. 

____________________________________________________not_________________
Yes sir have all the pie in the sky bye and bye you can^ eat to infinity and beyond.


----------



## Lawrence

BigDL said:


> The Conservatives seem to be "deficit financing" campaign promises. They've run of promises for this election so they are starting to promise for the following election.
> 
> ____________________________________________________not_________________
> Yes sir have all the pie in the sky bye and bye you can^ eat to infinity and beyound.


Exactly, Like I said, Trudeau used that platform in the past,
Sure, He succeeded, But at what cost?, It took forever to get Canada out of that deficit,
Although, It was the brilliance of the Martin government that finally got us out of it.

Are we really ready to plunge back into that kind of debt again?

I think I'd rather move down south and retire before that day comes yet again.


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> What else can someone actually promise? The past? The past is done.
> 
> How does any politician campaign without making promises about the future being better? "I'll see what I can do" isn't much of a winning slogan.


Maybe Harper can promise to Prorogue Parliament again if he doesn't win.

"The kids in the school yard won't play nice with me...Wahhhh"

Although, Harper could promise to cancel the Jets, The Prisons, The tax cuts....


----------



## SINC

dolawren said:


> I think I'd rather move down south and retire before that day comes yet again.


Spoken like an untrue Canadian.


----------



## Lawrence

SINC said:


> Spoken like an untrue Canadian.


Why not, Wasn't there an absentee MPP that did the same thing and got paid for it?
Hell, If I worked for the government then I'd want to get away from Canada too.

But, Truly, I'm a dual citizen, British and Canadian,
I think I'd take off for the British Virgin Islands.


----------



## Max

Man, we're a few days in and already the histrionics are in full force. So now we're defining true Canadians? Say, do helpful armbands come with that?

The tragedy of all this is that we have a vital democracy but we're too cranky to celebrate it. We're in one of the greatest nations but partisan bickering is all the rage. What epic silliness.

Oh well. Pardon me. Just had to get that off my chest. Carry on the assassinations! Let the terrible flow of cyber-blood continue unimpeded.


----------



## Macfury

dolawren said:


> Although, It was the brilliance of the Martin government that finally got us out of it.


Our accumulated debt is monstrous. The best Martin could do was to keep taxes high to temporarily balance the budget--and during a good economy. Opportunism, but not genius.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> It being one of your favourite pastimes, I thought...




Did you get the meaning of my avatar too?


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> Our accumulated debt is monstrous. The best Martin could do was to keep taxes high to temporarily balance the budget--and during a good economy. Opportunism, but not genius.


Oh...I don't know, Better than a certain triplet that can only afford to resole his shoes.


----------



## BigDL

Max said:


> Man, we're a few days in and already the histrionics are in full force. So now we're defining true Canadians? Say, do helpful armbands come with that?
> 
> The tragedy of all this is that we have a vital democracy but we're too cranky to celebrate it. We're in one of the greatest nations but partisan bickering is all the rage. What epic silliness...


So true.

Now! Cue the attack Ads!


----------



## Macfury

dolawren said:


> Did you get the meaning of my avatar too?


I recognize The Magician, but the various Tarot decks are so diverse in interpretation I can't guess what he means to you.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> I recognize The Magician, but the various Tarot decks are so diverse in interpretation I can't guess what he means to you.


"The ability to take the power from above and direct it through desire into manifestation"

That's the basic meaning of the card.

But to me... It's more the meaning of someone that is able to make the unseen seen
by using the powers of the elements.


----------



## da_jonesy

What's going on? The right wing press is not doing the Conservatives any favors running stories like these...

Poll: Tories lead, but have they topped out? | Decision 2011 | News | Toronto Sun

Tasha Kheiriddin: Harper’s Canada doesn’t include Quebec | Full Comment | National Post

Ex-adviser says Harper had coalition plan in 2004 | Posted | National Post


----------



## Max

Something tells me this particular campaign is going to run like a top-heavy bus charging down a curvy mountain pass.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Something tells me this particular campaign is going to run like a top-heavy bus charging down a curvy mountain pass.


Time to raise the flags of all nations!!!


----------



## groovetube

the right is well aware that being confident of a majority = minority.

Once Canadians think Harper is going to get a majority, buh bye chance. It appears the harper party needs to be sneaky about it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

da_jonesy said:


> Ex-adviser says Harper had coalition plan in 2004 | Posted | National Post


I thought the picture they used in this article was interesting ...


----------



## jimbotelecom

This is related to "hookergate". It's good to see a Con being chased from office.

YouTube - Harper's Advisor Bruce Carson Canada Votes 2011

YouTube - Ethics Canada Votes 2011

Thank you APTN!


----------



## BigDL

I happened to be in Winnipeg and wandered down to the forks on the day APTN launched. I understood the Network was to focus on Aboriginal culture, language and entertainment.

I now suspect someone in the crowd, on that day, knew this Network would produce this type of investigative journalism, but it certainly wasn't me.

Good Job well done.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Quiet today.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Quiet today.


That's because many of us are outraged at the policy proposals today by the Liberals with their Canadian Learning Passport, paid for by higher corporate taxes, and the NDP with their cap on credit card interest rates, which hit hard at the major banks here in Canada. Banks were just getting back to their "good old days" of strong profits in each quarter. tptptptp

The Conservatives need to go on the offensive and "rage against the machine" of these social do-gooders who want to rip off the rich and spread the wealth to those who need some help.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Oh Oh...more sleazy activity from the Cons:

Disgraced staffer’s campaign role puts Harper on defensive - The Globe and Mail


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Oh Oh...more sleazy activity from the Cons:
> 
> Disgraced staffer’s campaign role puts Harper on defensive - The Globe and Mail


Mr. Togneri is currently a private citizen (no longer on the government payroll) and can volunteer for whom ever he chooses...

I will grant you it makes for bad optics and thus why he was asked to "resign" (if that can even be the correct term) his volunteer ship by someone ...

OH... MY... GOD... Another scandal...


----------



## jimbotelecom

^^^^^^^^^^

A scandal a day keeps the voters away!


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> A scandal a day keeps the voters away!


:lmao: I think the word scandal needs a reality check with some people....


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> That's because many of us are outraged at the policy proposals today by the Liberals with their Canadian Learning Passport, paid for by higher corporate taxes, and the NDP with their cap on credit card interest rates, which hit hard at the major banks here in Canada. Banks were just getting back to their "good old days" of strong profits in each quarter. tptptptp
> 
> The Conservatives need to go on the offensive and "rage against the machine" of these social do-gooders who want to rip off the rich and spread the wealth to those who need some help.


Such sarcasm Dr. G... you don't wear it well.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> That's because many of us are outraged at the policy proposals today by the Liberals with their Canadian Learning Passport, paid for by higher corporate taxes, and the NDP with their cap on credit card interest rates, which hit hard at the major banks here in Canada. Banks were just getting back to their "good old days" of strong profits in each quarter. tptptptp
> 
> The Conservatives need to go on the offensive and "rage against the machine" of these social do-gooders who want to rip off the rich and spread the wealth to those who need some help.





screature said:


> Such sarcasm Dr. G... you don't wear it well.


One person's sarcasm is another person's satire. I say nice satire.

Dr.G. if I may make a suggestion, as there seems to be many here and in the society in general, whereas some people are irony, mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature challenged. It might be advisable to be pre-emptive with your future posting.

Perhaps you will recall the TV program "22 Minutes" offered a warning at the commencement of the show. To paraphrase the cautionary notice

"WARNING this show is a satirical look at...."


----------



## Max

Indeed. For some, the best preparation is an initial fusillade of helpful emoticons - that they can readily comprehend. Then and only then may you send your satire and sarcasm into the battle and be assured of a margin of success.


----------



## da_jonesy

Wow the US GAO just sunk the Conservatives numbers on the F35 on CBC Power and Politics. They are saying $110m per Unit where the Conservatives are saying $75m


----------



## jimbotelecom

da_jonesy said:


> Wow the US GAO just sunk the Conservatives numbers on the F35 on CBC Power and Politics. They are saying $110m per Unit where the Conservatives are saying $75m


Tsk Tsk Tsk:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Max

Only 50% more? Chickenfeed. Watch it climb to $125m when all is said and done.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Such sarcasm Dr. G... you don't wear it well.


Well, it beats having to consider Conservative scandals. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> One person's sarcasm is another person's satire. I say nice satire.
> 
> Dr.G. if I may make a suggestion, as there seems to be many here and in the society in general, whereas some people are irony, mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature challenged. It might be advisable to be pre-emptive with your future posting.
> 
> Perhaps you will recall the TV program "22 Minutes" offered a warning at the commencement of the show. To paraphrase the cautionary notice
> 
> "WARNING this show is a satirical look at...."


Good suggestion, BigDL. I just tire of the back and forth of blasting the same parties/candidates/leaders. I guess I was hoping that someone would pick up on the actual issues. Today was a big issue day for most of the parties. Such is Life. Paix, mon ami.

Re 22 Minutes, love that show, especially in the early years.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Indeed. For some, the best preparation is an initial fusillade of helpful emoticons - that they can readily comprehend. Then and only then may you send your satire and sarcasm into the battle and be assured of a margin of success.


True. Very wise advice, Max. Paix, mon ami.

"Death before Dishonor" ............ "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" ............... "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!" ............ "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."


----------



## Max

The die is cast, Dr. G. We can only get out the vote and, come judgement day, hope for the best.

Meanwhile we must of course bear witness to the usual shenanigans with suspect numbers, bald promises, duplicity and alliances of convenience.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> The die is cast, Dr. G. We can only get out the vote and, come judgement day, hope for the best.
> 
> Meanwhile we must of course bear witness to the usual shenanigans with suspect numbers, bald promises, duplicity and alliances of convenience.


All too true, Max. Too bad we could not go straight to the debates between the leaders ........... true debates ............ one on one for an hour. It might take a few days, but then we go straight to the voting. As well, all ads will be banned from being aired in any manner until after the voting is over and the results are in.


----------



## groovetube

at this point I always find this image pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Dr.G.

Dr.G. said:


> All too true, Max. Too bad we could not go straight to the debates between the leaders ........... true debates ............ one on one for an hour. It might take a few days, but then we go straight to the voting. As well, all ads will be banned from being aired in any manner until after the voting is over and the results are in.


"Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she's shocked by a decision to exclude her from the televised party leaders' debates but said she is determined to take part." 

May not welcome in leaders' debates: networks - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


tptptptptptptptp Not fair. The Green Party gets more votes nationally (i.e., outside of Quebec) than the Bloc, so why is she excluded?????


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Good suggestion, BigDL. I just tire of the back and forth of blasting the same parties/candidates/leaders. I guess I was hoping that someone would pick up on the actual issues. Today was a big issue day for most of the parties. Such is Life. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> Re 22 Minutes, love that show, especially in the early years.


....the early years...they were dangerous...when they still had the warning.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Indeed. For some, the best preparation is an initial fusillade of helpful emoticons - that they can readily comprehend. Then and only then may you send your satire and sarcasm into the battle and be assured of a margin of success.


I think I interpreted Dr. G.'s post quite accurately despite your not very well concealed attempt at mockery...

Sarcasm/Satire... Does it really matter...?

satire |ˈsaˌtīr|
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

sarcasm |ˈsärˌkazəm|
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at wit .


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Well, it beats having to consider Conservative* scandals*. Paix, mon ami.


As I mentioned before some people need to have a reality check as to what constitutes a scandal....


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> "Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she's shocked by a decision to exclude her from the televised party leaders' debates but said she is determined to take part."
> 
> May not welcome in leaders' debates: networks - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News
> 
> 
> tptptptptptptptp Not fair. The Green Party gets more votes nationally (i.e., outside of Quebec) than the Bloc, so why is she excluded?????


We should be exposed to all ideas even the dangerous ones, why the conservative wild ideas are widely reported. Ohdear! did I say that out loud. 

The Green's platform and Elizabeth May must be part of the National discourse during this election.


----------



## Lawrence

Harper looks like a drunken sailor without a tie.


----------



## groovetube

I've read in a few places, asking what is going on with the Harper campaign. It isn't the well oiled machine expected to steamroller the others we were expecting. Granted, the tories are riding high in the polls, but if they run a crappy campaign, that could change quite quickly.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> We should be exposed to all ideas even the dangerous ones, why the conservative wild ideas are widely reported. Ohdear! did I say that out loud.
> 
> The Green's platform and Elizabeth May must be part of the National discourse during this election.


Toss Duceppe, the provincial separatist politician and insert May in his place in a national debate works very well for me.


----------



## Max

Scripture: how goes the tilting at windmills? Ta for the friendly definitions... Gosh, I had no idea!

Oh well... toss at me your best set of rolleyes and we'll be done.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> We should be exposed to all ideas even the dangerous ones, why the conservative wild ideas are widely reported. Ohdear! did I say that out loud.
> 
> The Green's platform and Elizabeth May must be part of the National discourse during this election.


Totally agree, BigDL. Canada, outside of Quebec, shall hear the views of any leader of the Bloc, so that should also be accorded to the other national party, the Green Party.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Toss Duceppe, the provincial separatist politician and insert May in his place in a national debate works very well for me.


No, I think that all five national party leaders should be heard. To exclude Duceppe makes excluding May acceptable today. I still feel that true debates, one on one for an hour, This would mean ten hours of debates, two hours a night for five nights. That way, everyone has a fair chance to present his/her party's views and to have those views challenged by someone of the opposing party .................. ALL the parties.


----------



## BigDL

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> A scandal a day keeps the voters away!





screature said:


> :lmao: I think the word scandal needs a reality check with some people....





screature said:


> As I mentioned before some people need to have a reality check as to what constitutes a scandal....


After viewing CBC's Power and Politics (you may want to click on the video segments) for the full effect of the F-35 fighter jets costs and the impact on the Conservatives campaign.

The true cost of F-35 fighter Jets and the Conservative claims/position may not be a scandal but instead merely scandalous... Truer costs of F-35 Jet Fighter and Conservative's Truthyness


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> tptptptptptptptp Not fair. The Green Party gets more votes nationally (i.e., outside of Quebec) than the Bloc, so why is she excluded?????


Because her party has NEVER won a single seat. 

I would have no problem if they excluded the Bloc from debate as well as they only run candidates in one region.


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> Because her party has NEVER won a single seat.
> 
> I would have no problem if they excluded the Bloc from debate as well as they only run candidates in one region.


Still, many people vote for the Green Party. If their leader is not allowed to have her say, why let them on the ballot in the first place? By this logic, since the NDP has never had a PM, why not just have a coin toss between the Liberal and Conservative leader on the steps of Parliament. The current PM would call it, and the winner becomes the leader with a majority government for the next four years. We could even use Harper's fixed election date for the next coin toss. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Lawrence

Vandave said:


> Because her party has NEVER won a single seat.
> 
> I would have no problem if they excluded the Bloc from debate as well as they only run candidates in one region.


If she concentrated her efforts in one tiny province like P.E.I.
Then she would stand a very big chance of getting a seat.

I really can't see why she is wasting her time in B.C.


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> Still, many people vote for the Green Party. If their leader is not allowed to have her say, why let them on the ballot in the first place? By this logic, since the NDP has never had a PM, why not just have a coin toss between the Liberal and Conservative leader on the steps of Parliament. The current PM would call it, and the winner becomes the leader with a majority government for the next four years. We could even use Harper's fixed election date for the next coin toss.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


A lot of people also vote Christian Heritage and Leninist Marxist. Should we let those wing-nuts in the debate as well?

The debate is about who should represent us in the House of Commons. If these parties are unable to represent us, then I don't see how they can be in the debate. I would still oppose it if the Greens had won one seat. If 7% of the voters are looking to place their vote for the Greens, they still can. If they want their issues represented, then the major parties will try to court that type of support and speak to such issues.


----------



## kps

So Layton's NDP is offering to legislate how much the blood sucking banks can charge in credit card interest. Credit card agreements which were freely entered into by the card holder, and maxed out without care or reason by the card holder.

Yet I don't hear the NDP trying to legislate the end to front loaded mortgages, which not only provide shelter (a basic necessity) but are tied into the single largest investment most Canadians make in their lifetime. I don't hear them offering to allow writing off the interest on your yearly taxes either.

Another useless NDP smoke and mirror FAIL! Is that all Jack has to offer? tptptptp


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> A lot of people also vote Christian Heritage and Leninist Marxist. Should we let those wing-nuts in the debate as well?
> 
> The debate is about who should represent us in the House of Commons. If these parties are unable to represent us, then I don't see how they can be in the debate. I would still oppose it if the Greens had won one seat. If 7% of the voters are looking to place their vote for the Greens, they still can. If they want their issues represented, then the major parties will try to court that type of support and speak to such issues.


If these parties are registered and running in nearly or every riding, why not?

Ideas too scary for us, come on we are Canadians we can handle it.


----------



## Lawrence

kps said:


> So Layton's NDP is offering to legislate how much the blood sucking banks can charge in credit card interest. Credit card agreements which were freely entered into by the card holder, and maxed out without care or reason by the card holder.
> 
> Yet I don't hear the NDP trying to legislate the end to front loaded mortgages, which not only provide shelter (a basic necessity) but are tied into the single largest investment most Canadians make in their lifetime. I don't hear them offering to allow writing off the interest on your yearly taxes either.
> 
> Another useless NDP smoke and mirror FAIL! Is that all Jack has to offer? tptptptp


If the poor are using credit cards to buy groceries and can't afford high interest rates,
Then it would make sense that the government should go into the food stamp business.

Eliminate the need for the credit card for food makes more sense,
Heaven forbid the poor should get welfare.


----------



## SINC

Lawrence said:


> If the poor are using credit cards to buy groceries and can't afford high interest rates,
> Then it would make sense that the government should go into the food stamp business.


So, enlighten us, just how does a poor person with little or no income obtain this credit card?


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> So, enlighten us, just how does a poor person with little or no income obtain this credit card?


Virtually anyone can get a credit card. Anyone.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Virtually anyone can get a credit card. Anyone.


I see, so a homeless person with no job, no income and no address can obtain a credit card? In your dreams.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I see, so a homeless person with no job, no income and no address can obtain a credit card? In your dreams.


So this is your definition of 'a poor person'? Feels pretty naive to me. Plenty of poor people live in apartments, have jobs and meager incomes. 

They still are, very much, 'poor'.


----------



## mrjimmy

kps said:


> So Layton's NDP is offering to legislate how much the blood sucking banks can charge in credit card interest. Credit card agreements which were freely entered into by the card holder, and maxed out without care or reason by the card holder.
> 
> Yet I don't hear the NDP trying to legislate the end to front loaded mortgages, which not only provide shelter (a basic necessity) but are tied into the single largest investment most Canadians make in their lifetime. I don't hear them offering to allow writing off the interest on your yearly taxes either.
> 
> Another useless NDP smoke and mirror FAIL! Is that all Jack has to offer? tptptptp


Kps, Steve's income splitting (empty) promise isn't much better. Who really benefits? High wage earners with a stay at home (wife) spouse. Also, it's years down the road to take effect; at which point could be long forgotten or canceled by the government of the day. All good news B.S. electioneering by all.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I see, so a homeless person with no job, no income and no address can obtain a credit card? In your dreams.


You ever been to a University campus on the first day and see the first year students being targeted by the Credit Card Vultures.

If you think slavery is a thing of the past in Canada you are sadly mistaken. The indentured slave is alive and well with high interest rate credit cards.


----------



## i-rui

A lot of these credit cards have 0.9% introductory rates that climb to 19+% after 6 months. It's BS. The NDP is right to make it a campaign issue. Why give Banks such a pass for this type of behaviour. They get paid every which way imaginable. Why not limit their interest rate to something reasonable?

BTW the conservative Family Benefit was an absolute joke. The very definition of "empty promise".


----------



## Sonal

I get tenant who pay rent on those credit card cheques... really makes me wonder sometimes.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> A lot of people also vote Christian Heritage and Leninist Marxist. Should we let those wing-nuts in the debate as well?
> 
> The debate is about who should represent us in the House of Commons. If these parties are unable to represent us, then I don't see how they can be in the debate. I would still oppose it if the Greens had won one seat. If 7% of the voters are looking to place their vote for the Greens, they still can. If they want their issues represented, then the major parties will try to court that type of support and speak to such issues.


I say let the whole damn works in. Those representatives don't represent us, they are more interested in their careers and their golden pensions etc. Let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## Ottawaman

Power & Politics with Evan Solomon
Mike Sullivan, director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, comments on the accuracy of cost estimates for F-35 fighter jets in Canada




> Solomon first interviewed Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, who insisted that the Conservatives, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assertions to the contrary, will be able to buy 65 F-35 jets for $9 billion, including all of the associated infrastructure. He dismissed the objections raised by NDP candidate Jack Harris and Liberal candidate Dominic LeBlanc that this figure cannot withstand scrutiny, and that the costs will be much higher, ($120-$130 billion for each jet), telling them that they didn't understand the math behind the figure.
> 
> After the interview, Solomon conducted one with Mike Sullivan, the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office equivalent to both our Auditor General and our Parliamentary Budget Officer.


Politics and its Discontents: Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies

Interesting interview with someone in the know regarding the true cost of the F-35 jet.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> I say let the whole damn works in. Those representatives don't represent us, they are more interested in their careers and their golden pensions etc. Let's not kid ourselves.


They do represent 'us', but maybe not you. We do live in a Democracy and we get to choose those who represent us.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> They do represent 'us', but maybe not you. We do live in a Democracy and we get to choose those who represent us.


yes, in theory, they do. And for the most part, many of them do try. You'll just have to excuse me for being just a little bit cynical especially watching the last 8 or so years.


----------



## BigDL

Ottawaman said:


> Power & Politics with Evan Solomon
> Mike Sullivan, director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, comments on the accuracy of cost estimates for F-35 fighter jets in Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and its Discontents: Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies
> 
> Interesting interview with someone in the know regarding the true cost of the F-35 jet.


These are very interesting interviews. Laurie Hawn may have sunk the conservative campaign all on his own. 

Dr.G. should be well pleased with how his federal Parliamentary representative spoke. Dominic LeBlanc, a New Brunswick MP respectfully conducted his interview as well.

After listening to Mr. Sullivan and contrasting the "performance" of Mr. Hawn it should be easy for Canadians to decide whether Harper and his Conservative Government were properly found guilty of contempt.

conservative truthyness


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> yes, in theory, they do. And for the most part, many of them do try. You'll just have to excuse me for being just a little bit cynical especially watching the last 8 or so years.


And allowing extremists into a debate is supposed to help matters?


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> So Layton's NDP is offering to legislate how much the blood sucking banks can charge in credit card interest. Credit card agreements which were freely entered into by the card holder, and maxed out without care or reason by the card holder.
> 
> Yet I don't hear the NDP trying to legislate the end to front loaded mortgages, which not only provide shelter (a basic necessity) but are tied into the single largest investment most Canadians make in their lifetime. I don't hear them offering to allow writing off the interest on your yearly taxes either.
> 
> Another useless NDP smoke and mirror FAIL! Is that all Jack has to offer? tptptptp


Agreed 100%. Let go of that second tier of cable and live with a CRT instead of a flat screen.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Agreed 100%. Let go of that second tier of cable and live with a CRT instead of a flat screen.


Much better to look forward to pie in the sky bye and bye.

Speaking of the sky and the future how's about Mike Sullivan's assessment of the F-35 fighter jet's prices are going sky high unless one is to believe Laurie Hawn.


----------



## i-rui

Ottawaman said:


> Power & Politics with Evan Solomon
> Mike Sullivan, director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, comments on the accuracy of cost estimates for F-35 fighter jets in Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and its Discontents: Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies
> 
> Interesting interview with someone in the know regarding the true cost of the F-35 jet.


For heaven's sake don't let screature watch this..... the fact that Laurie Hawn is flat out wrong would make his brain explode.



Macfury said:


> Agreed 100%. Let go of that second tier of cable and live with a CRT instead of a flat screen.


what about groceries?

let them eat cake?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Agreed 100%. Let go of that second tier of cable and live with a CRT instead of a flat screen.


A telling assumption Macfury. You and kps assume that every person who maxes out their credit card is only doing so out of greed, laziness and stupidity.

Do you know any poor people? As Sonal says earlier in the thread she has had rent being paid by credit card cheques. Some of those people may indeed be stupid and greedy, many people with money in the bank can be stupid and greedy too, so what? Many of those people may also be caught up in circumstances beyond their control, suddenly not having enough money coming in to cover basic expenses, finding that maybe the car needs a $1000 repair and hoping that their credit cards can tide them over until their income can improve or they can overcome their unemployment.

I understand we have laws against loan-sharking and charging very high interest rates. I might be wrong here but I think the ceiling is 29% interest. I don't see anything wrong with the NDP's proposal to bring the ceiling down to something a little less exploitive. It would be great if they could go after those scummy payday loan companies too.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> And allowing extremists into a debate is supposed to help matters?


Yeah I agree. We shouldn't let Stephen Harper in the debate.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A telling assumption Macfury. You and kps assume that every person who maxes out their credit card is only doing so out of greed, laziness and stupidity.


Not everyone, but I've seen enough of up close. Just make it illegal for the poor to have credit cards--problem solved.


----------



## Dr T

*Poor people are not to be trusted*



Macfury said:


> Not everyone, but I've seen enough of up close. Just make it illegal for the poor to have credit cards--problem solved.


In the olden days, it was illegal for all Canadians to kite cheques. Nowadays, all the banks promote kiting. So the poorest people write cheques against one credit card to pay off the previous one. 

The best government will be the one that eliminates poverty.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Not everyone, but I've seen enough of up close. Just make it illegal for the poor to have credit cards--problem solved.


As we all know, anecdotes do not equal data. One problem with your solution, what of the people who weren't poor when they got those cards, but ended up poor because they lost their jobs, got ill, or were visited by some other unfortunate economic circumstance and hoped the card would help them tread water until they got back on their feet again? In my anecdotal experience there would be many in that boat.

The banks absolutely LOVE the high-interest cards, they don't like the people who pay off their bill every month and they actually seek out customers who are in trouble. They get reports from Equifax that let them know when people are starting to get into troubling debt and they send them letters offering them cards at great deals, with special offers where the person can use the credit card to pay off their other one at a low rate. But only for a few months at most, then the big charges kick in.

While personal bankruptcies have gone up, the rate is still relatively low. Most of the high-interest money gets paid back to them one way or another. Or if the person finally goes bankrupt it's not until they have already paid the principal off many times over. It's predatory lending aimed at vulnerable people with limited options for getting their hands on capital.

Of course if you're enough of a billionaire and you make a stupid decision with your investments, through your own greed and stupidity, your friends in government will bail you out because you're "too big to fail". If they demand any of your bail out be paid back it will be at really sweetheart interest rates, certainly not anywhere near 29%.


----------



## Macfury

The poor you will always have with you. The current crop of Canadians is poor on the Bell Curve... though richer than most citizens of the world.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> The poor you will always have with you. The current crop of Canadians is poor on the Bell Curve... though richer than most citizens of the world.


Thanks, I knew there was a good reason why we shouldn't go after predatory interest rates.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

I think I should have maybe put this in the "Harper Embarrassments" thread.

Raw video: Harper sings with YouTube sensation - Video Centre



> ..."' and no religion too.' ... I'm really going to get in trouble for this."


Yikes! This was really hard to watch.


----------



## kps

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As we all know, anecdotes do not equal data. One problem with your solution, what of the people who weren't poor when they got those cards, but ended up poor because they lost their jobs, got ill, or were visited by some other unfortunate economic circumstance and hoped the card would help them tread water until they got back on their feet again? In my anecdotal experience there would be many in that boat.
> 
> The banks absolutely LOVE the high-interest cards, they don't like the people who pay off their bill every month and they actually seek out customers who are in trouble. They get reports from Equifax that let them know when people are starting to get into troubling debt and they send them letters offering them cards at great deals, with special offers where the person can use the credit card to pay off their other one at a low rate. But only for a few months at most, then the big charges kick in.
> 
> While personal bankruptcies have gone up, the rate is still relatively low. Most of the high-interest money gets paid back to them one way or another. Or if the person finally goes bankrupt it's not until they have already paid the principal off many times over. It's predatory lending aimed at vulnerable people with limited options for getting their hands on capital.
> 
> Of course if you're enough of a billionaire and you make a stupid decision with your investments, through your own greed and stupidity, your friends in government will bail you out because you're "too big to fail". If they demand any of your bail out be paid back it will be at really sweetheart interest rates, certainly not anywhere near 29%.


If you have good enough credit to get a credit card at 20% you have credit good enough to get one at 11% or a personal line of credit at 7% and if you're a home owner with equity..for even less. So if you get caught short, it should not be a problem to repay a small debt.

If you choose to run up huge debts at 19+% on multiple cards...who's fault is that?


----------



## kps

mrjimmy said:


> Kps, Steve's income splitting (empty) promise isn't much better. Who really benefits? High wage earners with a stay at home (wife) spouse. Also, it's years down the road to take effect; at which point could be long forgotten or canceled by the government of the day. All good news B.S. electioneering by all.


Agreed, but Harper is not a socialist like Layton, I'd expect nothing less (or more) from Harper. They all talk about "families" this, "families" that...all feel good BS as you say. None of them define what and what kind of "family" they're really talking about. Families are as diverse as the pebbles on the beach.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> If these parties are registered and running in nearly or every riding, why not?
> 
> Ideas too scary for us, come on we are Canadians we can handle it.


An excellent point, BigDL. This is what I was about to say as well. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy

kps said:


> Agreed, but Harper is not a socialist like Layton, I'd expect nothing less (or more) from Harper. They all talk about "families" this, "families" that...all feel good BS as you say. None of them define what and what kind of "family" they're really talking about. Families are as diverse as the pebbles on the beach.


Harper's association with Charles McVety makes his viewpoint of what a 'family' is fairly clear.


----------



## Lawrence

BigDL said:


> You ever been to a University campus on the first day and see the first year students being targeted by the Credit Card Vultures.
> 
> If you think slavery is a thing of the past in Canada you are sadly mistaken. The indentured slave is alive and well with high interest rate credit cards.


True, Very true.

I too have one of those cards from my 2nd college that I went to in the mid 90's,
I was taking a course in Offset Printing and Desktop publishing for a career change.

The then Mike Harris government cut my course by 6 weeks and I ended up failing the course.
The government wanted their student loan and I refused to pay since they cut my course,
(They also stopped offering the course at the college)
I then applied for loan amnesty and got it based on those grounds.

The credit card that I used to buy books and a computer is still in my possession and
to this day I am still paying for those items and a few more things since they keep
giving me more and more credit.

Eventually I'll get it paid off (I hope)


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Scripture: how goes the tilting at windmills? Ta for the friendly definitions... Gosh, I had no idea!
> 
> Oh well... toss at me your best set of rolleyes and we'll be done.


My goodness people are grumpy around here these days...


----------



## screature

kps said:


> So Layton's NDP is offering to legislate how much the blood sucking banks can charge in credit card interest. Credit card agreements which were freely entered into by the card holder, and maxed out without care or reason by the card holder.
> 
> Yet I don't hear the NDP trying to legislate the end to front loaded mortgages, which not only provide shelter (a basic necessity) but are tied into the single largest investment most Canadians make in their lifetime. I don't hear them offering to allow writing off the interest on your yearly taxes either.
> 
> Another useless NDP smoke and mirror FAIL! Is that all Jack has to offer? tptptptp


It's all to easy to promote policy that you know you never even will have the opportunity to implement... Jack can promise the moon and the stars because he knows he will never have to be held accountable for them because he will never be PM or the NDP form the government.


----------



## ehMax

Not sure if this was posted anywhere. Found this hilarious video. Don't care what side of the political fence you're on, this is funny:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## jimbotelecom

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think I should have maybe put this in the "Harper Embarrassments" thread.
> 
> Raw video: Harper sings with YouTube sensation - Video Centre
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes! This was really hard to watch.


I'm now waiting for him to sing revolution. I detest this Con.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> It all to easy to promote policy that you no you never even have the opportunity to implement... Jack can promise the moon and the stars because he knows he will never have to held accountable for them because he will never be PM or the NDP form the government.


Crazier things have happened with fickle voters in the past.

You can't claim to know the future,
Unless you possess the gift of sight.


----------



## Sonal

Lawrence said:


> Crazier things have happened with fickle voters in the past.
> 
> You can't claim to know the future,
> Unless you possess the gift of sight.


No, but the NDP has never won more than 40 or seats. They are short by over 100. The one-province BQ gets more seats than them.

There aren't enough seats likely to flip parties to make it likely that they will win... don't have the stats in front of me, but there are what, 40-50 seats in Quebec that will not change from BQ this election, at least 20-30 in Alberta that will not change from Harper in this election... I know the Liberals will take my riding, and obviously the NDP does too, since they've run fairly weak candidates here, saving their better ones for ridings that they might conceivably win. The NDP's best hope is to shoot for Leader of the Opp, and even that's a stretch, if not a numerical impossibility.

Layton's bright enough to know this... he can say whatever he likes, but the NDP are not likely to win this election.


----------



## Max

Screature: my goodness gracious lawdamercy!

Grumpy, we are? Again, think.

[summoning my best Force]
________________________________

Seems the Prime Minister is really going for the gusto with this piano 'n singing vibe he's surfing. Well, Bill Clinton had his saxophone. It must help Stephen Harper in some quarters, mustn't it? _Some_ voters have got to be pumped about his latest daring duet. And heck, it appears to be the only time he's truly relaxed. I think maybe he's developing a second career, just in case the current paying gig goes bust.


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> No, but the NDP has never won more than 40 or seats. They are short by over 100. The one-province BQ gets more seats than them.
> 
> There aren't enough seats likely to flip parties to make it likely that they will win... don't have the stats in front of me, but there are what, 40-50 seats in Quebec that will not change from BQ this election, at least 20-30 in Alberta that will not change from Harper in this election... I know the Liberals will take my riding, and obviously the NDP does too, since they've run fairly weak candidates here, saving their better ones for ridings that they might conceivably win. The NDP's best hope is to shoot for Leader of the Opp, and even that's a stretch, if not a numerical impossibility.
> 
> Layton's bright enough to know this... he can say whatever he likes, but the NDP are not likely to win this election.


Any industrialized community isn't going to vote for the Tories,
That would include the auto sector and the steel industry.

So that would leave a split between the NDP and the Liberals for those votes.

If they do vote for the Tories, Then it must be a self punishment ritual that they like doing.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> My goodness people are grumpy around here these days...


Not grumpy here, screature. PM Harper is making a visit to St.John's tomorrow. So, we all get the day off, are being given little Canadian flags, and are being told to line the streets of his route to wave these flags. Sadly, the forecast is for wet snow, but we are being told to bundle up and be enthusiastic ............... or else.

So, it's happy time here in St.John's .............. at least until Thursday afternoon.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> For heaven's sake don't let screature watch this..... the fact that Laurie Hawn is flat out wrong would make his brain explode.


I watched both of them. No exploding brain here. Ultimately the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office said he can't comment on the number of $75M/plane because he doesn't know the process for how it was obtained. But obviously there is a disconnect between their process and ours...

Also quite clearly this number is a moving target as the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office said that efficiencies will be gained as the process matures, but right now it is not mature.

It seems that we are too early in the program to *know* what the final cost will be. I think it is safe to say in a couple of years there will be another report on the F-35 by the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office and we will see another number.


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> If you choose to run up huge debts at 19+% on multiple cards...who's fault is that?


Wahhhhhhhh! Everyone but the cardholder!


----------



## Sonal

Lawrence said:


> Any industrialized community isn't going to vote for the Tories,
> That would include the auto sector and the steel industry.
> 
> So that would leave a split between the NDP and the Liberals for those votes.
> 
> If they do vote for the Tories, Then it must be a self punishment ritual that they like doing.


But industrialized communities don't make up the extra 100+ ridings that the NDP will need to win. 

So Hamilton and Oshawa are unlikely to go NDP... oh, wait, Oshawa has been Tory for the past 3 elections. So much for that theory.


----------



## Lawrence

Sonal said:


> But industrialized communities don't make up the extra 100+ ridings that the NDP will need to win.
> 
> So Hamilton and Oshawa are unlikely to go NDP... oh, wait, Oshawa has been Tory for the past 3 elections. So much for that theory.


That's right, But then Oshawa is the "Crack" capital of Ontario, No surprise there.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> That's right, But then Oshawa is the "Crack" capital of Ontario, No surprise there.


That would be a prerequisite for voting NDP, so the analogy fails.


----------



## groovetube

Lawrence said:


> That's right, But then Oshawa is the "Crack" capital of Ontario, No surprise there.


hoo boy. Zing!

Even confused macfury. Heh.


----------



## Macfury

Crack is an equal opportunity drug.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> I watched both of them. No exploding brain here. Ultimately the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office said he can't comment on the number of $75M/plane because he doesn't know the process for how it was obtained. But obviously there is a disconnect between their process and ours...
> 
> Also quite clearly this number is a moving target as the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office said that efficiencies will be gained as the process matures, but right now it is not mature.
> 
> It seems that we are too early in the program to *know* what the final cost will be. I think it is safe to say in a couple of years there will be another report on the F-35 by the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office and we will see another number.


You seem to understand this, I seem to understand this, all of the conservative candidates *don't* seem to understand this reality.


----------



## BigDL

I just heard the Federal Government and the Provincial Government of NL have completed a deal on the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill power development and under sea cables and likely Cry Baby Harper will announce the deal on his visit to St. John's tomorrow.


----------



## Rps

Just for laughs, did you know that it is technically possible for the Bloc to form the next minority government.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I just heard the Federal Government and the Provincial Government of NL have completed a deal on the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill power development and under sea cables and likely Cry Baby Harper will announce the deal on his visit to St. John's tomorrow.


Sounds like this is good news. Why would Harper be crying?


----------



## MLeh

BigDL said:


> You seem to understand this, I seem to understand this, all of the conservative candidates *don't* seem to understand this reality.


Maybe it's based on a CAD$1 = US$1.35?

(Humour, people)


----------



## dona83

Any thoughts on the three campaign announcements today? Here are mine...

*Harper vows to extend tax breaks for manufacturers*... I see this as a slight positive but I don't have much opinion on it. Are these tax breaks proven to create jobs?

*Ignatieff proposes CPP-backed secure retirement option.* Dislike -- although it's good to have pensions as a small portion of my retirement income, I would prefer to put most of my money as I see fit. I'm a high risk-high gains kind of person. If people want more security, they are free to put their money in more guaranteed funds if they so wish. $2,000 a year is about as much as I want to put into a pension plan.

*Layton to cut small business tax to 9%, increase corporate tax to 19%, but provide tax credits to local job creators.* I really like this. People should be encouraged to start small businesses. The corporate tax rate is still much lower than the US and the tax credit for local job creation is a great incentive for corporations to create local jobs to offset that tax increase. Let's just hope they have the same fiscal responsibility across the board.

For me, today's rankings are:
1. Layton
2. Harper
3. Ignatieff


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I just heard the Federal Government and the Provincial Government of NL have completed a deal on the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill power development and under sea cables and likely Cry Baby Harper will announce the deal on his visit to St. John's tomorrow.


That's the rumor, BigDL. We shall see.

They made $8 billion off of their stake in Hibernia, which NL was supposed to buy back from them once the loan guarantee was paid off by NL, which we did .......... but the feds did not want to give up their piece of Hibernia, so they still hold it and collect royalties.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Sounds like this is good news. Why would Harper be crying?


The only reason he might be "crying" is because Quebec did not want to see this electricity bypass them. Still, there are talks that the Conservatives might pick up three seats from the Liberals in this election here in NL. Again, we shall see.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Just for laughs, did you know that it is technically possible for the Bloc to form the next minority government.




Well, then the other provivinces and territories currently in Canada would secede, leaving Quebec as Canada. The Republic of Newfoundland would then pull the pin on their Churchill Falls electrical power, from which Quebec earns over a billion dollars of profits.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> The only reason he might be "crying" is because Quebec did not want to see this electricity bypass them. Still, there are talks that the Conservatives might pick up three seats from the Liberals in this election here in NL. Again, we shall see.


Harper is crying because Harper is still on his coalition message track, I hear a cry baby.

Just a thought, is Harper a family name or a family trait. He harps on jets cost 9 billion dollars, when clearly they cost more. He harps on coalition when none exist (well yes in the home of the Westminster tradition it does.) Perhaps harper is more of a nickname of a family trait than an occupation or activity that stuck as a surname? 

Anyway with regard to Quebec, I do not believe the Conservatives have given up all hope for seats in Quebec as this pending announcement would suggest. 

It was rumoured that the Quebec and Federal Governments had concluded the HST talks and the money that flows from it before the announcement of an election. It will make a grand announcement during the campaign to curry favour with Quebecers, as the Lower Churchill power announcement will kick support away from the Conservatives, in La Belle Province.


----------



## Dr T

dona83 said:


> Any thoughts on the three campaign announcements today?
> For me, today's rankings are:
> 1. Layton
> 2. Harper
> 3. Ignatieff


Based on the reasons you cite, I am neutral on the criterion that you use to rank Ignatieff. So that puts Layton first, and Harper dead last.

However, I don't get out much, so I would like to know, what did Elizabeth May say?


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> Well, then the other provivinces and territories currently in Canada would secede, leaving Quebec as Canada. The Republic of Newfoundland would then pull the pin on their Churchill Falls electrical power, from which Quebec earns over a billion dollars of profits.


Not intending to derail the thread, but hasn't there been some discussion from factions in NL that they might be better leaving than staying in the Dominion ...


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Just for laughs, did you know that it is technically possible for the Bloc to *form the next minority government.*


The BQ have been the "Official" Opposition before.... But I don't see how you can see a realistic scenario where they could "form the next minority government."


Official Opposition (Canada)


----------



## Rps

Screature, this is pure math and not politics, so while it is possible it isn't probably, take the number of seats in the house and subtract the 75 Que seats and assume they would all be Bloc, divide the remainder by 3 ( Cons, Lib, NDP ) even split and you have 77 seats per, but if the Greens enter the mix, divide the balance by 4 and its a 72.... Bloc wins by 3 seats.


----------



## Macfury

As above.


----------



## Sonal

Rps said:


> Screature, this is pure math and not politics, so while it is possible it isn't probably, take the number of seats in the house and subtract the 75 Que seats and assume they would all be Bloc, divide the remainder by 3 ( Cons, Lib, NDP ) even split and you have 77 seats per, but if the Greens enter the mix, divide the balance by 4 and its a 72.... Bloc wins by 3 seats.


Divide the balance by 4 and it's 59 per....

Either way though.


----------



## Dr T

Max said:


> .... but how does our grey eminence of a PM attract the women, when so few women are on his team? Not that the Libs are any better. The general homogeneity of Parliament Hills is something else entirely.


Hey, why not look seriously at a federal political party that has a woman as leader no less?


----------



## Max

Indeed. I would like to see Elizabeth May get in on the debates, if for no other reason than the other parties don't want her involved. I suspect it's because she presents alternatives to the mixed veg pablum the other parties are peddling.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, this is pure math and not politics, so while it is possible it isn't probably, take the number of seats in the house and subtract the 75 Que seats *and assume they would all be Bloc*, divide the remainder by 3 ( Cons, Lib, NDP ) even split and you have 77 seats per, but if the Greens enter the mix, divide the balance by 4 and its a 72.... Bloc wins by 3 seats.


I live in Quebec so I know this will never happen... as I said it isn't "realistic"....

If we want to look at abstract "technical" possibilities then the Greens could win a majority... I fail to see the point.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Indeed. I would like to see Elizabeth May get in on the debates,* if for no other reason than the other parties don't want her involved*. I suspect it's because *she presents alternatives* to the mixed veg pablum the other parties are peddling.


Nope there has been no expression of this. It is the decision of the Canadian Broadcasting Consortium of which the CBC is the "spokesperson" this time around....

Spin it anyway you like... the Greens have no seats in the House and if this is the deciding factor as the Consortium has stated, they are out of the debates. The other parties have no part in this decision.

Alternatives...? Yes. Like insanity is an alternative to sanity... just because it is an alternative doesn't make it desirable.


----------



## Dr T

*... the Greens could win a majority ...*



screature said:


> ... the Greens could win a majority......


Hey, can I quote you on that?!


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Nope there has been no expression of this. It is the decision of the Canadian Broadcasting Consortium of which the CBC is the "spokesperson" this time around....
> 
> Spin it anyway you like... the Greens have no seats in the House and if this is the deciding factor as the Consortium has stated, they are out of the debates. The other parties have no part in this decision.
> 
> Alternatives...? Yes. Like insanity is an alternative to sanity... just because it is an alternative doesn't make it desirable.


What about the two MPs who are Independents? Do they get to go to the leadership debates? They are in the House ...........


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> What about the two MPs who are Independents? Do they get to go to the leadership debates? They are in the House ...........


They are not leaders of any Party.... It is a Leaders debate.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> They are not leaders of any Party.... It is a Leaders debate.


But they are in the House, so why can't they represent their views? Elizabeth May, the leader of a registered party, can't be in the debate since the Greens have no seats, so if someone is running as an independent on the ballot, why can't they be in the debates?


----------



## Dr.G.

I am reading the blogs of political pundits in Ottawa, and they are saying that the election in NL will be a very telling event for the Conservatives and the Liberals. If the Liberals can hold on to their six of seven seats in NL, then this will be an important holding of seats in the House. However, if the Conservatives can manage to take 3-5 of the Liberal held seats in NL, they this could result in a "blue tide" moving across Atlantic Canada. Granted, Battleground Ontario shall make or break the Conservatives, but we could be the "wild card" in the deck. Usually, we are an afterthought, with our results coming just before the others in the country, and where we are to remain silent until the polls close in the rest of Canada. 

The four Atlantic provinces have 32 federal seats in total, with some, like my riding, most likely not changing hands. However, many of the ridings, especially in NL and NS, are really too hard to call. A move to the Conservatives in NL, might be repeated in parts of Atlantic Canada, and that could see the possibility of a Conservative majority should Harper hold on to his seats in Quebec and make the GTA his "rubicon" as to a victory with a majority, or just a minority ............ or not. 

Of course, it could go the other way as well, with the Liberals getting a minority government. 

This is going to be a VERY interesting election night. We shall see.


----------



## Rps

Well we could debate this for hours, but the Greens are more of a national party than the Bloc, unless you consider the constitutional aspect that Quebec is a founding nation within Canada. If the NDP were to loose all there seats in this election you can bet that they would still be included in the future election's debate. There are many marginal parties, but only a few run candidates on a national level. I can see the Green's as also rans, but they are a viable alternative and should be included since they touch so many potential voters .... both provincially and federally. The big boys are playing here. Harper wants Iggy to himself. Jack only dilutes the mix, Giles knows he will never be PM so its a show to pick up key QC votes. If I were Harper, I would want as many candidates as possible ... especially if I'm using the coalition card...... I think it would be a strategic error if he doesn't step up and allow May in......


----------



## Dr.G.

"I can see the Green's as also rans, but they are a viable alternative and should be included since they touch so many potential voters .... both provincially and federally." I agree, Rps. We shall see.


----------



## Lawrence

Don Martin new host of CTV News Channel's 'Power Play' said that he'd entertain the idea of having a debate with the big three and include the Greens on Power Play.

That would be interesting, I'd love to watch that.
But, It was an off the cuff comment, So I doubt it will happen, But you never know.


----------



## Dr.G.

Lawrence said:


> Don Martin new host of CTV News Channel's 'Power Play' said that he'd entertain the idea of having a debate with the big three and include the Greens on Power Play.
> 
> That would be interesting, I'd love to watch that.
> But, It was an off the cuff comment, So I doubt it will happen, But you never know.


That would prove interesting. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he's open to a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff, which prompted the Liberal leader to throw down the gauntlet on Twitter: "Any time, any place."

Harper willing to debate Ignatieff one-on-one - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Now this would be interesting, especially if it were a real debate and lasted for hours.


----------



## Lawrence

Dr.G. said:


> "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he's open to a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff, which prompted the Liberal leader to throw down the gauntlet on Twitter: "Any time, any place."
> 
> Harper willing to debate Ignatieff one-on-one - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News
> 
> Now this would be interesting, especially if it were a real debate and lasted for hours.


Yes, I saw that on the Power Hour today with Don Martin.
His guests seemed to think that Harper may have accidentally jumped without thinking,
Mainly because Harper wouldn't really have anything to gain with a one on one debate.

It may actually hurt him more than help him.


----------



## BigDL

All National Parties should have an opportunity to put forth ideas from their platform and express(yell, mock, ridicule or agree with) the views expressed during the debate. 

The candidates selected are the Leaders of the National Parties. We are not repeat *not* interviewing for the next Prime Minister. The media foist this fiction upon us perennially.

We can only (and *should vote*) for our local candidates. We may have a chance to "interview" the local candidate on the door step. Local candidates especially first timers may not definitively know all policy and planks in the platform. 

The debate(s) provide viewers with a chance to hear the platforms and policies from the party leaders with everyone present to correct or clarify positions.

There should not be a televised debate between the Leaders of the Liberal and Conservatives. Regardless if one of these two parties may have the most members in the house to form a majority or minority government. The members elected to Parliament are really the deciders of who may be Prime Minister. Again we can only vote for our local candidate.


----------



## Lawrence

The debate between Harper and Iggy wouldn't be much different from this,
unintelligible at best, Perhaps funny to watch though. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

Lawrence said:


> Yes, I saw that on the Power Hour today with Don Martin.
> His guests seemed to think that Harper may have accidentally jumped without thinking,
> Mainly because Harper wouldn't really have anything to gain with a one on one debate.
> 
> It may actually hurt him more than help him.


I would have to agree with you on these points, Lawrence. Now, we shall have to see how he reacts to the reply "Anytime ......... anyplace."


----------



## Ottawaman

> *Harper in Newfoundland today*
> 
> Here is something to watch. How far he goes with his photo-op/announcement in respect of the $6.2 billion Lower Churchill hydro development for which the Newfoundland government is seeking a loan guarantee. CBC reported this yesterday:
> Wednesday afternoon CBC News confirmed that Premier Dunderdale and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper have reached an agreement on a loan guarantee to help with the province's financing for the project.
> 
> Dunderdale met with Harper's chief of staff Nigel Wright two weeks ago in St. John's.
> ...
> It's not yet known whether Harper will make the formal announcement at a campaign stop on Thursday.
> "The formal announcement." CTV is reporting he will announce support for the project.
> 
> Keep these principles in mind given we are in an election campaign and therefore a caretaker government period:
> “Do not do anything that would give you political advantage by virtue of being the government and do not make commitments that will constrain the government that is eventually elected.”
> Harper should not be committing the government of Canada to anything right now for political advantage. He can promise as a politician in campaign mode, that's it. Always worth watching whether Mr. Harper will follow such rules.
> 
> It does look like a case of let's make a deal. Provincial PCs, now that Danny is gone, help Harper get some Conservative MPs elected...they get a loan guarantee.
> 
> Except that there is an indication (not much in the way of detail there) that Liberals will also be pledging support for the project so any political advantage to the day may be neutralized in any event.


Harper in Newfoundland today



> Somewhere within Langevin Block in Ottawa, where Harper has been going to work each day, there is an actual handbook setting out the terms of a caretaker government, which some constitutional and public-policy experts are urging to be made public.
> 
> Canadians “should know what limits there are on government during this period,” says Peter Russell, one of Canada’s leading constitutional scholars, who only learned recently that the Privy Council Office keeps these “caretaker conventions,” as they’re called, a secret.
> 
> Russell and other constitutional and government experts are calling for the government to show Canadians the rules, as the country seems headed inevitably toward an election.


Harper’s power to shrink


----------



## groovetube

Lawrence said:


> Yes, I saw that on the Power Hour today with Don Martin.
> His guests seemed to think that Harper may have accidentally jumped without thinking,
> Mainly because Harper wouldn't really have anything to gain with a one on one debate.
> 
> It may actually hurt him more than help him.


I'd love to see the two of them, no holds barred, no restrictions on addressing each other or any other cowardly rule, go at it one on one.

That would sink Harper's boat in one hour. So, never.. gonna... happen.


----------



## Dr.G.

O-man, we have a provincial holiday today so that thousands of people might line the streets of his motorcade, cheering, with little Canadian flags to wave. We have been told to demonstrate "Clara Hughes' enthusiasm" in this flag waving as PM Harper drives on by. No need to tell these crowds to jump up and down, since they have been doing that since dawn as a means of shaking off the snow that fell this morning, and to get warm. He does not arrive until this afternoon, but Conservative organizers are taking no chances and are getting out the people early. Luckily, the parade in his honor, lead by 100 Newfoundland dogs and 150 Labrador Retrievers and 200 Dachshunds was called off since our "poop and scoop" legislation here in St.John's might have slowed down his motorcade. At a press conference last night, he was asked if he knew how big a Newfoundland dog was in reality, and he admitted that he did not ............... but he did know the length of a doxie. Good PMs are informed and knowledgeable PMs.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

The real truth of the matter is that Harper has performed well on the international stage, done little damage at home and is very likely to be PM for the foreseeable future. Iggy just doesn't make the grade and all recent polls continue to show it.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of recent polls, this is just for you sinc... Liberals narrow gap to 6 points in campaign’s ‘first possible shift’ - The Globe and Mail

But more to the point, as I said before, I'm just not seeing the smart campaign from Harper this time round. My feeling is, his insistence on focusing on the fabled 'coalition' has done more harm than good. As people wise up to his hypocrisy n this matter, he starts to lose credibility. Polls are, just polls, but, to see this sort of shift both in the leadership one and this one this early in the campaign does say something. 

Of course we have a ways to go yet to the real poll...


----------



## SINC

The Globe being what it is gt, the poll heading does not surprise me, but rather than a Conservative loss, the real outcome of this poll is the loss of support for Layton. Perhaps people are finally realizing that a vote for an NDP or a Green candidate is a waste of time in this election. Such votes will only serve to maintain the status quo.


----------



## groovetube

sinc it was nanos who did the poll, the G&M is just reporting it.

And yes the bleeding is mostly from the NDP. We have more weeks in the campaign, I guess we'll see how things turn out. Personally, I just don't want to see a majority for Harper. Beyond that, whatever.


----------



## Rps

Hi Sinc, I somewhat agree with you on this. Really I think the platform is to split things a bit. As I said before, being a Liberal, I have concerns about this election ... I don't see Iggy closing the deal. If Harper wins a minority, he will probably be exiled from the Cons as a non-closer as well. Layton will coast for a while then we annexed somewhere. Non of the leaders, less Giles, is a knock-down drop-out winner. Although a lot can be said for Harper being in power for as long as he has. I give the guy and his team credit .... and maybe that's what other voters will think as well. Should be interesting. I don't see enough "issue" to drive a majority....in the end we seem to be heading to the exact position we are today ... a Harper minority.... the mid campaign polls should be telling though.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> The Globe being what it is gt, the poll heading does not surprise me, but rather than a Conservative loss, the real outcome of this poll is the loss of support for Layton. Perhaps people are finally realizing that a vote for an NDP or a Green candidate is a waste of time in this election. Such votes will only serve to maintain the status quo.


I certainly do not think that my vote for our NDP MP, Jack Harris, is a "waste of time" or a wasted vote. He is a good member of Parliament, honest and hard working, and represents my views fairly well.

However, I don't see the NDP returning to their "glory days" of 40+ members in the House under Ed Broadbent. 

When you think of it, PM Harper only needs a dozen seats to form a majority, and he needs to hold on to what he has and win a dozen Liberal, NDP or Bloc ridings. It is altogether possible that he will pick up 3 or 4 of these dozen seats here in NL. I feel that if he can somehow do this, and then pick up another few seats in the other three Atlantic provinces, he might just get what he needs in ON and BC to form a majority government.

If this happens, this is why I feel that my voting for the NDP here in St.John's East is very important, since Jack Harris is the NDP Defence Critic and Member of the House of Commons Defence Committee. In that I do NOT support the purchase of the F-35 fighter planes, having him at least being a voice of opposition helps to voice my views on this matter.

So, my voting for Jack Harris and the NDP here in St.John's East is certainly not a "waste of time". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that point Dr. G. INHO casting a ballot for a party candidate with no hope of forming a government will not get his views, nor yours in turn, more than a backbencher airing in the commons and nothing more.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> The real truth of the matter is that Harper has performed well on the international stage, done little damage at home and is very likely to be PM for the foreseeable future. Iggy just doesn't make the grade and all recent polls continue to show it.


Also on the international stage, Cry Baby Harper, can't along with others. He has to do things his own way continually and can't even show up for the official photograph.

How many times did he screw up that one, was it 5 times or 10?


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> speaking of recent polls, this is just for you sinc... Liberals narrow gap to 6 points in campaign’s ‘first possible shift’ - The Globe and Mail


Too Bad!

There is only one poll that counts.

Support the troops honour their families and vote.

May 2, 2011 Get out and vote when it counts


----------



## BigDL

Well unless Cry Baby Harper provides more details about the Lower Churchill project in St. John's, later today, I have to say all he has to offer is more pie in the sky bye and bye.


----------



## MLeh

BigDL said:


> Also on the international stage, Cry Baby Harper, can't along with others. He has to do things his own way continually and can't even show up for the official photograph.
> 
> How many times did he screw up that one, was it 5 times or 10?


I thought we'd been doing pretty well in having a good discussion of the real issues without descending into personal attacks. Perhaps we can keep that up?


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> I thought we'd been doing pretty well in having a good discussion of the real issues without descending into personal attacks. Perhaps we can keep that up?


As I mentioned earlier as long as Harper is telling the big lie of a coalition, all I hear is Harper being a Cry Baby whining for his much coveted majority government.

Perhaps you can accept all of the Conservative fictions I shall not.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> I guess we have to agree to disagree on that point Dr. G. INHO casting a ballot for a party candidate with no hope of forming a government will not get his views, nor yours in turn, more than a backbencher airing in the commons and nothing more.


With this logic, we only need a ruling party and no opposition. The majority party rules, and the rest of the members sit silently. This is the whole idea of opposition and question period. Even PM Harper, when he was in opposition, felt that it was important to keep at the ruling government on issues that he felt needed to be heard by the Canadian people. 

How can anyone say that a candidate and his/her party have "no hope of forming a government"? With this logic, we let the polls make the decisions and save everyone millions of dollars on an election. 

True, it is not likely that the NDP will form the next government, but it is not impossible. The only way to make this impossible is to not let them run in the election, or to not let voters like me vote my conscience in this election. This thinking was what lead me to vote for Harper back in 2004. I trusted him and felt that the Liberals had this sense of entitlement, that my vote did not matter because they were going to form the next government. He has not earned my trust anymore, so I don't vote for him or his party.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MLeh

BigDL said:


> As I mentioned earlier as long as Harper is telling the big lie of a coalition, all I hear is Harper being a Cry Baby whining for his much coveted majority government.
> 
> Perhaps you can accept all of the Conservative fictions I shall not.


You don't get it, do you? It's a race to the bottom when you get into name calling.

(Is there an ignore feature on this webboard? If there is or isn't ... this is the last response you'll get regarding this.)


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Well unless Cry Baby Harper provides more details about the Lower Churchill project in St. John's, later today, I have to say all he has to offer is more pie in the sky bye and bye.


This is our biggest fear, in that back in 2004 he gave us a signed agreement, waving the paper aloft to the voters, giving us one more year of oil profits that would not be factored into the equalization equation so that we could become a have province in the next year, and thus, pay into equalization more than we received. He renegged upon that promise and has not been forgiven. 

Not sure what he shall offer today, but I think that it might just swing the votes in 3-4 ridings his way, which puts him a bit closer to the dozen seats he needs to add in this election to gain a majority. We shall see.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> You don't get it, do you? It's a race to the bottom when you get into name calling.
> 
> (*Is there an ignore feature on this webboard*? If there is or isn't ... this is the last response you'll get regarding this.)


Yes it is in the User CP (first menu item on the top left in the red bar).


----------



## MLeh

Perfect! Thanks.


----------



## Macfury

MLeh said:


> Perfect! Thanks.


It gets tiresome, doesn't it? I can take a nickname for a politician, and the occasional pointed gag involving the politician's name--but having to wade through schoolyard-style name-calling in an adult forum is tedious.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> With this logic, we only need a ruling party and no opposition. The majority party rules, and the rest of the members sit silently. This is the whole idea of opposition and question period. Even PM Harper, when he was in opposition, felt that it was important to keep at the ruling government on issues that he felt needed to be heard by the Canadian people.
> 
> How can anyone say that a candidate and his/her party have "no hope of forming a government"? With this logic, we let the polls make the decisions and save everyone millions of dollars on an election.
> 
> True, it is not likely that the NDP will form the next government, but it is not impossible. The only way to make this impossible is to not let them run in the election, or to not let voters like me vote my conscience in this election. This thinking was what lead me to vote for Harper back in 2004. I trusted him and felt that the Liberals had this sense of entitlement, that my vote did not matter because they were going to form the next government. He has not earned my trust anymore, so I don't vote for him or his party.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


exactly. It seems the conservatives want you to believe that their having total domination is the only way.

You have to wonder about parties that float this sort of logic. I will be voting for my ndp candidate here too, as she has the best chance.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> exactly. It seems the conservatives want you to believe that their having total domination is the only way.
> 
> You have to wonder about parties that float this sort of logic. I will be voting for my ndp candidate here too, as she has the best chance.


Ours is a traditionally Conservative riding. Back in 2004, the sitting Conservative MP, Norm Doyle (who would be considered a "red Tory"), was an honest and effective MP. Thus, I felt that he earned my vote. I have voted for the Liberals, the Green Party, for the Conservatives and the NDP during my years as a citizen. I don't vote for whomever has the best chance to win, but for the person who I feel is honest and represents, as much as can be expected, my political/social/environmental/economic points of view.


----------



## kps

Excellent Groove....I foresee a Con-NDP coalition government.


----------



## Dr.G.

kps said:


> Excellent Groove....I foresee a Con-NDP coalition government.


Interesting possibility. So, by my voting for the NDP I am actually voting for a Conservative majority government.  Well, stranger things have happened. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I will be voting for my ndp candidate here too, as she has the best chance.


That was going to be my guess for your vote.


----------



## Ottawaman

Ending Canada's 'benign dictatorship'
Stephen Harper's persuasive argument for - yes, for - coalition government.


Terry Milewski is on a roll.


----------



## PenguinBoy

MLeh said:


> You don't get it, do you? It's a race to the bottom when you get into name calling.


Agreed.

I liked the suggestion Groove Tube put forward when this thread was started:


groovetube said:


> ...More about actual policy. Less swiping things like, "the coalition", or references to Harper as a nazi. Or Jack as Taliban jack, the sort of thing to light the powder keg. Is it possible?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> That was going to be my guess for your vote.


it has less to do with party than the candidate. As Dr. G says. I actually don't really like Layton's campaign or some of his ideas.

This may confuse you however.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it has less to do with party than the candidate. As Dr. G says. I actually don't really like Layton's campaign or some of his ideas.
> 
> This may confuse you however.


I'm not confused. This is who I guessed you would support.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I'm not confused. This is who I guessed you would support.


based on what I said, I'm not sure how you could have. In another riding, it may have been another party I supported based on the candidate.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> based on what I said, I'm not sure how you could have. In another riding, it may have been another party I supported based on the candidate.



Yes, but we're talking about your riding.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry macfury, but your logic is falling flat. I think we were talking about voting for the best candidate for your own riding, even if is a party you may not normally choose in terms of a canadian government.


----------



## Dr.G.

"A Liberal government would get cash to the provinces for new daycare spaces as early as this summer, Michael Ignatieff said Thursday.

The Liberal leader announced a plan to give the provinces $500 million a year for early childhood learning, ramping up to $1 billion a year by its fourth year."

What a piker Ignatieff and the Liberals are being re child care. Back in 1992, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government advocated for universal day care for all of Canada, to the tune of $3 billion. Ignatieff is coming up with peanuts for this important aspect of our social structure. Of course, Mulroney changed his mind and the came up with $0, but at least his promise was far more than the one that the Liberals just announced.

Ignatieff pitches $500 million a year for childcare - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> "A Liberal government would get cash to the provinces for new daycare spaces as early as this summer, Michael Ignatieff said Thursday.
> 
> The Liberal leader announced a plan to give the provinces $500 million a year for early childhood learning, ramping up to $1 billion a year by its fourth year."
> 
> What a piker Ignatieff and the Liberals are being re child care. Back in 1992, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government advocated for universal day care for all of Canada, to the tune of $3 billion. Ignatieff is coming up with peanuts for this important aspect of our social structure. Of course, Mulroney changed his mind and the came up with $0, but at least his promise was far more than the one that the Liberals just announced.
> 
> Ignatieff pitches $500 million a year for childcare - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


Thumbs down on this one. Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Thumbs down on this one. Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.


Well, I guess the streak of us agreeing had to come to an end at some point, Macfury. :-( It was good while it lasted. Maybe PM Harper will order five less planes and put the money into early childcare education for preschoolers, training for their teachers, and investing in our future. We shall see.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Thumbs down on this one. Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.


Couldn't agree more. You play, you pay, not me.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Couldn't agree more. You play, you pay, not me.


How about a compromise? The oilsands industry receives roughly $2 billion worth of federal subsidies annually. This money would be cut in half with them getting only $1billion with the other half being placed into universal child care. However, and here is where even Macfury would agree, any child who receives funding to attend these day care programs has to put in an equal number of years in the oilsands projects ........... and at minimum wages. This would be sort of like the old indentured servant system, but it would not be for seven years. A child is in daycare for two years, then they have to work in the oilsands for two years. It is only fair. This way, the shortage of workers in these projects would no longer be a problem, the bottom line of the companies receiving these "supported workers" would be more since they would not have to pay high salaries to attract these workers, and children would have guaranteed work once they got out of high school/college/university. 

Certain countries have this sort of system with their military, where you owe your country two years of service. I don't want to see anything but a voluntary military here in Canada, so working in the oilsands is a viable option, especially since the companies in Alberta would be giving up a great deal of federal subsidies.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> How about a compromise? The oilsands industry receives roughly $2 billion worth of federal subsidies annually. This money would be cut in half with them getting only $1billion with the other half being placed into universal child care. However, and here is where even Macfury would agree, any child who receives funding to attend these day care programs has to put in an equal number of years in the oilsands projects ........... and at minimum wages.


No. Defund both of them.


----------



## MLeh

Oh dear. Agreeing with MacFury and Sinc here.

'Personal responsibility' starts with being responsible for one's own life decisions, including bringing more people into the world.

I do like the idea of income splitting and somehow acknowledging (via the dreaded tax credit) the fact that some parents take care of their own children and thereby suffer economically compared to those who expect others to raise them at 'the taxpayers' expense. (When we had our daughter we 'did without' because we had made the conscious decision to have her, and knew our priorities and expectations would have to change.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Ottawaman said:


> Ending Canada's 'benign dictatorship'
> Stephen Harper's persuasive argument for - yes, for - coalition government.
> 
> Terry Milewski is on a roll.


Who woulda thunk it? I'm agreeing with Harper and Flanagan. They're arguing in favour of electoral reform, which many on the right used to support.

... oh, that was Harper before he demonized the idea of coalitions.

Good article O-man, thanks for posting.



> "Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities."
> 
> What do they mean by "update our political structures?"
> 
> It emerges that Harper and Flanagan wanted a "strategic alliance" of opposing parties to dislodge the Liberals, aided by reforms of the electoral system to ensure that those parties get more seats in Parliament.
> 
> For examples of superior democratic systems, they point to the Clinton administration's forced cohabitation with a Republican Congress after 1996, and to numerous European examples. Only Britain, they say, gives all power to the winner. (And even that example no longer holds. It's another coalition country now.)


----------



## Sonal

Gotta agree with Dr G. I'm for universal daycare, and would like to see more money go towards funding it.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Gotta agree with Dr G. I'm for universal daycare, and would like to see more money go towards funding it.


There is no longer any value to society in having more children. Again,

1) why should I pay to look after your child when you can afford to do so yourself?
2) If you can't afford to do so, then why would you expect me to pay for it?

Your personal delight aside, I don't care at all if people have them or not. It isn't a public service anyone is providing by giving birth.


----------



## Sonal

No, it's not a public service, but unless you want to get into the very murky waters determining who will or will not have children, people are going to keep having them, whether they are financially, emotionally, etc. able to or not.

So then the choice is, do you set up a system whereby every child has the best possible chance to become contributing members to society regardless of the situation that their parents are in, or do you keep waving your hands and saying "not my responsibility" and leave it up to chance that they are going to grow up to do better for the country as a whole than not.

I know... you choose b), I chose a).


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> No. Defund both of them.


What??? So you are saying take the $2 billion from the oilsands companies??? Since universal child care gets no federal funding, they can't be defunded. So, you want ALL of that money taken away from profitable companies? 

Well, I guess that money could buy 15-20 more fighter planes ............ or one more weekend for an international conference (maybe with a real pseudo-lake this time). Still, the oilsands producers have seen their operating revenue increase to $211 billion from $117 billion since 2004. Are you sure that they could sustain this sort of hit by not receiving the subsidy?


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Gotta agree with Dr G. I'm for universal daycare, and would like to see more money go towards funding it.


Amen, Sister Sonal. Of course, we could get another 5 fighter planes for this money, which has far more glitz than children getting a proper foundation on their education/socialization.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> No, it's not a public service, but unless you want to get into the very murky waters determining who will or will not have children, people are going to keep having them, whether they are financially, emotionally, etc. able to or not.
> 
> So then the choice is, do you set up a system whereby every child has the best possible chance to become contributing members to society regardless of the situation that their parents are in, or do you keep waving your hands and saying "not my responsibility" and leave it up to chance that they are going to grow up to do better for the country as a whole than not.
> 
> I know... you choose b), I chose a).


I see no indication that children shoved into daycare turn out any better than any others. All I see is that those people who put them into daycare don't want to pay for it--they want someone else to pay for it.

The waters of who will have children are not murky at all: have them and pay for them, or don't have them. That requires no means test at all.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, Sister Sonal. Of course, we could get another 5 fighter planes for this money, which has far more glitz than children getting a proper foundation on their education/socialization.


Because, of course, parents are lunkheads incapable of doing this without someone else footing the bill.


----------



## MLeh

Dr.G. said:


> .... children getting a proper foundation on their education/socialization.


That's what PARENTS are for.


----------



## groovetube

not all parents have the luxury to not work and take care of their children. This isn't about 'dumping them on the state', it's about helping families. No one ever suggested making children wards of the state, there's far more to raising children than simple daycare help.

The histrionics is astounding.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, Sister Sonal. Of course, we could get another 5 fighter planes for this money, which has far more glitz than children getting a proper foundation on their education/socialization.


Now Dr.G. are you using Conservative candidate projected jet prices or are you factoring the present US Government projected jet prices to arrive at the number 5 fighters planes?


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> That's what PARENTS are for.


Used to be "a village to raise a child," or at least a neighbourhood back in my day.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> not all parents have the luxury to not work and take care of their children. This isn't about 'dumping them on the state', it's about helping families.


Same thing.

I don't care if you can't afford to have them. Then don't have them.

Work and don't have them, Don't work and have them. Live a modest lifestyle and have one person stay home. Your choice.


----------



## Sonal

And if parents are unable or unwilling to do so, then what? If circumstances drastically change, then what? You say, whoops, sorry, thought I could handle this but I was wrong, things changed, can I return this child?


----------



## adagio

groovetube said:


> not all parents have the luxury to not work and take care of their children. This isn't about 'dumping them on the state', it's about helping families. No one ever suggested making children wards of the state, there's far more to raising children than simple daycare help.
> 
> The histrionics is astounding.


Interesting, thousands like myself managed to work AND take care of our daycare needs without expecting you or any other taxpayer to pay for it. We chose to have one child because it was what our income could afford. I didn't need a university degree to understand this basic concept. 

Handing out freebies to the poor just encourages them to procreate all the more. It's about time someone said enough is enough!! Just read the other day some dude was shot. Headlines said "Father of 10 shot". WTH??? This guy had six girlfriends on welfare with 10 kids between them. wow. I'm all for putting birth control in the water, forget the fluoride.


----------



## dona83

Unlike in the United States, I don't think Canadians will be as eager to raise children without some form of tax breaks. So if this is the case, Macfury and like, would you rather see population decline (without immigration that is) than at least give Canadians some sort of incentive to create homegrown babies?

I do prefer the UCCB over daycares though, I'll give the Conservatives that much. Yea $100 is hardly anything when it comes to total daycare costs but it's something.


----------



## SINC

adagio said:


> Interesting, thousands like myself managed to work AND take care of our daycare needs without expecting you or any other taxpayer to pay for it. We chose to have one child because it was what our income could afford. I didn't need a university degree to understand this basic concept.
> 
> Handing out freebies to the poor just encourages them to procreate all the more. It's about time someone said enough is enough!! Just read the other day some dude was shot. Headlines said "Father of 10 shot". WTH??? This guy had six girlfriends on welfare with 10 kids between them. wow. I'm all for putting birth control in the water, forget the fluoride.


:clap:

We did the same with three children and never once were they in day care. She worked nights, I days and friends were paid to babysit when necessary as family was thousands of miles away.

Having never taken a dime for child care, I don't expect to pay a dime for anyone else's kids. Like I mentioned, you play, you pay, not me.


----------



## Macfury

dona83 said:


> Unlike in the United States, I don't think Canadians will be as eager to raise children without some form of tax breaks. So if this is the case, Macfury and like, would you rather see population decline (without immigration that is) than at least give Canadians some sort of incentive to create homegrown babies?


Let the population decline. Hopefully it will happen all over the world.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> And if parents are unable or unwilling to do so, then what? If circumstances drastically change, then what? You say, whoops, sorry, thought I could handle this but I was wrong, things changed, can I return this child?


There's always room for some emergency bridging assistance--not institutional funding that will help you to afford a home, a car, cable TV, vacations and dinners out, while sloughing the cost of childcare onto others.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> not all parents have the luxury to not work and take care of their children. This isn't about 'dumping them on the state', it's about helping families. No one ever suggested making children wards of the state, there's far more to raising children than simple daycare help.
> 
> The histrionics is astounding.


When I became a single parent, I had to put my son in the Memorial University Childcare Center. I was lucky to get him in and was ready, willing and able to pay the full fee. I don't want any subsidy to help me, but rather, to help train the early childcare educator and to help pay him/her more than just minimum wage. Children and society benefit for this in the end, and there are countless studies in North America and Europe which demonstrate that this sort of eclectic early childhood education, coupled with a loving (hopefully) home environment, helps children to develop into wel-adjusted, caring and balanced young adults.


----------



## Vandave

Puts things in perspective...


----------



## Sonal

Should I choose to have children, I don't expect to require daycare either. That's not because I'm smarter or more responsible or anything, it's because I am very lucky to be born under particular circumstances. I don't expect the rest of the nation to share my luck, and consequently, I'm fine with paying for it.

I think that having better educated children from a young age leads to better educated adults, which is to the benefit of the nation as a whole. I believe that providing as many options to parents as is practical from them to provide this to their children is to my benefit in living in this nation, and I support putting my tax dollars behind this.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Now Dr.G. are you using Conservative candidate projected jet prices or are you factoring the present US Government projected jet prices to arrive at the number 5 fighters planes?


The Conservative estimates are fine in my view ............ they would not lie to us .................. but I feel that we don't need these planes.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Should I choose to have children, I don't expect to require daycare either. That's not because I'm smarter or more responsible or anything, it's because I am very lucky to be born under particular circumstances. I don't expect the rest of the nation to share my luck, and consequently, I'm fine with paying for it.
> 
> I think that having better educated children from a young age leads to better educated adults, which is to the benefit of the nation as a whole. I believe that providing as many options to parents as is practical from them to provide this to their children is to my benefit in living in this nation, and I support putting my tax dollars behind this.


Excellent points, Sonal. Under the proposed Mulrooney universal daycare plan, provinces had some say in the "options to parents". I helped work on some of these plans for NL in terms of early childhood literacy "options" as well as parent training programs. It was astounding to see what this $3 billion proposal provided for, and this was back in 1992 mind you, when $3 billion went further than it does today. It was truly progressive .............. until the Progressive Conservative Party pulled the pin on their own proposal. Since they had a majority in Parliament, it would have breezed through the House and Senate. Sadly, it never came to pass .......... and those "options" went by the side of the road.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Let the population decline. Hopefully it will happen all over the world.


The logical conclusion of what you advocate is not that population will decline. The logical conclusion will be what you see in the USA, with a permanent poor undereducated underclass, tempted by crime and drugs as easy ways of avoiding the circumstances they are born into. 

Even if you have no sympathy for the situation you would condemn innocent children to, washing your hands of it because you are "not your brothers keeper", costs our society more in the long run. Yes, for those who can afford to isolate themselves fully from the logical conclusions of these socially darwinist policies, their taxes may not be as high. For the rest of us - get a gun and good locks on your doors.

You can see with the Conservative party focus on prison-building, that this is their idea of a solution.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> 1) why should I pay to look after your child when you can afford to do so yourself?


And who is going to be paying for you when you need palliative care in a nursing home?


----------



## i-rui

adagio said:


> Handing out freebies to the poor just encourages them to procreate all the more. It's about time someone said enough is enough!! Just read the other day some dude was shot. Headlines said "Father of 10 shot". WTH??? This guy had six girlfriends on welfare with 10 kids between them. wow. I'm all for putting birth control in the water, forget the fluoride.


I'll never understand why some people get so up in arms over *million dollar *"hand outs" to other people, but have no problem with *billion dollar* "hand outs" to corporations.

the consequences of having our less fortunate neighbors being "have nots" is more crime and a universal drag on entire communities.

the consequences of not giving tax cuts/ subsidy's to corporations is they shave off a few percentage points off their profits.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I don't expect the rest of the nation to share my luck, and consequently, I'm fine with paying for it..


Great! Go ahead and pay for someone else's kids out of your own pocket. The trouble begins when you expect everyone else to back your warm, fuzzy feelings with their cash.


----------



## groovetube

adagio said:


> Interesting, thousands like myself managed to work AND take care of our daycare needs without expecting you or any other taxpayer to pay for it. We chose to have one child because it was what our income could afford. I didn't need a university degree to understand this basic concept.
> 
> Handing out freebies to the poor just encourages them to procreate all the more. It's about time someone said enough is enough!! Just read the other day some dude was shot. Headlines said "Father of 10 shot". WTH??? This guy had six girlfriends on welfare with 10 kids between them. wow. I'm all for putting birth control in the water, forget the fluoride.


well hats off to you. But your own personal experience, and your beliefs, don't validate the idiotic notion that providing -some- money for daycare to help families results in fornicating in the streets, fathers of 10 getting shot etc. Give me a break.

But this is standard conservative fear mongering crap I've come to expect. Perhaps some sanity on the subject helps without the constant drama?


----------



## Dr.G.

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The logical conclusion of what you advocate is not that population will decline. The logical conclusion will be what you see in the USA, with a permanent poor undereducated underclass, tempted by crime and drugs as easy ways of avoiding the circumstances they are born into.
> 
> Even if you have no sympathy for the situation you would condemn innocent children to, washing your hands of it because you are "not your brothers keeper", costs our society more in the long run. Yes, for those who can afford to isolate themselves fully from the logical conclusions of these socially darwinist policies, their taxes may not be as high. For the rest of us - get a gun and good locks on your doors.
> 
> You can see with the Conservative party focus on prison-building, that this is their idea of a solution.


Sadly, GA, this is the flip side of doing nothing, or setting priorities to other things, such as fighter jets and prisons. You make an excellent point with what is taking place in parts of the US. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Great! Go ahead and pay for someone else's kids out of your own pocket. The trouble begins when you expect everyone else to back your warm, fuzzy feelings with their cash.


I'm not a warm and fuzzy person. I think universal daycare is of practical benefit to the nation as a whole. 

You don't have to like backing this with your cash, though.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Great! Go ahead and pay for someone else's kids out of your own pocket. The trouble begins when you expect everyone else to back your warm, fuzzy feelings with their cash.


And here we have the psuedo libertarian, who would have you believe he's justified in supporting one party that will hand over free billions and billions of cash for one segment of society, rather than another. Oh but that's not ok either. But, sort of, better. Or, apparently.

hmm.

But outraged at handing someone else some cash. It's hard to keep up.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Great! Go ahead and pay for someone else's kids out of your own pocket. The trouble begins when you expect everyone else to back your warm, fuzzy feelings with their cash.


Sorry, Macfury, but that is the price you pay for living in a democratic Canada. You may want to try to roll back the hands of the clock if you want .......... but do so with care, in that it may rip your arms off. Paix, mon ami.

While there are many things that I do not like about the political system in Quebec (e.g., many of their language laws), their approach to early childhood education is very progressive.


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> well hats off to you. But your own personal experience, and your beliefs, don't validate the idiotic notion that providing -some- money for daycare to help families results in fornicating in the streets, fathers of 10 getting shot etc.


Clearly, there are a lot of people having children without any regard to costs already. I don't think having "free" daycare is going to change that one way or another, and more than "free" healthcare is going to change how much preventative care people put into their health.

To be honest, I think the person who says "Hey, daycare is free, let's have more kids" is more likely to be the person who stops and considers the cost of things beforehand.... whereas those who have children without any regard to the costs will do so whether daycare is free or not. 

In any case, I'm all for more education about parenting, financial literacy and birth control too.


----------



## da_jonesy

Macfury said:


> Great! Go ahead and pay for someone else's kids out of your own pocket. The trouble begins when you expect everyone else to back your warm, fuzzy feelings with their cash.


I view this like I view public funding for Hockey rinks. I don't play hockey, nor do my kids... but I understand the public value they have to the community, so I don't bemoan the use of my tax dollars to construct them.

I really think that conservatives are nothing more than closet anarchists, who do not value Canadian culture or society... people who are inherently selfish, survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest. Take a visit to Detroit and see exactly what that mentality does to a community.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

groovetube said:


> And here we have the psuedo libertarian, ...


Just to speak in MF's defence, although I know he can speak for himself, I don't think he's a pseudo-libertarian. I think he takes his libertarianism quite seriously.

He has stated here that he opposes corporate giveaways. I don't necessarily like everything the NDP does, but on balance I'll take them over the Cons approach and I would guess it's the same approach in reverse for MF.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I'll never understand why some people get so up in arms over *million dollar *"hand outs" to other people, but have no problem with *billion dollar* "hand outs" to corporations.
> 
> the consequences of having our less fortunate neighbors being "have nots" is more crime and a universal drag on entire communities.
> 
> the consequences of not giving tax cuts/ subsidy's to corporations is they shave off a few percentage points off their profits.


It's a half-billion dollar hand-out that keeps on giving in perpetuity, and like all entitlements will grow and grow. Fund the airplanes to the degree necessary to maintain defence--an essential component of a free society. Don't extend payments to able-bodied people who want their kids to be babysat all day at the expense of others so they don't have to make difficult choices about consumer goods.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> well hats off to you. But your own personal experience, and your beliefs, don't validate the idiotic notion that providing -some- money for daycare to help families results in fornicating in the streets, fathers of 10 getting shot etc. Give me a break.
> 
> But this is standard conservative fear mongering crap I've come to expect. Perhaps some sanity on the subject helps without the constant drama?


My perspective on this is that the left sees 'Universal Daycare' as the panacea for all societal troubles. Again, it goes to the notion that the government knows best what is right (so therefore 'tax and spend') whereas the right looks at it as governmental interference into an area of life that is one of personal responsibility. 

I think a more moderate approach is actually the one the current government has enacted: tax credits that the parents/guardians can claim whether they use daycare or have made other accommodations in their lifestyles for the care of their offspring.


----------



## dona83

Are you against the Conservatives' UCCB then?


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Just to speak in MF's defence, although I know he can speak for himself, I don't think he's a pseudo-libertarian. I think he takes his libertarianism quite seriously.
> 
> He has stated here that he opposes corporate giveaways. I don't necessarily like everything the NDP does, but on balance I'll take them over the Cons approach and I would guess it's the same approach in reverse for MF.


I've seen holes in the stance many times. It seems to me, a position of convenience.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Fund the airplanes to the *degree necessary to maintain defence*--an essential component of a free society.


i would agree. which would mean not over spending on f-35's with an inadequate single engine and unneeded stealth technology.

Regarding children...*ideologically* i would agree that people should NOT have children if they can't afford them, and in general people should be curbing the amount of children they're having. But the *reality* of the situation is people will have as many children as they want. It's a biological impulse that government policy will never curb.

The question is how do we (as a society) deal with the nation's children.

We have public schools correct? Why don't we just axe them and demand that parents be on the hook for their own children's education?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It's a half-billion dollar hand-out that keeps on giving in perpetuity, and like all entitlements will grow and grow. Fund the airplanes to the degree necessary to maintain defence--an essential component of a free society. Don't extend payments to able-bodied people who want their kids to be babysat all day at the expense of others so they don't have to make difficult choices about consumer goods.


it seems to me the funding of these planes has also, grown and grown. What was the cost of the last set of planes in 1982? And, the cost before that?

Seems like entitlements that grow quite quickly to me.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

MLeh said:


> My perspective on this is that the left sees 'Universal Daycare' as the panacea for all societal troubles. Again, it goes to the notion that the government knows best what is right (so therefore 'tax and spend') whereas the right looks at it as governmental interference into an area of life that is one of personal responsibility.
> 
> I think a more moderate approach is actually the one the current government has enacted: tax credits that the parents/guardians can claim whether they use daycare or have made other accommodations in their lifestyles for the care of their offspring.


I think that would be an unfair characterization of what many on the "left" believe. As someone who is on the left, I certainly don't. I see daycare as a possible component, if done right. I see equal access to education as being far more important, as well as access to health care. Things that even out the brutal realities of the strict free-market approach, I believe cost us all less in the long run and not just by economic measures.

You can be rich in a large American city and claim you have the best, least socialistic government in the world. Just make sure you stay rich and you'll never have to deal with the negative externalities of the free market in the bad parts of town.


----------



## Dr.G.

da_jonesy said:


> I view this like I view public funding for Hockey rinks. I don't play hockey, nor do my kids... but I understand the public value they have to the community, so I don't bemoan the use of my tax dollars to construct them.
> 
> I really think that conservatives are nothing more than closet anarchists, who do not value Canadian culture or society... people who are inherently selfish, survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest. Take a visit to Detroit and see exactly what that mentality does to a community.


da_jonesy, I like your idea of "but I understand the public value they have to the community", since it is this sort of understanding that helps us all, be it hockey rinks, libraries, symphonies, art galleries, swimming pools, daycare centers, etc. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Just to speak in MF's defence, although I know he can speak for himself, I don't think he's a pseudo-libertarian. I think he takes his libertarianism quite seriously.
> 
> He has stated here that he opposes corporate giveaways. I don't necessarily like everything the NDP does, but on balance I'll take them over the Cons approach and I would guess it's the same approach in reverse for MF.


I agree with this view of Macfury, GA. I don't like everything that Ron Paul stands for, but he is a person who is honest and acts upon his views in an honest manner, just as Macfury has been honest in his comments.


----------



## MLeh

dona83 said:


> Are you against the Conservatives' UCCB then?


Is this directed at me or at Macfury? (I'm for the UCCB, as I think it is a good compromise.)


----------



## BigDL

adagio said:


> Interesting, thousands like myself managed to work AND take care of our daycare needs without expecting you or any other taxpayer to pay for it. We chose to have one child because it was what our income could afford. I didn't need a university degree to understand this basic concept.


 I shall forward your name forthwith to the Attaboyya' DunGood Award's Committee for their consideration. 



adagio said:


> Handing out freebies to the poor just encourages them to procreate all the more. It's about time someone said enough is enough!! Just read the other day some dude was shot. Headlines said "Father of 10 shot". WTH??? This guy had six girlfriends on welfare with 10 kids between them. wow. I'm all for putting birth control in the water, forget the fluoride.


How late in the term would be suggested for an abortion and is euthanasia of young'ns warranted as well?


----------



## Lawrence

Seems to me costs are irrelevant, Since Martin used U.I. money to pay down the deficit,
Why not just use the U.I. fund for other non U.I. programs?

Since it's been done before and a precedent has been passed by the Tories,
That same cost can just be written off and the U.I. fund can just build up again.

So I suppose we can just say that any new P.M. would have that fund to dip into,
Also any promise made can always rely on using that money to fund whatever they please.


----------



## dona83

MLeh said:


> Is this directed at me or at Macfury? (I'm for the UCCB, as I think it is a good compromise.)


Both of you.  I also think it's a good compromise.


----------



## Lawrence

Another point to make, Since our cities and towns were forced to amalgamate,
I think the ridings within those cities and towns should amalgamate also.

If our cities and towns governments have to manage bigger areas,
Then those same ridings should become bigger also.

They should just have "one riding" for each city or small town,
Seems only fair if we have to assume more then so should the feds.

Course that will mean less federal government,
But then, When hasn't that been a good thing?


----------



## Macfury

dona83 said:


> Both of you.  I also think it's a good compromise.


If it must be done, it should best be done with the maximum amount of economic choice. So I support abolition over UCCB, and UCCB over Iggy's plan.


----------



## dona83

I wonder if the Conservatives are eager to scrap the UCCB if they get their majority.


----------



## MLeh

dona83 said:


> I wonder if the Conservatives are eager to scrap the UCCB if they get their majority.


Why would they scrap their own program?


----------



## Ottawaman

Harper limits questions to five a day 


Interestingly, Gaddafi allows six questions a day. It's all about "transparency and accountability" don't you know. 

Stephen Harper refuses to explain limits on media queries


----------



## Max

Great thread, I must say. Plenty of good points from a variety of perspectives.


----------



## Ottawaman

> Brave King Stephen ran away - No!
> Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
> When danger reared its ugly head
> He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
> Yes, brave King Stephen turned about
> And gallantly he chickened out
> Bravely taking to his feet
> He beat a very brave retreat
> Bravest of the brave, King Stephen
> (With apologies to Monty Python)







+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Ottawaman said:


> Harper limits questions to five a day
> 
> 
> Interestingly, Gaddafi allows six questions a day. It's all about "transparency and accountability" don't you know.
> 
> Stephen Harper refuses to explain limits on media queries


Wow, that is pathetic. Has Harper lost his mind or is he just that confident that the Canadian public doesn't care?



> On Thursday, Harper was asked to explain why — when Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton provide news conferences with no limits on questions — he insists on no more five questions.
> 
> Harper chose not to answer that question and moved on to the next questioner.
> 
> When journalists then pressed him for an answer to the question he ignored, Harper said. "If there's another subject I'll answer it."
> 
> That led to another question from a journalist, who noted that politicians such as himself promise openness and accountability. With that in mind, he was asked again, why the limit on questions during the campaign?
> 
> "If there are other subjects I'm not addressing, I'll take them. What's the subject? One subject."
> 
> Journalists asked another question, about Canada's position about the conflict in Libya. Harper answered and then ended the news conference.





> Later Harper supporter David Cameron, who was at the event, came up to the journalists to express his frustration with their questions.
> 
> “You guys reporting the news or making it?” he said.
> 
> Senator Michael MacDonald, a Harper appointee, tweeted, “Lovely day on Halifax waterfront for PM’s trade status. CBC reporters (Terry) Milewski and (Jennifer) Ditchburn were like attack dogs afterward — pathetic!”


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


:lmao:

nice one OM.


----------



## i-rui

nice take by an Australian on the Harper government :

Canada watches its democracy erode | The Australian


----------



## Macfury

Thakur recently lived in Canada.


----------



## singingcrow

Ugh! Okay I read it all except for about 6 or 7 pages....

First of all, good job on keeping it civil here everyone!


As for the election... I believe it was actually 4 questions for Harper (I just watched the reporter ask him about this on the news tonight.

I for one, despite whoever wins, would like to see Elizabeth May in one of the seats. I'm exhausted of the childish antics and immature game playing over the last few years, and think she would actually be able to bring some civility and maturity to the house. She also seems to hold a lot of the same ethics I would expect from a person in such a position. Not only that, but the Green Party can help this country to at least move knowledgeably forward toward a more eco-friendly society. And although I don't agree with everything they stand for, I do appreciate her intelligence, sincerity and integrity, and would like this to be a cleaner country. I mean we're CANADA!!! We are known for our great resources.

Harper... What can I say? At least he got rid of the eyeliner, but he and his ministers have not impressed me, from the secrecy, to the lack of understanding of many cultural and economic communities other than the one he came from and was striving to get to.

I don't think he will, in fact, get a majority government, as those of you predicted many, many pages back. Why? Because some of those who didn't vote want to vote now to get him out, and I personally want to see something change. As in, "Okay whoever I vote for, since you've been complaining all this time, and you think you can do a better job then show me what you've got... You have 4 years, to *not* do what Harper did." 

I have some more research to do and want to hear the debates, with Ms. May involved. All I know for sure right now, is I can not, and will not vote for someone who is not capable of representing me in the least bit.

My personal requirement right now is health care. I have not had a doctor for almost 8 years now, nor have the majority of my friends. This is a HUGE concern. I don't think people who have had a family doctors for years can even fathom what it's like to deal with this, especially when there's a major illness involved. in fact, I know this, because I used to be one of them.

Daycare, definitely. Don't forget these are our future, and will be hopefully somehow supporting my retirement when I get there. Telling people not to have children, is like perpetuating the threatening situation we have now, with the population of seniors out numbering everyone else.

My request to the candidates, is to stop with the slashing of each other, and stick to telling us what you think you can do for us. Last election I actually had trouble finding this information, because all I could find were attack campaigns.


----------



## Dr T

singingcrow said:


> Ugh! ... the Green Party can help this country to at least move knowledgeably forward toward a more eco-friendly society. And although I don't agree with everything they stand for, I do appreciate her intelligence, sincerity and integrity, and would like this to be a cleaner country.......
> 
> My personal requirement right now is health care. I have not had a doctor for almost 8 years now, nor have the majority of my friends. .....


Yeah, and I wonder, who agrees 100% with any party? I don't think I will agree with everything the Green Party does, once they have a chance in Parliament. But let's give them that chance, as their platform is much more friendly towards Canadians like you and me (okay, Canadians and Quebeckers, we are in this together) than certain other parties.

I am scared that health care has deteriorated to that point where you live. Wherever we live, we accept a government because it looks after us. If the govt does not give us health care, it is of no use to us.


----------



## Macfury

singingcrow said:


> My personal requirement right now is health care. I have not had a doctor for almost 8 years now, nor have the majority of my friends. This is a HUGE concern. I don't think people who have had a family doctors for years can even fathom what it's like to deal with this, especially when there's a major illness involved. in fact, I know this, because I used to be one of them.


The shortage of doctors is the result of a sweetheart deal given to medical associations to control the number of grads, artificially restricting supply. It has nothing to do with funding.



singingcrow said:


> Daycare, definitely. Don't forget these are our future, and will be hopefully somehow supporting my retirement when I get there. Telling people not to have children, is like perpetuating the threatening situation we have now, with the population of seniors out numbering everyone else.


You're describing a never-ending Ponzi scheme in which a population always continues to grow into infinity. Besides, nobody is telling people not to have children--only telling them to take care of their own children.


----------



## singingcrow

Dr T said:


> Yeah, and I wonder, who agrees 100% with any party? I don't think I will agree with everything the Green Party does, once they have a chance in Parliament. But let's give them that chance, as their platform is much more friendly towards Canadians like you and me (okay, Canadians and Quebeckers, we are in this together) than certain other parties.
> 
> I am scared that health care has deteriorated to that point where you live. Wherever we live, we accept a government because it looks after us. If the govt does not give us health care, it is of no use to us.


I'm definitely Canadian....

I've experienced healthcare in 5 different provinces in this country, and I have to say, Manitoba and Alberta were the better ones, although I've heard Alberta's has been slipping over the last few years.

I also wanted to add. It's not the corporate _taxes_ I'm really concerned with, I just can't stand how many _loopholes_ they have to get away with not paying taxes. I say, get some good old cocky and plug those holes! Is there a party out there willing to do this?


----------



## Dr T

singingcrow said:


> I'm definitely Canadian....
> 
> I've experienced healthcare in 5 different provinces in this country, and I have to say, Manitoba and Alberta were the better ones, although I've heard Alberta's has been slipping over the last few years.
> 
> I also wanted to add. It's not the corporate _taxes_ I'm really concerned with, I just can stand how many _loopholes_ they have to get away with not paying taxes. I say, get some good old cocky and plug those holes! Is there a party out there willing to do this?


Well, SC, you raise many issues...
i just added it up, and I have lived in 5 provinces, too. I could not say which are best for health, as I have not been equally sick in all 5, nor raised babies in all 5. I have not experienced that much difference, that is all I am saying.

Hey, the corporate loopholes are part and parcel of those corporate taxes!!


----------



## singingcrow

Macfury said:


> The shortage of doctors is the result of a sweetheart deal given to medical associations to control the number of grads, artificially restricting supply. It has nothing to do with funding.


The problem with the lack of doctors in Quebec very well could have something to do with that, but there is also the problem with our doctors choosing to leave, usually to the States for better pay.

It's not just the lack of doctors, it's also the quality of care i.e. the lack of follow-up with patients, not enough beds=people sleeping overnight in hallways, many of the hospitals are in need of upkeep, the forced provincial drug plan does not include a lot of the improved drugs on the market, not enough blankets or pillows to go around... things like that.



> You're describing a never-ending Ponzi scheme in which a population always continues to grow into infinity. Besides, nobody is telling people not to have children--only telling them to take care of their own children.


No, no ponzi scheme, just the recognition of the fertility problem in a scarily large percentage of women these days, and I find assuming people will have kids to feed off the system to be paranoid and discriminatory. Yes, there are a few who do, but they are a small number of all mothers.

(I'm not sure this came out right - I should have been in bed hours ago, but I guess I'll find out when I wake up in the morning)


----------



## singingcrow

Dr T said:


> Well, SC, you raise many issues...
> i just added it up, and I have lived in 5 provinces, too. I could not say which are best for health, as I have not been equally sick in all 5, nor raised babies in all 5. I have not experienced that much difference, that is all I am saying.


I, myself, have never had to stay in a hospital, thankfully, but I have visited friends day in and day out, and saw what they experienced, or what was lacking, having to demand things for them.

My personal experience has more to do with day to day quality, and that is the basis for good healthcare in my opinion.



> Hey, the corporate loopholes are part and parcel of those corporate taxes!!


Are they? I don't think they are necessarily.


----------



## Dr T

singingcrow said:


> I, myself, have never had to stay in a hospital, thankfully, but I have visited friends day in and day out, and saw what they experienced, or what was lacking, having to demand things for them.
> 
> My personal experience has more to do with day to day quality, and that is the basis for good healthcare in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they? I don't think they are necessarily.


I encounter health care issues with the elderly about once or twice a week, here on the Wet Coast of BC. I see a slow deterioration as they outsource health care ( MacFury applauds!!).


----------



## Dr.G.

singingcrow said:


> Ugh! Okay I read it all except for about 6 or 7 pages....
> 
> First of all, good job on keeping it civil here everyone!
> 
> 
> As for the election... I believe it was actually 4 questions for Harper (I just watched the reporter ask him about this on the news tonight.
> 
> I for one, despite whoever wins, would like to see Elizabeth May in one of the seats. I'm exhausted of the childish antics and immature game playing over the last few years, and think she would actually be able to bring some civility and maturity to the house. She also seems to hold a lot of the same ethics I would expect from a person in such a position. Not only that, but the Green Party can help this country to at least move knowledgeably forward toward a more eco-friendly society. And although I don't agree with everything they stand for, I do appreciate her intelligence, sincerity and integrity, and would like this to be a cleaner country. I mean we're CANADA!!! We are known for our great resources.
> 
> Harper... What can I say? At least he got rid of the eyeliner, but he and his ministers have not impressed me, from the secrecy, to the lack of understanding of many cultural and economic communities other than the one he came from and was striving to get to.
> 
> I don't think he will, in fact, get a majority government, as those of you predicted many, many pages back. Why? Because some of those who didn't vote want to vote now to get him out, and I personally want to see something change. As in, "Okay whoever I vote for, since you've been complaining all this time, and you think you can do a better job then show me what you've got... You have 4 years, to *not* do what Harper did."
> 
> I have some more research to do and want to hear the debates, with Ms. May involved. All I know for sure right now, is I can not, and will not vote for someone who is not capable of representing me in the least bit.
> 
> My personal requirement right now is health care. I have not had a doctor for almost 8 years now, nor have the majority of my friends. This is a HUGE concern. I don't think people who have had a family doctors for years can even fathom what it's like to deal with this, especially when there's a major illness involved. in fact, I know this, because I used to be one of them.
> 
> Daycare, definitely. Don't forget these are our future, and will be hopefully somehow supporting my retirement when I get there. Telling people not to have children, is like perpetuating the threatening situation we have now, with the population of seniors out numbering everyone else.
> 
> My request to the candidates, is to stop with the slashing of each other, and stick to telling us what you think you can do for us. Last election I actually had trouble finding this information, because all I could find were attack campaigns.


Amen, Brother SC. This "slashing" gets very tiring and accomplishes nothing, at least in my opinion. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

the ads and constant hollering about the "reckless coalition', and of course the richness of iggy running on ethics, is tiring. I think perhaps it may even be hurting Harper in the end to continually push this coalition nonsense. Last night I saw one of the con ads, and I noticed they actually, edited the audio track to remove Iggy's enunciation of "liberal", removed between l and b to make him sound drunk.

Just shut up and tell me what you specifically will do for healthcare or something.


----------



## SINC

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, Brother SC. This "slashing" gets very tiring and accomplishes nothing, at least in my opinion. Paix, mon ami.


Not totally sure Dr. G., but somewhere in the depths of my memory I seem to recall that singingcrow is female.


----------



## singingcrow

SINC said:


> Not totally sure Dr. G., but somewhere in the depths of my memory I seem to recall that singingcrow is female.


Amen Brother Sinc, gotta love that soul, eh?


----------



## singingcrow

Macfury said:


> The shortage of doctors is the result of a sweetheart deal given to medical associations to control the number of grads, artificially restricting supply. It has nothing to do with funding.


Okay, I got some sleep... some, and I realised this confused me, Macfury.

So, how is it possible that candidates are claiming, and have been claiming lower wait times? Are they going to change this artificial restriction? Because having one doctor on for an entire emergency ward, just isn't cutting it (last time I went there with a friend, there was a girl who needed urgent care, and had been waiting for 36 hours - we waited 13 and my friend's situation was much less dire). And for those of us with no doctor, wait a minimum of 3-6 hours to see a doctor, sometimes 7 or 8. And minimum of 4 months for ultrasounds, and I'm not even going to mention the surgery wait time.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Not totally sure Dr. G., but somewhere in the depths of my memory I seem to recall that singingcrow is female.


Oops ........ mea culpa, mon amie. Paix. 

Merci, Sinc ........ paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> The shortage of doctors is the result of a sweetheart deal given to medical associations to control the number of grads, artificially restricting supply. It has nothing to do with funding.


 Is this conspiracy theory, one, as a result of overhearing the muttering of some poor soul aimlessly wandering on the streets?

The chronic shortage of front line doctors is after training for family medicine it is not economical viable to operate.

We need to change to model of primary health care from fee for service, not proliferate conspiracy theories such as universal health care is unsustainable or we need more private health care.


----------



## da_jonesy

I am wondering why I haven't heard that much about Afghanistan in the election? After we lost one more soldier this week and today's attack on a UN compound... why are we still there?


----------



## MLeh

singingcrow said:


> Okay, I got some sleep... some, and I realised this confused me, Macfury.
> 
> So, how is it possible that candidates are claiming, and have been claiming lower wait times? Are they going to change this artificial restriction? Because having one doctor on for an entire emergency ward, just isn't cutting it (last time I went there with a friend, there was a girl who needed urgent care, and had been waiting for 36 hours - we waited 13 and my friend's situation was much less dire). And for those of us with no doctor, wait a minimum of 3-6 hours to see a doctor, sometimes 7 or 8. And minimum of 4 months for ultrasounds, and I'm not even going to mention the surgery wait time.


I thought health care was a provincial jurisdiction? All the feds can do is offer more funding, but the way the rules are written right now they can't really determine how each province spends most of money. Maybe additional 'strings attached' programs, but not much else.


----------



## Ottawaman

*^NOT a leader*

Video: Harper takes heat from reporters - The Globe and Mail


You get 5 questions.
Why only 5 questions?
No comment.
Why only 5 questions?
No comment.
Why only 5 questions?
No comment.
Why only 5 questions?
No comment.
Why only 5 questions?
No comment. Thank you, we're done here.


----------



## BigDL

Ottawaman said:


> Video: Harper takes heat from reporters - The Globe and Mail
> 
> 
> You get 5 questions.
> Why only 5 questions?
> No comment.
> Why only 5 questions?
> No comment.
> Why only 5 questions?
> No comment.
> Why only 5 questions?
> No comment.
> Why only 5 questions?
> No comment. Thank you, we're done here.


Journalist Tom Clark likened Harpers campaigning style to Trudeau. 

contemptible Trudeau=Harper contemptible 
That should thrill the conservative throng.


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> I thought health care was a provincial jurisdiction? All the feds can do is offer more funding, but the way the rules are written right now they can't really determine how each province spends most of money. Maybe additional 'strings attached' programs, but not much else.


is this why reducing hospital wait times was one of Harper's 5 main promises back in 06?

Maybe he didn't understand this either. hmm.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> is this why reducing hospital wait times was one of Harper's 5 main promises back in 06?
> 
> Maybe he didn't understand this either. hmm.


Apparently voters don't either.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> The waters of who will have children are not murky at all: have them and pay for them, or don't have them. That requires no means test at all.


I disagree. That leads in only the rich having kids. The problem with that is you only get rich kids who grow up spoiled, with no work ethic because everything came easy to them. Who is going to care for us when we're old? Who is going to collect our trash or work in the grocery stores?

To have a healthy society tomorrow we have to invest in raising children today. That means a healthy mix of children from all walks of life, because we're going to depend on them tomorrow.

And financially speaking, helping with day care today, means the child's parents can go to work and pay income tax, and these children will grow up to get jobs and pay income tax. It pays for itself.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> I disagree. That leads in only the rich having kids.


So what?



hayesk said:


> And financially speaking, helping with day care today, means the child's parents can go to work and pay income tax, and these children will grow up to get jobs and pay income tax


Ponzi scheme. Endless population growth is required.



hayesk said:


> It pays for itself.


Let them pay for itself. More direct.


----------



## groovetube

apparently libertarians are for letting the human population die off. Who knew?


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> apparently libertarians are for letting the human population die off. Who knew?


Not really. Libertarianism, in a basic sense, is the view that each person has the right to live his or her life in any way that he or she chooses, just as long as he or she respects the equal rights of other people. Libertarians defend each person's right to "life, liberty, and property", which is what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

A paternalistic state would be one which helped people get the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, shelter and clothing). Libertarians generally advocate the maximization of freedom of thought and action with few exceptions.

What you are talking about is Social Darwinism. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Thank you, Dr. G. Eloquently and correctly stated.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> I thought health care was a provincial jurisdiction? All the feds can do is offer more funding, but the way the rules are written right now they can't really determine how each province spends most of money. Maybe additional 'strings attached' programs, but not much else.


Health care is a mixed jurisdiction as so many things are in this country, but health care *delivery* is most definitely provincial jurisdiction and yes primarily all the feds do regarding paying for health care is through transfer payments to the provinces. In this regard the government has been pulling its weight with a 6% increase in health care transfers year over year for the last 5 years so that means the Feds have increased health care transfers by 30% since coming to power. 

This government has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to fulling their role in supporting health care in this country given the amount of jurisdiction that they have.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Thank you, Dr. G. Eloquently and correctly stated.


Well, as I said, I do respect Ron Paul as a politician, just not some of his views. As well, I did take a course, way back when, in historiography and was given the topic of Jefferson's writing the Declaration of Independence. In the final draft, "property" was changed to "happiness". There is some libertarianism in Jefferson's writings and beliefs, some of which I support.

Is it my imagination or are you and I agreeing upon more and more things these days???????? Not that you are coming over to my POVs, or me to your POVs, but rather, just a meeting of the minds on certain issues. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Vandave

Ottawaman said:


>


I can't say I blame him. Just look at how the media treated him in the 1990s. It was a joke.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Thank you, Dr. G. Eloquently and correctly stated.


indeed it was


----------



## Ottawaman

Vandave said:


> I can't say I blame him. Just look at how the media treated him in the 1990s. It was a joke.


Care to offer some proof of that assertion?


----------



## Ottawaman

*An open letter to Canadian journalists*



> A few weeks ago, many journalists nodded knowingly at this Tweet by Canadian Press reporter Jennifer Ditchburn.
> “My Friday giggle… a spokesperson who emails me “on background” and then says: I can’t answer your question.”
> It’s a bit of gallows humour about a problem that began as a minor annoyance for reporters working on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and has grown into a genuine and widespread threat to the public’s right to know.
> Most Canadians are aware of the blacked-out Afghan detainee documents and the furor over MPs’ secret expenses. But the problem runs much deeper.
> Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle. Cabinet ministers and civil servants are muzzled. Access to Information requests are stalled and stymied by political interference. Genuine transparency is replaced by slick propaganda and spin designed to manipulate public opinion.
> The result is a citizenry with limited insight into the workings of their government and a diminished ability to hold it accountable. As journalists, we fear this will mean more government waste, more misuse of taxpayer dollars, more scandals Canadians won’t know about until it’s too late.
> It’s been four years since Harper muzzled his cabinet ministers and forced reporters to put their names on a list during rare press conferences in hopes of being selected to ask the prime minster a question. It’s not uncommon for reporters to be blackballed, barred from posing questions on behalf of Canadians.
> More recently, information control has reached new heights. Access to public events is now restricted. Photographers and videographers have been replaced by hand-out photos and footage shot by the prime minister’s press office and blitzed out to newsrooms across Canada. It’s getting tougher to find an independent eye recording history, a witness seeing things how they really happened — not how politicians wish they’d happened. Did cabinet ministers grimace while they tasted seal meat in the Arctic last summer? Canadians will never know. Photographers were barred from the fake photo-op.
> Those hand-out shots are, unfortunately, widely used by media outlets, often without the caveat that they are not real journalism.
> In the end, that means Canadian only get a sanitized and staged version of history — not the real history.
> Meanwhile, the quality of factual information provided to the public has declined steadily. Civil servants – scientists, doctors, regulators, auditors and policy experts, those who draft public policy and can explain it best to the population — cannot speak to the media. Instead, reporters have to deal with an armada of press officers who know very little or nothing at all about a reporter’s topic and who answer tough questions with vague talking points vetted by layers of political staff and delivered by email only.
> In addition, the Access to Information system has been “totally obliterated” by delays and denials, according to a scathing report by the country’s information commissioner. Requests are met with months-long delays, needless censoring and petty political interference — the most cringe-worthy recent example involves a bureaucrat forced to make a mad dash to the mailroom to rescue a report on Canada’s real estate holdings after a senior political aide ordered the report “unreleased.”
> Politicians should not get to decide what information is released. This information belongs to Canadians, the taxpayers who paid for its production. Its release should be based on public interest, not political expediency.
> This breeds contempt and suspicion of government. How can people know the maternal-health initiative has been well thought out or that the monitoring of aboriginal bands has been done properly if all Canadians hear is: “Trust us”?
> Reporters have been loath to complain about this problem. But this needs to change. This is not about deteriorating working conditions for journalists. It’s about the deterioration of democracy itself.
> Last month, reporters gathered in Montreal at the Canadian Association of Journalists’ conference to discuss these issues. On behalf of our members, we are calling on journalists to stand together and push back by refusing to accept vague email responses to substantive questions that require an interview with a cabinet minister or a senior civil servant. We are also asking journalists to stop running hand-out photos and video clips.
> We are also calling on journalists to explain better to readers and viewers just how little information Ottawa has provided for a story. Every time a minister refuses to comment, a critical piece of information is withheld or an access request is delayed, Canadians deserve to know.
> Finally, we are asking editors to devote the time and money it takes to dig beyond the stage-managed press conferences to get to the real story.
> This is not about ideology or partisanship on the part of journalists. Journalists aren’t looking to judge the policies of the Conservative government. Rather, we want to ensure the public has enough information to judge for themselves.
> Journalists are your proxies. At our best, we ask the questions you might ask if you had a few minutes with your prime minister or with Environment Canada’s top climatologist. When we can’t get basic information, we can’t hold your government to account on your behalf. In order to have a genuine debate about matters of national interest, people need information. In order for citizens to be involved and engaged and make smart choices at voting time, they need information. It’s time we got some.
> Hélène Buzzetti
> President, Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery
> Mary Agnes Welch
> President, Canadian Association of Journalists
> Brian Myles
> President, Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec
> Kim Trynacity
> President, Alberta Legislature Press Gallery
> Christine Morris
> President, New Brunswick Press Gallery
> David Cochrane
> President, Newfoundland Press Gallery
> Réal Séguin
> President, Quebec Press Gallery
> Wayne Thibodeau
> President, Press Gallery of the Prince Edward Island Legislative Assembly
> Karen Briere
> President, Saskatchewan Legislature Press Gallery Association



An open letter to Canadian journalists - CAJ


----------



## i-rui

^^ nice post Ottawaman. it's a real important issue, and Canadians should be outraged at how the Harper government thinks they can get away with being this opaque in their administration.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> ^^ nice post Ottawaman. it's a real important issue, and Canadians should be outraged at how the Harper government thinks they can get away with being this opaque in their administration.


The Harpo similarity to Trudeau is startling. He has defined transparency as being opaque and as with Trudeau it therefore must be true.beejacon


----------



## Vandave

Ottawaman said:


> Care to offer some proof of that assertion?


...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Ottawaman said:


> *An open letter to Canadian journalists*
> 
> An open letter to Canadian journalists - CAJ


Yes a very important issue. It gives the lie to Harper's previous pronouncements on transparency and accountability. 

I think the situation is similar to what journalists and media faced under Bush in the US. The journalists were afraid to speak out or cross the administration for fear of losing access, which is of utmost importance in a competitive media environment. So they take the crumbs they can get and only report on things that look bad for the administration if all the other media is following suit, then they can't be singled out.

Ultimately all of the work of journalists is to only provide attractive filler between ads in both print and TV. Even though some of them may be very committed to their craft and see it as a public trust, their bosses know what the bottom line is and absolutely won't go on any crusades on behalf of the public.

In the end it's up to voters, armed with critical thinking skills to hold the government to account and to favour the media that does a good job with the coveted eyeballs that advertisers want. Unfortunately I don't see great swaths of the population who understand this and are even aware of the erosion of the public's right to know that is going on.


----------



## Dr T

MLeh said:


> ... the left sees 'Universal Daycare' as the panacea for all societal troubles. ....



So is the issue all about universal daycare, or how much we hate the "left" for raising the issue?

Day care should be unnecessary. Parents and grandparents and family should be able to look after their kiddlies.

But under the current regime we have in Canada, which is a rather stern version of capitalism, it seems that both parents must try and work to pay the bills. As long as that persists, then universal daycare is a good thing.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> But under the current regime we have in Canada, which is a rather stern version of capitalism, it seems that both parents must try and work to pay the bills. As long as that persists, then universal daycare is a good thing.


If you look at tax bills during the 1950s, you can see why both parents are working today. It's the plethora of "free services" provided to us by all level of government that occupy the bulk of the working lives of adults.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If you look at tax bills during the 1950s, you can see why both parents are working today. It's the plethora of "free services" provided to us by all level of government that occupy the bulk of the working lives of adults.


1950s was a very different time, it isn't possible to compare the two.

But you could apply your social darwinism to the huge numbers of retired seniors beginning to overload our system, for starters.

Also, I suspect it has less to do with taxes, than with houses starting at half a mil and up, cars 25k plus, loaf of bread that was 5 cents now over 2 bucks (if you're lucky), cellplans for the family and 100 dollar cable bills, this list goes on. Taxes, are simply icing on the cake. Wake up macfury.


----------



## MLeh

My parents raised four kids in a 600 square foot house. We had one car, one TV. Six people in three bedrooms (my brother eventually moved into a room my dad built in the basement). My mother had a garden and raised enough vegetables to freeze to carry us through the winter. As the fourth child I was brought up on 'hand-me-downs' and left overs. We had one bathroom and one telephone (and no answering machine). For holidays we went camping in the Okanagan. 

It was a pretty normal existence back then, and we didn't feel particularly deprived.

I don't think it's so much that tax levels have gone up as our expectations of what constitutes 'getting by' have. Houses are bigger, we have more conveniences and toys. We take longer vacations to exotic destinations.

A quick definition of poverty is 'no shelter, no food, no prospects'. Some people consider themselves poor because they can't afford a holiday at Disneyland. It's all about expectations and in some cases these expectations are a by-product of a culture of entitlement.

I think the solution is for all of us to figure out the real 'needs' in our lives, turn off the TV (because all it's doing is filling heads with 'wants'), and realize that sometimes we can't have it all, and we certainly can't have it all NOW.

My mother didn't work for 'pay' but that doesn't mean she didn't work. She sewed all our clothes and cooked and generally did all those things that people who 'work for pay' have to pay more to have someone else do now. Her being at home, being a homemaker, added an invaluable amount to the 'economics' of our home. Far more than she could have earned in an outside job, especially if she'd been paying someone else to take care of her children.

I really think that a lot of people need to sit down and really look at the real economics of what they're doing, and part of the economics is 'the cost of raising a child'. But there's also the cost of 'having a job' - the commuting costs, the 'convenience cost' of buying more ready-made food instead of buying the basic ingredients and 'cooking from scratch'.

Of course it's going to make WAY more economic sense for daycare if someone else is paying for the daycare. We, as a society, need to find ways to value the 'unpaid' work of parents who decide to stay home, and not just value those who 'work' outside the home.

Yes, to my mind the left looks at 'universal daycare' as the panacea, when there are other options out there - options such as the UCCB. And yes, part of the problem I see with the 'left' is this whole entitlement thing.

PS: In case anyone thinks I'm promoting 'women shouldn't work outside the home', my husband was the primary childcare giver in our home. My feminist view is that whoever is best suited to each job should do that job, so if you have a single earner household, there's nothing saying that single earner, or the person doing the child rearing, needs to be of a specific gender.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> If you look at tax bills during the 1950s, you can see why both parents are working today. It's the plethora of "free services" provided to us by all level of government that occupy the bulk of the working lives of adults.


What you fail to mention is that corporate tax represented over 50% of tax revenues in the fifties. Since then individuals are responsible for the burden. True of all g8 countries.


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> My parents raised four kids in a 600 square foot house. We had one car, one TV. Six people in three bedrooms (my brother eventually moved into a room my dad built in the basement). My mother had a garden and raised enough vegetables to freeze to carry us through the winter. As the fourth child I was brought up on 'hand-me-downs' and left overs. We had one bathroom and one telephone (and no answering machine). For holidays we went camping in the Okanagan.
> 
> It was a pretty normal existence back then, and we didn't feel particularly deprived.
> 
> I don't think it's so much that tax levels have gone up as our expectations of what constitutes 'getting by' have. Houses are bigger, we have more conveniences and toys. We take longer vacations to exotic destinations.
> 
> A quick definition of poverty is 'no shelter, no food, no prospects'. Some people consider themselves poor because they can't afford a holiday at Disneyland. It's all about expectations and in some cases these expectations are a by-product of a culture of entitlement.
> 
> I think the solution is for all of us to figure out the real 'needs' in our lives, turn off the TV (because all it's doing is filling heads with 'wants'), and realize that sometimes we can't have it all, and we certainly can't have it all NOW.
> 
> My mother didn't work for 'pay' but that doesn't mean she didn't work. She sewed all our clothes and cooked and generally did all those things that people who 'work for pay' have to pay more to have someone else do now. Her being at home, being a homemaker, added an invaluable amount to the 'economics' of our home. Far more than she could have earned in an outside job, especially if she'd been paying someone else to take care of her children.
> 
> I really think that a lot of people need to sit down and really look at the real economics of what they're doing, and part of the economics is 'the cost of raising a child'. But there's also the cost of 'having a job' - the commuting costs, the 'convenience cost' of buying more ready-made food instead of buying the basic ingredients and 'cooking from scratch'.
> 
> Of course it's going to make WAY more economic sense for daycare if someone else is paying for the daycare. We, as a society, need to find ways to value the 'unpaid' work of parents who decide to stay home, and not just value those who 'work' outside the home.
> 
> Yes, to my mind the left looks at 'universal daycare' as the panacea, when there are other options out there - options such as the UCCB. And yes, part of the problem I see with the 'left' is this whole entitlement thing.
> 
> PS: In case anyone thinks I'm promoting 'women shouldn't work outside the home', my husband was the primary childcare giver in our home. My feminist view is that whoever is best suited to each job should do that job, so if you have a single earner household, there's nothing saying that single earner, or the person doing the child rearing, needs to be of a specific gender.


I can agree with you up to where you begin swiping the left with the 'entitlement' thing. That's just sooo 2005.  We've discovered a party who has practically redefined entitlement...

Also, why would you use such strong language as "the left looks at 'universal daycare' as the panacea".

No, the left doesn't at all. They simply realize that there is a strong need in 2011, and it would help families immensely. I would have to add that it also depends on how well it's implemented. But giving families a 100 bucks and calling that a comprehensive childcare program while spending just breathtaking amounts of billions on er, 'entitlement' things, well. I have no words for that atm...

Perhaps cancelling the 30 to 40 billion in excessive spending in those areas and redirecting into things like a -really- generous tax cut to the working half of the family to help cover the hard working caregiver encouraging them to do so is one place to start, as well as a daycare plan that works.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> My parents raised four kids in a 600 square foot house. We had one car, one TV. Six people in three bedrooms (my brother eventually moved into a room my dad built in the basement). My mother had a garden and raised enough vegetables to freeze to carry us through the winter. As the fourth child I was brought up on 'hand-me-downs' and left overs. We had one bathroom and one telephone (and no answering machine). For holidays we went camping in the Okanagan.
> 
> It was a pretty normal existence back then, and we didn't feel particularly deprived...


:clap: Excellent post MLeh.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> What you fail to mention is that *corporate tax represented over 50% of tax revenues in the fifties.* Since then individuals are responsible for the burden. True of all g8 countries.


Got a linkie?


----------



## Dr.G.

Here are my electoral predictions based on just the first week of campaigning. It might change if there is a one on one debate, which I don't think that PM Harper will win, but as much as I would like to see that debate, there is no way it is going to happen.

The Conservatives will pick up five seats here in Atlantic Canada, coming mainly from ridings currently held by Liberals. Most of these "pick ups" will come from NL .......... but not from my district which will reelect the candidate I am supporting, Jack Harris of the NDP.

The Conservatives will lose 5-7 seats in Quebec, all to the Bloc.

The Conservative will win 7-10 seats in ON.

The Conservative will keep what they have in MB, SK and AB.

The Conservatives will gain their majority with "pick ups" in BC. It will be a slim majority of only a seat or two, but a majority nonetheless.

Then, there will be no reason why we can't go back to the fixed election dates brought forth by PM Harper.

This is not what I would like to see happen, but as of today, this is what I am speculating shall happen comes election day. We shall see.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> ...The Conservatives will gain their majority with "pick ups" in BC. It will be a slim majority of only a seat or two, but a majority nonetheless.
> 
> *Then, there will be no reason why we can't go back to the fixed election dates brought forth by PM Harper.*
> 
> This is not what I would like to see happen, but as of today, this is what I am speculating shall happen comes election day. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mes amis.


To my mind a fixed election date could only be applied to a majority situation as in a minority the government can be brought down at any time by the Opposition. That being the case I don't see how a fixed election date could be interpreted to apply to anything other than a majority government.


----------



## Rps

me bad, posted to the wrong thread.....


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Got a linkie?


Alternative format - CSV documents

There are more than several Economics 101 texts available that reveal this fact.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Alternative format - CSV documents
> 
> There are more than several Economics 101 texts available that reveal this fact.


This link takes me to nothing essentially... as for the Economics 101 comment... again... got a linkie?


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> To my mind a fixed election date could only be applied to a majority situation as in a minority the government can be brought down at any time by the Opposition. That being the case I don't see how a fixed election date could be interpreted to apply to anything other than a majority government.


True, which is why I was surprised when the Fixed Election Dates Act came into law back in 2007. Still, while the Fixed Election Dates Act establishes fixed election dates for Canadian federal elections every four years, there is the clause that states "except when a government loses a vote on a non-confidence motion, in which case an election would be held immediately."


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> True, which is why I was surprised when the Fixed Election Dates Act came into law back in 2007. Still, while the Fixed Election Dates Act establishes fixed election dates for Canadian federal elections every four years, there is the clause that states "except when a government loses a vote on a non-confidence motion, in which case an election would be held immediately."


which doesn't really gloss over Harper's visiting the GG in 2008 to cry that parliament wasn't going his way.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> 1950s was a very different time, it isn't possible to compare the two.
> 
> But you could apply your social darwinism to the huge numbers of retired seniors beginning to overload our system, for starters.
> 
> Also, I suspect it has less to do with taxes, than with houses starting at half a mil and up, cars 25k plus, loaf of bread that was 5 cents now over 2 bucks (if you're lucky), cellplans for the family and 100 dollar cable bills, this list goes on. Taxes, are simply icing on the cake. Wake up macfury.


Of course it isn't impossible to compare the two. Cars are cheaper now than they were in the 1950s, inflation in. The cell phones, cable bills, etc. are just consumer choices people use to feather their nests. So its a combination of much higher taxes and people of this time period wanting all the toys available. Next thing you know they want to present their day care bill to the government.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Next thing you know they want to present their day care bill to the government.


how about the government paying for yoga classes?

Harper promises adult fitness credit after books balanced - CTV News

But i have to hand it to Harper. another empty promise with the caveat that it'll only happen with a balanced budget....which of course is an impossibility with billion dollar jets & jails on the horizon.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> how about the government paying for yoga classes?
> 
> Harper promises adult fitness credit after books balanced - CTV News
> 
> But i have to hand it to Harper. another empty promise with the caveat that it'll only happen with a balanced budget....which of course is an impossibility with billion dollar jets & jails on the horizon.


I like that one as an empty promise!


----------



## Macfury

Well, Iggy has come forth with the "election planks" of his campaign. Apparently he hopes to raid both the Green and NDP parties of their limited support rather than appeal to any other voters. Just adding more cradle-to-grave social programs and a carbon tax. Looks like he learned nothing from the Dion debacle.

One thing that makes me laugh in these elections is seeing party leaders grab some hastily-thrown-together document and lifting it above their heads as though they've just found the Rosetta Stone--"_This_ will bring us salvation!"


----------



## groovetube

well "cradle to the grave" programs have worked quite well for us and the parties in the past, so yeah I'd say Iggy has learned from previous election campaigns.

It's really a question of spending way more with the conservatives on fighter jets and massive tax breaks for the rich to lease more BMWs and take more european trips, or spend it on the middle class.

It can't be a good day for a libertarian at all.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> well "cradle to the grave" programs have worked quite well for us and the parties in the past, so yeah I'd say Iggy has learned from previous election campaigns.
> 
> It's really a question of spending way more with the conservatives on fighter jets and massive tax breaks for the rich to lease more BMWs and take more european trips, or spend it on the middle class.


It really isn't a question of that at all. The people who are cradle-to-gravers are already permanent passengers on that sinking ship. 

Where are Iggy's votes going to come from?


----------



## groovetube

ndp, green, even some bloc. Oh. And possibly fence sitters on the spend insanely on things we'll never see the benefit from party?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ndp, green, even some bloc. Oh. And possibly fence sitters on the spend insanely on things we'll never see the benefit from party?


So do you think this represents a sound election strategy for Igantieff?


----------



## CubaMark

(_Michael DeAdder_ - MetroNews)


----------



## Macfury

Honestly, Harper has had a worse deal than most politicians with the press. The notion of them feeling "alienated" is laughable.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> So do you think this represents a sound election strategy for Igantieff?


sure, but what you consider a more sound election strategy for Ignatieff? Alienate the left, and go for the further right conservative base? Or center, to center left.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> sure, but what you consider a more sound election strategy for Ignatieff? Alienate the left, and go for the further right conservative base? Or center, to center left.


I would consider offering a few crumbs to the slightly right of centre as his only chance to advance the party's seat count. Few Green or NDP party supporters will find this platform amounting to a sudden revelation that Iggy was their man all along.

Just as Harper is making promises post-balanced budget, if I were Iggy I would also concentrate on the message he started with a few years back: that social programs can exist only on the back of strong economic growth. Any social spending he offers should be contingent on the growth he promises. That would allay some fear on the right while mollifying the left.


----------



## MLeh

Don't be ridiculous. The liberals and NDP are in a 'free for all' now, promising to spend our tax dollars wherever necessary in order to buy votes. Every 'plank' of the platform is made out of bundles of compressed money. (The secret, of course, is to convince everyone that it's someone else's tax dollars.)

I suppose it's too much to expect fiscal responsibility when winning an election (and control and power) is the goal.

I'll vote for whoever has the goal of 'what is in the best interests of Canada' and not just trying to woo me with my own tax dollars.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> ...I'll vote for whoever has the goal of '*what is in the best interests of Canada*' and not just trying to woo me with my own tax dollars.


Well that is what they all think they are doing, or at least want us to believe that is what they are doing. It just depends on what you believe in and who you believe will be the most likely to follow through on their policies and promises.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> So do you think this represents a sound election strategy for Igantieff?


Igantieff should just hammer on Harper's insistence on spending billions & billions on Jets & Jails. Canadians don't want or need them. Force the conservatives to defend this spending while also running up the largest deficit in canadian history.

Any spending the Liberals do would easily be offset by not building mega-jails and buying practical Jets that actually suit Canada's needs.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> Igantieff should just hammer on Harper's insistence on spending billions & billions on Jets & Jails. Canadians don't want or need them. Force the conservatives to defend this spending while also running up the largest deficit in canadian history.
> 
> Any spending the Liberals do would easily be offset by not building mega-jails and buying practical Jets that actually suit Canada's needs.


Not relevant as long as Ignats continues supporting the Afghanistan & Libyan war efforts and continues to promote invasion of Iran. These are big time, counter productive costs and the budget will not be balanced as long as Canada follows this path. To lose family members so that military suppliers can fatten their wallets is nothing short of obscene and I am disgusted that all major parties both in Canada and Stateside are firmly committed to this course.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Honestly, Harper has had a worse deal than most politicians with the press. The notion of them feeling "alienated" is laughable.


Only in the conservative supporter reality. 

Harper had nothing to do with the National Press, from day one in office. Now he is trying to eat his cake and save it too. 

He wants the National Press Corps to report his message track and not the news. 

The press actually hear the big lie and want challenge Harper on why he is continuing the message track of big lies. Harper fights back by limiting access through the number of question, not responding to question he has no interest in answering. He treats the press like the opposition in question period.

Conservative supporters find fault with hearing the truth apparently.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Just as Harper is making promises post-balanced budget, if I were Iggy I would also concentrate on the message he started with a few years back: that social programs can exist only on the back of strong economic growth. Any social spending he offers should be contingent on the growth he promises. That would allay some fear on the right while mollifying the left.


Conservatives running up deficits again. Now it's election promises deficits

More pie in the sky bye and bye promises.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I would consider offering a few crumbs to the slightly right of centre as his only chance to advance the party's seat count. Few Green or NDP party supporters will find this platform amounting to a sudden revelation that Iggy was their man all along.
> 
> Just as Harper is making promises post-balanced budget, if I were Iggy I would also concentrate on the message he started with a few years back: that social programs can exist only on the back of strong economic growth. Any social spending he offers should be contingent on the growth he promises. That would allay some fear on the right while mollifying the left.


or how about I'll spend 9 billion, instead of nearly 40 billion like the conservatives, but on priorities the middle class actually wants, and have all the rest to deal with the deficit.


----------



## Macfury

Iggy will not "save" $40-billion. And I don't want him to spend $9 billion on entrenching social programs.


----------



## MannyP Design

Boy, it seems that when an election is on the horizon, people lose perspective and go nuttier than squirrel$h!t.


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> Don't be ridiculous. The liberals and NDP are in a 'free for all' now, promising to spend our tax dollars wherever necessary in order to buy votes. Every 'plank' of the platform is made out of bundles of compressed money. (The secret, of course, is to convince everyone that it's someone else's tax dollars.)


Unlike the conservatives who are promising to spend our tax dollars wherever necessary in order to buy votes for this election and the one after.



MLeh said:


> I suppose it's too much to expect fiscal responsibility when winning an election (and control and power) is the goal.


 Harper is seems to be the most in need of control and the power that flows therefrom. That seems to be Harpers only goal.



MLeh said:


> I'll vote for whoever has the goal of 'what is in the best interests of Canada' and not just trying to woo me with my own tax dollars.


I suspect "the best interest of Canada" could happen in one way and one way only for you.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Iggy will not "save" $40-billion. And I don't want him to spend $9 billion on entrenching social programs.


well if he doesn't spend, over 30 billion in fighter planes, and cancels the corporate money squander er, tax cut, it'd be close to 40 billion.

I'd say, for a libertarian, you're in a bit of a pickle. Support absolute mind blowing spending as the conservatives plan, or well so far we have about 9 billion in planned spending from he liberals. Except instead of fighter planes, it's social spending. Mainly, tax cuts or incentives for the middle class. It'll depend mainly on how you want to spend the money. Because plenty of money will be spent, and we, will be taxed to pay for it all.

Either way, we'll be paying through the nose as low to middle class to pay for those 30 billion dollar planes, and in your books, taxes, are bad. So, who pays for those fighter planes and corp money give aways?


----------



## PenguinBoy

Macfury said:


> Well, Iggy has come forth with the "election planks" of his campaign. Apparently he hopes to raid both the Green and NDP parties of their limited support rather than appeal to any other voters. Just adding more cradle-to-grave social programs and a carbon tax. Looks like he learned nothing from the Dion debacle.


Agreed. I doubt that channeling the ghost of Pierre Trudeau will work well for Ignatief. As suggested in my earlier post (http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/93927-canadian-election.html#post1076763), they should be courting the blue Liberals and Red Tories.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compete with the left leaning parties for their limited base, and a certain number of left leaning voters will vote strategically for the Liberals in any case - so I doubt moving their platform to the left will increase their vote count much.

They should be competing with the Conservatives, not the Bloc, NDP and Greens.



i-rui said:


> Igantieff should just hammer on Harper's insistence on spending billions & billions on Jets & Jails. Canadians don't want or need them. Force the conservatives to defend this spending while also running up the largest deficit in canadian history.


Agreed.

But rather than come up with a whole whack of other things to spend money on, they should paint themselves as the party of fiscal conservatism. Bring up the fact that the budget was balanced by the Liberals (but downplay the fact that it was done in a very different economic environment).

Their current platform makes it easy to paint them as "tax and spend" Liberals, and risks driving some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives.

The Liberals really don't have much chance at forming a government this go round, but if they play their cards right they can hold the Conservatives to a minority and slowly start rebuilding. I don't see this happening with the platform they just released.


----------



## groovetube

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed. I doubt that channeling the ghost of Pierre Trudeau will work well for Ignatief. As suggested in my earlier post (http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/93927-canadian-election.html#post1076763), they should be courting the blue Liberals and Red Tories.
> 
> It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compete with the left leaning parties for their limited base, and a certain number of left leaning voters will vote strategically for the Liberals in any case - so I doubt moving their platform to the left will increase their vote count much.
> 
> They should be competing with the Conservatives, not the Bloc, NDP and Greens.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But rather than come up with a whole whack of other things to spend money on, they should paint themselves as the party of fiscal conservatism. Bring up the fact that the budget was balanced by the Liberals (but downplay the fact that it was done in a very different economic environment).
> 
> Their current platform makes it easy to paint them as "tax and spend" Liberals, and risks driving some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives.
> 
> The Liberals really don't have much chance at forming a government this go round, but if they play their cards right they can hold the Conservatives to a minority and slowly start rebuilding. I don't see this happening with the platform they just released.


That would have been a better track for them to some degree, but to focus solely on winning back blue liberals wouldn't have done it for them either.

They should have focused more on healthcare and kept a lid on some of the other spending promises they've made. But those ndp/green numbers are tempting for them to go after.


----------



## PenguinBoy

groovetube said:


> They should have focused more on healthcare and kept a lid on some of the other spending promises they've made. But those ndp/green numbers are tempting for them to go after.


Healthcare plus fiscal conservatism would be a good mix - both appeal to the older voters, who are likely to actually get out and vote, and who tend to support the Conservatives.

The NDP / Green votes are not worth going after, they are more or less harmless as neither of these parties has a realistic chance of getting in. Stealing support from the Conservatives to hold them to a minority should be the Liberal's objective for this election.

Moving the Liberal platform closer to the NDP makes the threat of a coalition more credible - which plays into the Conservatives hand.


----------



## groovetube

PenguinBoy said:


> Healthcare plus fiscal conservatism would be a good mix - both appeal to the older voters, who are likely to actually get out and vote, and who tend to support the Conservatives.
> 
> The NDP / Green votes are not worth going after, they are more or less harmless as neither of these parties has a realistic chance of getting in. Stealing support from the Conservatives to hold them to a minority should be the Liberal's objective for this election.
> 
> Moving the Liberal platform closer to the NDP makes the threat of a coalition more credible - which plays into the Conservatives hand.


that's likely true.

Though if the libs hope to form a majority government, they need to go after some of the left support, the ndp and the greens have gobbled a sizeable chunk needed to get a majority.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> that's likely true.
> 
> Though if the libs hope to form a majority government, they need to go after some of the left support, the ndp and the greens have gobbled a sizeable chunk needed to get a majority.


Sure, but so far they appear to be exclusively interested in that tiny plot of real estate to the left of Ignatieff's little hamlet of support.


----------



## eMacMan

PenguinBoy said:


> Healthcare plus fiscal conservatism would be a good mix - both appeal to the older voters, who are likely to actually get out and vote, and who tend to support the Conservatives.
> 
> The NDP / Green votes are not worth going after, they are more or less harmless as neither of these parties has a realistic chance of getting in. Stealing support from the Conservatives to hold them to a minority should be the Liberal's objective for this election.
> 
> Moving the Liberal platform closer to the NDP makes the threat of a coalition more credible - which plays into the Conservatives hand.


Like it or not "Coalition" is a smokescreen issue. Lets the Cons avoid talking about their failure to get out of Afghanistan, getting into Libya, racking up deficits.... Ignats of course cannot separate himself from the Cons on these really crucial issues as he is in total agreement. 

OTH for the moment at least, the Cons do not support a Carbon Tax nor Cap and Trade. Ignats does and any one with a basic understanding of math knows that taxpayers will end up paying dearly if either of these policies are enacted.

Throw in the fact that Ignats seems even more likely than Harpo to sell this nation out to the US and it becomes obvious why the Lieberals are in danger of seeing a Con majority when the election is over. Not saying this is good just likely.


----------



## i-rui

eMacMan said:


> Throw in the fact that Ignats seems even more likely than Harpo to sell this nation out to the US


what are you basing this on? certainly not liberal policy.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> what are you basing this on? certainly not liberal policy.


The Lieberals brought in a ringer from the US to lead the party. Clearly his loyalty to Canada deserves very close scrutiny. Certainly his commitment to funneling funds to the US Military Industrial Complex is every bit as strong as Harpo's. 

I happen to agree that F-35s will cost much more than estimated and might not be a useful purchase for Canada. *It is very unlikely that any country would invade Canada.* However the country most capable and most likely to invade Canada is the US. We have abundant supplies of oil and water, while the US is running out of both and has proven more than willing to occupy other nations to maintain its supply of oil. In that scenario a handful of F-35s will make no difference at all. OTH whatever money can be saved by not buying F-35s needs to go into the purchase of other types of military aircraft with various varieties of helicopters topping the list. Since that money would also very likely be borrowed there is no valid claim that it could be used to fund other programs.


----------



## i-rui

eMacMan said:


> The Lieberals brought in a ringer from the US to lead the party. Clearly his loyalty to Canada deserves very close scrutiny. Certainly his commitment to funneling funds to the US Military Industrial Complex is every bit as strong as Harpo's.


A Liberal kept Canada *OUT* of Iraq. Harper wanted to put us *IN*.

The rest of your argument is from on an Attack Ad, and to be frank is baseless and silly.

Regarding Jets and the military - yes Canada will have to spend a large amount of money. The point is to not overspend. Any money saved is a huge deal for all Canadians.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Sure, but so far they appear to be exclusively interested in that tiny plot of real estate to the left of Ignatieff's little hamlet of support.


tiny plot? Try at least 25% and that doesn't include the bloc's 10%.

The right only wishes the center to center left was a 'tiny plot'. Try, majority...


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> A Liberal kept Canada *OUT* of Iraq. .....


Only because he was afraid of the reaction in Quebec, had he thought it was the right thing to do he would also have kept us put of Afghanistan. The Liberals have consistently supported remaining in Afghanistan. In this regard they and the Cons are both equally guilty. If Ignats wants to keep Canada out of Libya, Iran, Yemen ... when the time inevitably comes, he has been very mum on the matter.

Incidentally Ignats could finance a sizeable chunk of his promises simply by getting out of Afghanistan as formerly promised summer 2011.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Only because he was afraid of the reaction in Quebec, had he thought it was the right thing to do he would also have kept us put of Afghanistan. The Liberals have consistently supported remaining in Afghanistan. *In this regard they and the Cons are both equally guilty*. If Ignats wants to keep Canada out of Libya, Iran, Yemen ... when the time inevitably comes, he has been very mum on the matter.
> 
> Incidentally Ignats could finance a sizeable chunk of his promises simply by getting out of Afghanistan as formerly promised summer 2011.


What are they _"guilty"_ of?


----------



## BigDL

Which was worse for the Conservative campaign today; 

not knowing the cost Jets 

American's view of F-35 cost debate 

Conservative view of F-35 cost debate

or stalking your facebook page?



> By now, we've all heard about the stories of students (and veterans' advocates) barred from attending Conservative rallies with Stephen Harper in recnet days in Halifax, London and Guelph.
> 
> Today, the Conservative leader said it's a matter for his staff and he can't comment on it. He added that his party is attracting more people to its rallies than all his rival parties combined. (The Conservative Party has offered no evidence for this statement.)


Conservative's stalking Facebook Friend

Conservatives try to explain student ejections from rallies - Inside Politics

It seems Stephen Harper has something to hide OR as he paraphrase Bart Simpson "not my fault, you didn't see anything, no one saw me do it, you can't prove a thing" the buck never stops anywhere near this guy.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Which was worse for the Conservative campaign today;
> 
> not knowing the cost Jets
> 
> American's view of F-35 cost debate
> 
> Conservative view of F-35 cost debate
> 
> or stalking your facebook page?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative's stalking Facebook Friend
> 
> Conservatives try to explain student ejections from rallies - Inside Politics
> 
> It seems Stephen Harper has something to hide OR as he paraphrase Bart Simpson "not my fault, you didn't see anything, no one saw me do it, you can't prove a thing" the buck never stops anywhere near this guy.


BigDL, the proverbial "buck" stopped at the desk of Harry Truman, not Stephen Harper. You have mistaken the two. I guess it is a simple mistake in that they look so much alike and have the same open style of governing and respect for the common person. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> BigDL, the proverbial "buck" stopped at the desk of Harry Truman, not Stephen Harper. You have mistaken the two. I guess it is a simple mistake in that they look so much alike and have the same open style of governing and respect for the common person. Paix, mon ami.





BigDL said:


> ...the buck never stops anywhere near this guy.


To be fair Dr. G. I did say the *buck never stops* near Harper. Perhaps all bucks are still stopping with Harry Truman. Harper is not a stand up take responsibility type of guy.

That is unless you take the view:

This all went wrong who's at fault? Harper is responsible!


----------



## i-rui

BigDL said:


> American's view of F-35 cost debate


everyone needs to watch this. It is perfectly clear that we're going to get hosed if we buy the f-35.

Canada shouldn't be looking at stealth technology. It's not needed to patrol the Arctic & defend our airspace, so why pay through the nose for it?


----------



## Ottawaman

> Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
> A: To avoid debating Ignatieff


----------



## SINC

Why is Iggy in this election?
To prove Dion was better.


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> Why is Iggy in this election?
> To prove Dion was better.


Why does harpo seem like such a piece of sh*t? Cos he is sh*t.

Edit: sorry got the question wrong


----------



## MLeh

jawknee said:


> Why does harpo seem like such a piece of sh*t? Cos he is sh*t.
> 
> Edit: sorry got the question wrong


You're a bit new to the discussion, I guess, and didn't realize that most of us are trying to have a fairly mature discussion of the issues, and not get into name calling.


----------



## whatiwant

MLeh said:


> You're a bit new to the discussion, I guess, and didn't realize that most of us are trying to have a fairly mature discussion of the issues, and not get into name calling.


Sorry couldn't help myself, carry on!


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
> A: To avoid debating Ignatieff
Click to expand...

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury

jawknee said:


> Sorry couldn't help myself, carry on!


Not cool.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Why is Iggy in this election?
> To prove Dion was better.


More importantly why isn't there any discussion on the conservative truthyness with regard to the 9 billion dollar price tag F-35 jets?

Two American commentators have said the price of 75 million dollars per jet price is patently incorrect, yet Harper, Laurie Hawn et al cling to a price point that would not include accessory such as jet engines or guns.

So are the Conservatives incompetent or are they deluded?


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> More importantly why isn't there any discussion on the conservative truthyness with regard to the 9 billion dollar price tag F-35 jets?
> 
> Two American commentators have said the price of 75 million dollars per jet price is patently incorrect, yet Harper, Laurie Hawn et al cling to a price point that would not include accessory such as jet engines or guns.
> 
> So are the Conservatives incompetent or are they deluded?


Long history here. The gun registry ballooned from a couple of Million Dollars to over a Billion. It therefore seems very likely that the post-election price of those jets will sky rocket to at least ten times the current $15 Billion Dollar estimate.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Long history here. The gun registry ballooned from a couple of Million Dollars to over a Billion. It therefore seems very likely that the post-election price of those jets will sky rocket to at least ten times the current $15 Billion Dollar estimate.


Why are Harper and the other Conservative candidate insisting the price is fixed at 9 Billions dollars? If you can recognise price creep why can't the Conservative leaders? Do they have an agenda or are they again being contemptible?


----------



## Macfury

The truth is, we don't know exactly what the jets are going to cost, and how we attribute a cost to them depends entirely on whether we include initial cost, initial cost of base model, lifetime cost, lifetime cost with cost of fencing and runway maintenance, etc. If I were the Conservatives at this point, I would simply state that the total cost of the program will not exceed $X and the number of planes would be reduced to suit the budget. Likewise, the Libs should state exactly what they would wish to do regarding air patrol/defense. Stating simply that you would kill the program and save $30 billion is ludicrous.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> .....If I were the Conservatives at this point, I would simply state that the total cost of the program will not exceed $X and the number of planes would be reduced to suit the budget...


Great! So the Canadian Air Force will then consist of a grand total of... three warplanes!
:lmao:


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Great! So the Canadian Air Force will then consist of a grand total of... three warplanes!
> :lmao:


Hey, CB, I need some change. Give me two tens for this five?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Hey, CB, I need some change. Give me two tens for this five?


you just neatly summed up the conservative budget process.

nice


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> The truth is, we don't know exactly what the jets are going to cost, and how we attribute a cost to them depends entirely on whether we include initial cost, initial cost of base model, lifetime cost, lifetime cost with cost of fencing and runway maintenance, etc. If I were the Conservatives at this point, I would simply state that the total cost of the program will not exceed $X and the number of planes would be reduced to suit the budget. Likewise, the Libs should state exactly what they would wish to do regarding air patrol/defense. Stating simply that you would kill the program and save $30 billion is ludicrous.


Everyone seems to understand this except Candidates from the Conservative Party.

When in government they insisted on the cost of 9 Billion Dollars and that price included more than the cost of the Jet. Today they insist 9 Billion Dollars is the complete price for 65 jets, when clearly it is not. The cost estimate presently is $115 to $120 million per plane only, not the $75 million all inclusive price that Laurie Hawn and Harper persist is the price.

Mr. Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office, as well as U.S. defence analyst Mr. Winslow Wheeler, have no idea where the price of $75 millions comes from. The price of the F-35 Jets is far above the Conservative Candidates claim. No one knows the price for sure but estimates are between $115 to $130 million per plane presently and that is not with all the extras Hawn says were getting. Blowing the $9 Billion Conservative price tag out of the air.


----------



## groovetube

apparently, that whole flap over the vote compass, it seems the Sun reporter didn't quite, report all of the details of who was involved with it.

Sun Media ignored Flanagan on VoteCompass prof’s objectivity | Talking Points

Tom Flanagan, whom I highly doubt would be in on a "liberal conspiracy", did try to set the matter straight. But that's the Sun for you.


----------



## MannyP Design

CubaMark said:


> Great! So the Canadian Air Force will then consist of a grand total of... three warplanes!
> :lmao:


I bet they'd fly better than a SeaKing. :lmao:


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> I bet they'd fly better than a SeaKing. :lmao:


who knows how well they'll fly. the testing isn't anywhere near from being done on them.


----------



## i-rui

Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly - The Globe and Mail

interesting read. Not a definitive study, but one that certainly points to the fact that keeping the current (or years past) corporate tax level won't implode our industry.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> I bet they'd fly better than a SeaKing. :lmao:


So! When was the last time you heard of a Sea King falling from the skies?

The Sea Kings have had refits and are good to go.

As an aside the helicopter that the President of United States of America flies in is a modified Sea King.


----------



## BigDL

*Harper's Copyright troubles*

Good thing Harper copyright died on the order paper he might of got himself into trouble.

What else can go wrong with the Conservatives campaign.



CBCNews said:


> A video featuring Conservative Leader Stephen Harper performing Imagine by John Lennon has been removed from YouTube for copyright reasons.


YouTube pulls Harper Imagine clip - Technology & Science - CBC News


----------



## groovetube

oh my. There's a bit of egg on the ol mug.

Well I'm in for laser eye surgery in the morning. Not sure how long it'll be before I can look 'into the light' again. But it's cool things are relatively civil in this thread though 57 pages!


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> oh my. There's a bit of egg on the ol mug.
> 
> Well I'm in for laser eye surgery in the morning. Not sure how long it'll be before I can look 'into the light' again. But it's cool things are relatively civil in this thread though 57 pages!


Good luck! I'll try to keep my southpark references to myself in the future!
But seriously, hope all goes well!


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> So! When was the last time you heard of a Sea King falling from the skies?
> 
> The Sea Kings have had refits and are good to go.
> 
> As an aside the helicopter that the President of United States of America flies in is a modified Sea King.


:lmao:

Likely because pilots are training with their replacements that were beginning the roll out last year. That are finally being delivered no thanks to the Liberals and their wasting time and money prolonging the acquisition. (and wasting 500 million cancelling the contract.)

Unlike some of the armchair experts on this board, I trust the opinions of the CF people involved in the materiel acquisitions. Apparently I-rui moonlights at top gun and is intimate with all things related to the F-35. 

Any reason to argue your party of choice, apparently. How cute.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

i-rui said:


> Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly - The Globe and Mail
> 
> interesting read. Not a definitive study, but one that certainly points to the fact that keeping the current (or years past) corporate tax level won't implode our industry.





> But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade.


No doubt this sort of thing is exactly why Harper wants to curtail Stats Canada's ability to get accurate information. These sort of inconvenient facts make the propaganda business so darn tricky.

This lets-hand-over-money-to-those-who-already-have-piles-of-it business is just the latest version of the same trickle-down BS that conservatives have been spouting since Reagan, Mulroney and Thatcher.

On the other hand I think the NDP is on the right track when they're the only party who are proposing a corporate tax rate cut from 11% to 9% for those businesses that have profits of $500,000 and under. This is where the real economic engine lies with smaller middle-class businesses who have fewer employees and spend their money locally, rather than larger corps that will just pay a fatter dividend to shareholders and invest in expanding their workforce and operations in low-wage countries.

And yet I heard a CFIB economist on the radio this morning, speaking for her group that is made up of small business people, defending the Harper tax cuts for large corporations while downplaying the NDP proposal that would directly benefit her own membership. I wonder if the dues paying members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business even have a clue how their executive speaks out solely for their larger competition. Such is the myopia of many conservatives. "We must defend the interests of the richest 1% because even though we're not in their camp and likely will never be ... we hope to be ... one day ... for sure ... really." The idiocy of Joe the Plumber, writ large.


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> Unlike some of the armchair experts on this board, I trust the opinions of the CF people involved in the materiel acquisitions. Apparently I-rui moonlights at top gun and is intimate with all things related to the F-35.


yes, I'm a terrible person for researching the subject and knowing more about the issue than you.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> yes, I'm a terrible person for researching the subject and knowing more about the issue than you.


And humble too.


----------



## Max

Hoo boy. As if this thread is wonderfully bereft of all sorts of wanton ego-flaunting.
_Harrrrrrumph._


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Hoo boy. As if this thread is wonderfully bereft of all sorts of wanton ego-flaunting.
> _Harrrrrrumph._


Clean as a whistle, Maxie.


----------



## Max

Not I, friend; I include myself in the finger-pointing. All in the muck together!


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Not I, friend; I include myself in the finger-pointing. All in the muck together!


You lily-livered, pink bellied varmints is all alike.


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> yes, I'm a terrible person for researching the subject and knowing more about the issue than you.


Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

I've worked with DND for almost 10 years on publications and reports (including DND's strategic planning for future materiel acquisition). Unfortunately you won't find that on Wikipedia. :lmao:


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> You lily-livered, pink bellied varmints is all alike.


Hey, you cold-blooded saurian vermin is all alike too.


----------



## Macfury

We will eat you.


----------



## Max

Expect a bout of indigestion, then.

We will persevere. You are nothing without us; we are nothing without you. Borg, meet Borg! This whole thread is nothing more than a frenzied commingling of PO'd souls. A sour symbiosis, if you will. If you did not exist, I would have to invent you. And vicey versey, natch. We all need to rail against things. Just as we all need to aspire to things.

I humbly hope this radiant display of wisdom will be fervently been welcomed by those most in need of it.


----------



## Macfury

Dry sponges sopping up the pure sweet spring of reason.


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
> 
> I've worked with DND for almost 10 years on publications and reports (including DND's strategic planning for future materiel acquisition). Unfortunately you won't find that on Wikipedia. :lmao:


OH WOW! What fonts did you use??? That must make *you* the expert on jets, right? Silly me.

Hey, Allan Williams worked for DND for 10 years too, and was actually in charge of "strategic planning for future materiel acquisition" . this is what he said about the F-35 :



> The report of the Parliamentary Budgetary Office confirmed that the government's contention that "the F-35 is the best plane at the best price" is categorically false. It is certainly not the best plane as it is currently in development and as of today has no operational capability. It is certainly not the best price as the government clearly has no idea what is the price of the F-35 nor does it know what would be the price of any of its competitors. It's time the government treated Canadians with respect and provided us with fact not fabrication.


Neither the best plane nor the best price

Maybe you should do some work on reports from the PBO, the General Accountability Office of the United States, and the Centre for Defense Information and see what they say about the F-35's cost.


----------



## MacDoc

The jets are just another in a string of fiscally irresponsible management by Harper....



> *Harper’s sound fiscal management is a myth.*
> 
> There are myths created in politics which, like a lie told often enough, are accepted as true in the minds of Canadian voters. One such myth is that Conservative governments tend to be leaner in spending and better for the Canadian economy than their Liberal counterparts. For example, there is a myth that the economic policies of the Stephen Harper government are better for us Canadians than what we would face under the “fiscally irresponsible” Liberals.
> 
> *There is not a single statistic relevant to average Canadians that support that claim.*
> 
> _On Friday, March 18, 2011, Canada’s national debt reached an all time high at $562.9 billion Canadian dollars, topping the previous high of $562.8 billion brought about during the years of Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney._
> 
> What’s worse is that Harper doesn’t seem to have a credible plan in place to reduce this debt, other than to continue the very same corporate tax reduction policies that have clearly not worked for anybody other than the corporations.
> 
> Some will argue that tracking the national debt is not the best measure of Harper’s ability to manage our economy given the global recession in 2008 and 2009. Ok, then let’s examine the Canadian level of productivity during Harper’s term as Prime Minister.
> 
> Statistics Canada started tracking Canada’s level of productivity in 1961 and has reported a net cumulative productivity growth in productivity under every consecutive government until Stephen Harper came to power, when it dropped by half a percentage point. For the first time since we have kept these statistics, Canadians have witnessed under Harper the fall of the level of productivity over a sustained period of time.
> 
> There are as many reasons cited for this decline as there are economists writing about it, but one theme is consistent. The Harper government is wedded to those corporations who operate within the primary extractive sector, oil and minerals primarily, and believes their success will help to reverse the trend. With the current rise in prices for oil, copper and gold, companies are encouraged to spend billions of dollars on projects that would, under more normal commodity price conditions, be considered at best marginal, or worse not profitable.
> 
> This is why the Harper government continues to hand out government largess and tax breaks as an incentive to companies such as those pursuing the Alberta Tar Sands project. It is bad economics on two fronts. First it encourages the continued exploration for oil with the most egregious environmental and tenuous of economic consequences, and second it diverts funds from other projects that are not part of the fossil fuel economy and would do much more to stimulate growth in the economy.
> 
> It is also a myth that the Harper Conservative government is fiscally lean when it comes to government spending. Even if we are to remove the huge amount spent on the economic stimulus program,* Prime Minister Stephen Harper has substantially increased federal government expenditures in every year of the last five years that he has been in office*.
> 
> *In addition, he has added thousands of people to the federal public service. *
> This despite his commitment to reduce government spending made while in opposition.
> 
> *In the last year of the Liberal Paul Martin government in 2005-2006, overall program funding was $175 billion. Last year, under Harper, it had climbed to $245 billion. *Even if these numbers are measured against the overall growth of the Canadian economy,* program spending has increased more than 25% over the five years of the Harper government.*


there is lots more 

http://gordonfdwilson.com/625/harper’s-sound-fiscal-management-is-a-myth/


----------



## dona83

So much for being fiscally conservative... so really it's about the Christian responsibility to vote right (even though God doesn't care about politics), overgrown boys buying expensive toys, and kickbacks for corporations. Oh and turning Canada into the US.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> The jets are just another in a string of fiscally irresponsible management by Harper....
> 
> 
> 
> there is lots more


Yes, there is and you've conveniently left it our of your rant. How about the Liberals and the NDP holding a gun to the government's head to add more spending to strengthen the economy during the recession? Forget about that did we?


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> OH WOW! What fonts did you use??? That must make *you* the expert on jets, right? Silly me.


I certainly didn't say I was an expert…*maybe you need to get hooked on phonics. I even worked with one Canada's first female fighter pilots (I'll give you a $50 iTunes card if you can tell me her name without looking it up  ).

But if you REALLY must know, it wasn't Comic Sans. I know you'll be disappointed.

Alan Williams is pissed because Canada sole-sourced the F-35 and is taking a hissy fit. "Thoroughly researched" folk like you fail to understand that terms like "best jet fighter" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive terms. The F-35 cost is comparable to what Canada paid for CF-18s and will have a longer operational value; something you won't find in a 2 paragraph "article" from the Ottawa Citizen.

Of course, the Libs (once again) are hoping to get into a position of power so they can cost Canada millions (maybe they'll reach billions this time) when they cancel the contract, leaving our pilots flying with decades old CF-18s with refurbished parts from the War Museum.

But hey, Libs are gonna save us money, I tells ya!


----------



## groovetube

wait a second, I thought we hadn't yet signed any contract?


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> wait a second, I thought we hadn't yet signed any contract?


Sorry, my err. You're correct, there is no contract in place for the F-35 yet, but there have been contracts with respects to the JSF project and testing.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> I certainly didn't say I was an expert…*maybe you need to get hooked on phonics. I even worked with one Canada's first female fighter pilots (I'll give you a $50 iTunes card if you can tell me her name without looking it up  ).
> 
> But if you REALLY must know, it wasn't Comic Sans. I know you'll be disappointed.
> 
> Alan Williams is pissed because Canada sole-sourced the F-35 and is taking a hissy fit. "Thoroughly researched" folk like you fail to understand that terms like "best jet fighter" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive terms. The F-35 cost is comparable to what Canada paid for CF-18s and will have a longer operational value; something you won't find in a 2 paragraph "article" from the Ottawa Citizen.
> 
> Of course, the Libs (once again) are hoping to get into a position of power so they can cost Canada millions (maybe they'll reach billions this time) when they cancel the contract, leaving our pilots flying with decades old CF-18s with refurbished parts from the War Museum.
> 
> But hey, Libs are gonna save us money, I tells ya!


Why are the Conservatives still holding onto a deluded price for the F-35 or are the Conservative candidates utterly incompetent with regard to the price of the F-35.

For your ready reference a clip of Laurie Hawn quoting a fictitious price;

Conservative view of F-35 cost debate

I am not arguing which jet should be the plane Canada buys for its operational needs, I am not arguing value for money either. I am asking why the Conservatives have the price so wrong and why they have so doggedly hung onto the lowball price?

Again for your ready reference: 
the independent assessment of the rising costs of the F-35

Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office


American's view of F-35 cost debate 

What is the value of the Conservative's plan to intentionally mislead the Canadian public with regard to the price of the F-35 acquisition plan? 

Harper the *"Master Strategist"* must have an another ultimate goal by taking such stubborn course of action.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Yes, there is and you've conveniently left it our of your rant. How about the Liberals and the NDP holding a gun to the government's head to add more spending to strengthen the economy during the recession? Forget about that did we?


how could anyone forget about that? the Harper government spent $26 million advertising how *great* of an idea it was!



MannyP Design said:


> Alan Williams is pissed because Canada sole-sourced the F-35 and is taking a hissy fit. "Thoroughly researched" folk like you fail to understand that terms like "best jet fighter" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive terms. The F-35 cost is comparable to what Canada paid for CF-18s and will have a longer operational value; something you won't find in a 2 paragraph "article" from the Ottawa Citizen.


actually the quote was "the F-35 is the best plane at the best price", and it's what *conservatives* have been saying.

the whole point is Canada doesn't need the "best jet fighter", we need the *right* ones. If the idea is for these jets to patrol our airspace why do we need stealth technology? (something that's only useful for offensive attacks). Why would we risk having $130 million jets flying in the arctic with a single engine?

One of the points on DNDs list of criteria for new fighter jets to buy was that they be operational. the f-35 is a good 5 years from that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

i-rui said:


> SINC said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Liberals and the NDP holding a gun to the government's head to add more spending to strengthen the economy during the recession? Forget about that did we?
> 
> 
> 
> how could anyone forget about that? the Harper government spent $26 million advertising how *great* of an idea it was!
Click to expand...

:lmao:

Amazingly Con supporters still cling to the idea that Opposition twisted their widdle arms and brutally forced them to spend all that money. That big, bad Opposition Coalition. They're such big bullies. Harper couldn't do anything because they were sooooo mean to him. Harper is a victim of these bullies.

Then the evil Opposition Coalition made them go and get great big photo op cheques made up when after they forced them to hand out this spending. They even threatened them that if they didn't paint their party logo on the cheques rather than the customary Government of Canada logo they would topple Harpers government. That Opposition Coalition is BAD, BAD, BAD. And very, very mean too. beejacon


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Amazingly Con supporters still cling to the idea that Opposition twisted their widdle arms and brutally forced them to spend all that money. That big, bad Opposition Coalition. They're such big bullies. Harper couldn't do anything because they were sooooo mean to him. Harper is a victim of these bullies.
> 
> Then the evil Opposition Coalition made them go and get great big photo op cheques made up when after they forced them to hand out this spending. They even threatened them that if they didn't paint their party logo on the cheques rather than the customary Government of Canada logo they would topple Harpers government. That Opposition Coalition is BAD, BAD, BAD. And very, very mean too. beejacon



I would have presented the cheques with a big smile myself. Once cornered into municipal welfare, may as well take some credit for it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> I would have presented the cheques with a big smile myself. Once cornered into municipal welfare, may as well take some credit for it.


They were cornered were they? Then why didn't they just stand by their principles and dare the opposition to vote them down. If they were so absolutely right wouldn't they have got their long-sought-after majority back then? 

I'm surprised that you MF would buy into this Conservatives as victim myth. Or maybe you're just spreading it to support your brothers-in-arms.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Besides the infrastructure spending, whether you believe that is was "forced" on Harper or not, the Harper Government has still been a fiscal disaster as pointed out in the Gordon Wilson article that MacDoc quoted above:



> It is also a myth that the Harper Conservative government is fiscally lean when it comes to government spending. Even if we are to remove the huge amount spent on the economic stimulus program, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has substantially increased federal government expenditures in every year of the last five years that he has been in office.
> 
> In addition, he has added thousands of people to the federal public service. This despite his commitment to reduce government spending made while in opposition.
> 
> In the last year of the Liberal Paul Martin government in 2005-2006, overall program funding was $175 billion. Last year, under Harper, it had climbed to $245 billion. Even if these numbers are measured against the overall growth of the Canadian economy, program spending has increased more than 25% over the five years of the Harper government.


----------



## MannyP Design

You've been spending too much time on Rabble.ca, haven't you? 

Stealth is not only solely used for offensive attacks--regardless, what the [email protected] difference does it make -- it's for a jet FIGHTER! :lmao:

So what IS the right jet fighter for Canada, in your estimation? :heybaby:



i-rui said:


> how could anyone forget about that? the Harper government spent $26 million advertising how *great* of an idea it was!
> 
> 
> 
> actually the quote was "the F-35 is the best plane at the best price", and it's what *conservatives* have been saying.
> 
> the whole point is Canada doesn't need the "best jet fighter", we need the *right* ones. If the idea is for these jets to patrol our airspace why do we need stealth technology? (something that's only useful for offensive attacks). Why would we risk having $130 million jets flying in the arctic with a single engine?
> 
> One of the points on DNDs list of criteria for new fighter jets to buy was that they be operational. the f-35 is a good 5 years from that.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> They were cornered were they? Then why didn't they just stand by their principles and dare the opposition to vote them down. If they were so absolutely right wouldn't they have got their long-sought-after majority back then?


Probably not sure they could squeeze out of the coalition trap at the time. I think we got off cheap.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> You've been spending too much time on Rabble.ca, haven't you?
> 
> Stealth is not only solely used for offensive attacks--regardless, what the [email protected] difference does it make -- it's for a jet FIGHTER! :lmao:
> 
> So what IS the right jet fighter for Canada, in your estimation? :heybaby:


What is your estimation of the cost of the Conservative F-35 jet acquisition programme?

Why are the Conservatives married to 9 Billion Dollars as the price tag?

What is the *Master Strategist's* end game after this election?


----------



## arminia

*Another after the budget is balanced promise*

Tax-free savings limit would double: Harper - Business - CBC News


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> You've been spending too much time on Rabble.ca, haven't you? :


no, i've been spending my time reading and informing myself on the subject instead of taking Laurie Hawn's word as the gospel truth. You should try it sometime!



MannyP Design said:


> Stealth is not only solely used for offensive attacks--regardless, what the [email protected] difference does it make -- it's for a jet FIGHTER! :lmao:


There are plenty of "jet FIGHTER"s that don't have Stealth tech, so what's your point? My point is Canada doesn't need it because the main purpose of these jets are to patrol & defend our borders, in which case Stealth tech is useless.



MannyP Design said:


> So what IS the right jet fighter for Canada, in your estimation? :heybaby:


right now the f-18 super hornet would be the best fit.

if canada really wanted the "best" fighter jet we could go after the Eurofighter Typhoon.... but it would be around the same cost as the f-35, and it's total overkill for Canada's needs,


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> What is your estimation of the cost of the Conservative F-35 jet acquisition programme?
> 
> Why are the Conservatives married to 9 Billion Dollars as the price tag?
> 
> What is the *Master Strategist's* end game after this election?


Is this a deflection tactic? 

Nice of you to answer my questions, but what the heck:

My estimation? They way I see it, it's akin to buying a Mac. Sure it costs more initially, but it's going to be cheaper in the end to maintain year over year and you'll get a better ROI. The F-35 has been performing quite well, and is going to be ready for rollout when the CD-18s are phased out. The F-35 has garnered a lot of interest in other countries and see value in it -- including Norway and Denmark.

The Cons are married to the price tag because that's the cost of doing business. If you want to buy a cheaper fighter that will be retired sooner, then that's your preference. You only save in the short term.

I don't know the "Master Strategist's" endgame any more than you know Iggy's. I don't follow the Cons, nor do I care if they're elected. I have no horse in this race and frankly, I think they're all crooks (Green Party, too).


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> Is this a deflection tactic?
> 
> Nice of you to answer my questions, but what the heck:
> 
> My estimation? They way I see it, it's akin to buying a Mac. Sure it costs more initially, but it's going to be cheaper in the end to maintain year over year and you'll get a better ROI. The F-35 has been performing quite well, and is going to be ready for rollout when the CD-18s are phased out. The F-35 has garnered a lot of interest in other countries and see value in it -- including Norway and Denmark.
> 
> ...The Cons are married to the price tag because that's the cost of doing business. If you want to buy a cheaper fighter that will be retired sooner, then that's your preference. You only save in the short term....


The fighter jet the Conservatives want to buy costs significantly more, yet the Conservatives are doggedly stating the total cost of the acquisition is 9 Billion Dollars. In fact *significantly more* than $9 Billion "that's the real cost of doing business," to paraphrase MP D.


----------



## CubaMark

(Bruce Mackinnon - Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> The fighter jet the Conservatives want to buy costs significantly more, yet the Conservatives are doggedly stating the total cost of the acquisition is 9 Billion Dollars. In fact *significantly more* than $9 Billion "that's the real cost of doing business," to paraphrase MP D.


You're still evading my question. Look, if you don't want to answer it. Just say so.

Also, if I recall, the price of the jets are actually quite close to the Superhornet, if I am not mistaken, just a matter of a million or so per jet (approx. 50-55 million per jet) as opposed to the CF-18 which cost us US$35 million in '77.

When you factor how much we paid back then…*it's not nearly as expensive.


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> You're still evading my question. Look, if you don't want to answer it. Just say so.
> 
> Also, if I recall, the price of the jets are actually quite close to the Superhornet, if I am not mistaken, just a matter of a million or so per jet.


wow. you really need to read up on this. 

seriously.


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> wow. you really need to read up on this.
> 
> seriously.


Wow. Seriously? Like, yeah. You know. 

Tell me how much we spent to get our pilots into the CF-18s. We're paying approx. $50 (million) per jet -- that's around the same cost to buy a Superhornet.


----------



## i-rui

The Superhornet would *EASILY* be less than half the cost of the f-35.

If you're suggesting it's $50 million for an f-35 i don't even know where to start.


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> The Superhornet would *EASILY* be less than half the cost of the f-35.


Wow! Like, seriously? :lmao:


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> Wow! Like, seriously? :lmao:


yes.

$55 million for a Super Hornet. (and this is an accurate cost since it's actually in production)

$122 million for the f-35 (and that's a low estimate. this cost can easily go up as it's years before it'll be in actual production).


----------



## whatiwant

Silencing Dissent: The Conservative Record | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Interesting read.


----------



## Macfury

Interesting left-wing read.


----------



## whatiwant

Macfury said:


> Interesting left-wing read.


Yeah I think most people would gather that from the title, but thanks for pointing that out so it's "super duper clear".


----------



## Macfury

I prefer interesting right-wing reads. More taste. Less filling.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> I certainly didn't say I was an expert…*maybe you need to get hooked on phonics. I even worked with one Canada's first female fighter pilots (I'll give you a $50 iTunes card if you can tell me her name without looking it up  ).
> 
> But if you REALLY must know, it wasn't Comic Sans. I know you'll be disappointed.
> 
> Alan Williams is pissed because Canada sole-sourced the F-35 and is taking a hissy fit. "Thoroughly researched" folk like you fail to understand that terms like "best jet fighter" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive terms. The F-35 cost is comparable to what Canada paid for CF-18s and will have a longer operational value; something you won't find in a 2 paragraph "article" from the Ottawa Citizen.
> 
> Of course, the Libs (once again) are hoping to get into a position of power so they can cost Canada millions (maybe they'll reach billions this time) when they cancel the contract, leaving our pilots flying with decades old CF-18s with refurbished parts from the War Museum.
> 
> But hey, Libs are gonna save us money, I tells ya!





BigDL said:


> Why are the Conservatives still holding onto a deluded price for the F-35 or are the Conservative candidates utterly incompetent with regard to the price of the F-35.
> 
> For your ready reference a clip of Laurie Hawn quoting a fictitious price;
> 
> Conservative view of F-35 cost debate
> 
> I am not arguing which jet should be the plane Canada buys for its operational needs, I am not arguing value for money either. I am asking why the Conservatives have the price so wrong and why they have so doggedly hung onto the lowball price?
> 
> Again for your ready reference:
> the independent assessment of the rising costs of the F-35
> 
> Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office
> 
> 
> American's view of F-35 cost debate
> 
> What is the value of the Conservative's plan to intentionally mislead the Canadian public with regard to the price of the F-35 acquisition plan?
> 
> Harper the *"Master Strategist"* must have an another ultimate goal by taking such stubborn course of action.





MannyP Design said:


> You've been spending too much time on Rabble.ca, haven't you?
> 
> Stealth is not only solely used for offensive attacks--regardless, what the [email protected] difference does it make -- it's for a jet FIGHTER! :lmao:
> 
> So what IS the right jet fighter for Canada, in your estimation? :heybaby:





BigDL said:


> What is your estimation of the cost of the Conservative F-35 jet acquisition programme?
> 
> Why are the Conservatives married to 9 Billion Dollars as the price tag?
> 
> What is the *Master Strategist's* end game after this election?





MannyP Design said:


> Is this a deflection tactic?
> 
> Nice of you to answer my questions, but what the heck:
> 
> My estimation? They way I see it, it's akin to buying a Mac. Sure it costs more initially, but it's going to be cheaper in the end to maintain year over year and you'll get a better ROI. The F-35 has been performing quite well, and is going to be ready for rollout when the CD-18s are phased out. The F-35 has garnered a lot of interest in other countries and see value in it -- including Norway and Denmark.
> 
> The Cons are married to the price tag because that's the cost of doing business. If you want to buy a cheaper fighter that will be retired sooner, then that's your preference. You only save in the short term.
> 
> I don't know the "Master Strategist's" endgame any more than you know Iggy's. I don't follow the Cons, nor do I care if they're elected. I have no horse in this race and frankly, I think they're all crooks (Green Party, too).





BigDL said:


> The fighter jet the Conservatives want to buy costs significantly more, yet the Conservatives are doggedly stating the total cost of the acquisition is 9 Billion Dollars. In fact *significantly more* than $9 Billion "that's the real cost of doing business," to paraphrase MP D.





MannyP Design said:


> You're still evading my question. Look, if you don't want to answer it. Just say so.
> 
> Also, if I recall, the price of the jets are actually quite close to the Superhornet, if I am not mistaken, just a matter of a million or so per jet (approx. 50-55 million per jet) as opposed to the CF-18 which cost us US$35 million in '77.
> 
> When you factor how much we paid back then…*it's not nearly as expensive.


Well! My daughter did warn me about arguing on the internet. She mentioned an analogy of arguing over the internet and competing in the special olympics with the advise, no matter how well you do on any given day in any particular event, when you get off the bus your just the same person as when you got on that bus.

So to recap: I have no idea of the best jets for the CAF; I don't know the best value for money in armament acquisitions; I don't know why the Conservative Candidates still contend the F-35 programme will only cost 9 billion dollars when clear independent evidence discloses it will cost significantly more; I don't know why the Conservative Candidates cling to incorrect information regarding the acquisition costs and lowball price of the F-35 programme, is it they're stubborn or is it they have an agenda and I don't know why Conservative policy supporters run away from this issue?


----------



## BigDL

*Well first big Conservative's Cheques now this*

Good ol' Gerald Keddy Nova Scotian Conservative who is infamous for the pictures of the BIG Conservative cheques when handing government money now he is further politicizing the Government of Canada Action Plan



CBCNews said:


> Nova Scotia Conservative candidate Gerald Keddy has removed a re-election sign that was attached to a billboard touting the federal government's economic plan.
> 
> Keddy's campaign sign was placed on a federally funded Canada Economic Action Plan sign, on a busy street in Bridgewater.
> 
> The five-term Conservative acknowledged his team was responsible, but he downplayed it as a mistake that happens to every party early in an election.


The story's here


----------



## eMacMan

Just got our local MPs "Newsletter". No way to tell if it was mailed out before or after the election announcement though it was obviously written before.

Still it feel a bit like electioneering on the taxpayer dime.


----------



## Ottawaman

U.S. budget watchdog issues new warning about F-35 design and cost



> DOD continues to substantially restructure the JSF program, taking positive actions that should lead to more achievable and predictable outcomes. Restructuring has consequences--higher up-front development costs, fewer aircraft in the near term, training delays, and extended times for testing and delivering capabilities to warfighters. Total development funding is now $56.4 billion to complete in 2018, a 26 percent increase in cost and a 5-year slip in schedule compared to the current baseline. DOD also reduced procurement quantities by 246 aircraft through 2016, but has not calculated the net effects of restructuring on total procurement costs nor approved a new baseline. Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs. Going forward, the JSF requires unprecedented funding levels in a period of more austere defense budgets. The program had mixed success in 2010, achieving 6 of 12 major goals it established and making varying degrees of progress on the others. Successes included the first flight of the carrier variant, award of a fixed-price aircraft procurement contract, and an accelerated pace in development flight tests that accomplished three times as many flights in 2010 as the previous 3 years combined. However, the program did not deliver as many aircraft to test and training sites as planned and made only a partial release of software capabilities. The short take off and landing variant (STOVL) experienced significant technical problems and did not meet flight test expectations. The Secretary of Defense directed a 2-year period to evaluate and engineer STOVL solutions. After more than 9 years in development and 4 in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, and the system is reliable. Engineering drawings are still being released to the manufacturing floor and design changes continue at higher rates than desired. More changes are expected as testing accelerates. Test and production aircraft cost more and are taking longer to deliver than expected. Manufacturers are improving operations and implemented 8 of 20 recommendations from an expert panel, but have not yet demonstrated a capacity to efficiently produce at higher production rates. Substantial improvements in factory throughput and the global supply chain are needed. Development testing is still early in demonstrating that aircraft will work as intended and meet warfighter requirements. Only about 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both. Only 3 of the extensive network of 32 ground test labs and simulation models are fully accredited to ensure the fidelity of results. Software development--essential for achieving about 80 percent of the JSF functionality--is significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging phase. To sustain a focus on accountability and facilitate tradeoffs within the JSF program, GAO recommends that DOD (1) maintain annual funding levels at current budgeted amounts; (2) establish criteria for evaluating the STOVL's progress and make independent reviews, allowing each variant to proceed at its own pace; and (3) conduct an independent review of the software development and lab accreditation processes. DOD concurred.



U.S. GAO - Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Places Program on Firmer Footing, but Progress Still Lags



Doesn't bode well for this program.


----------



## Macfury

Another success for government partnering with industry!


----------



## Macfury

> Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled his “Here for Canada” Conservative policy platform. The platform provides Canadians with a prudent low-tax plan to protect and create jobs by completing our recovery from the global economic recession. “Here for Canada” commits to eliminating the deficit by the 2014-2015 fiscal year without cutting transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces.


Without the Ignatieff tax plan??? Stick a fork in Iggy... he's done.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Without the Ignatieff tax plan??? Stick a fork in Iggy... he's done.


Pretty easy to project the end of the deficit sooner, when you don't have a clue about the cost of anything, witness the cost F-35 jets discussion.



> DOD continues to substantially restructure the JSF program, taking positive actions that should lead to more achievable and predictable outcomes. Restructuring has consequences--higher up-front development costs, fewer aircraft in the near term, training delays, and extended times for testing and delivering capabilities to warfighters. Total development funding is now $56.4 billion to complete in 2018, a 26 percent increase in cost and a 5-year slip in schedule compared to the current baseline. DOD also reduced procurement quantities by 246 aircraft through 2016, but has not calculated the net effects of restructuring on total procurement costs nor approved a new baseline. Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs. Going forward, the JSF requires unprecedented funding levels in a period of more austere defense budgets. The program had mixed success in 2010, achieving 6 of 12 major goals it established and making varying degrees of progress on the others. Successes included the first flight of the carrier variant, award of a fixed-price aircraft procurement contract, and an accelerated pace in development flight tests that accomplished three times as many flights in 2010 as the previous 3 years combined. However, the program did not deliver as many aircraft to test and training sites as planned and made only a partial release of software capabilities. The short take off and landing variant (STOVL) experienced significant technical problems and did not meet flight test expectations. The Secretary of Defense directed a 2-year period to evaluate and engineer STOVL solutions. After more than 9 years in development and 4 in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, and the system is reliable. Engineering drawings are still being released to the manufacturing floor and design changes continue at higher rates than desired. More changes are expected as testing accelerates. Test and production aircraft cost more and are taking longer to deliver than expected. Manufacturers are improving operations and implemented 8 of 20 recommendations from an expert panel, but have not yet demonstrated a capacity to efficiently produce at higher production rates. Substantial improvements in factory throughput and the global supply chain are needed. Development testing is still early in demonstrating that aircraft will work as intended and meet warfighter requirements. Only about 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both. Only 3 of the extensive network of 32 ground test labs and simulation models are fully accredited to ensure the fidelity of results. Software development--essential for achieving about 80 percent of the JSF functionality--is significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging phase. To sustain a focus on accountability and facilitate tradeoffs within the JSF program, GAO recommends that DOD (1) maintain annual funding levels at current budgeted amounts; (2) establish criteria for evaluating the STOVL's progress and make independent reviews, allowing each variant to proceed at its own pace; and (3) conduct an independent review of the software development and lab accreditation processes. DOD concurred.


Remember we'll all eat pie in the sky bye and bye


----------



## i-rui

BigDL said:


> Pretty easy to project the end of the deficit sooner, when you don't have a clue about the cost of anything, witness the cost F-35 jets discussion.


So true. Easy to say you'll balance the books when you tell Canadians that $130+ million dollar jets only cost $75 million. I guess they have some "coupons".

Plus more "coupons" for billion mega-jails?

Still no real commitment to health care past 2014.

GAH! Just make us the 51st state already.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Still no real commitment to health care past 2014.


Did Iggy make one?


----------



## BigDL

i-rui said:


> So true. Easy to say you'll balance the books when you tell Canadians that $130+ million dollar jets only cost $75 million. I guess they have some "coupons".
> 
> Plus more "coupons" for billion mega-jails?
> 
> Still no real commitment to health care past 2014.
> 
> GAH! Just make us the 51st state already.


Bad enough Harper is trying to bring that style of governance to us. Parliament is regularly shut down, but not the whole government.

This segue shall assist the Harper supporters to change the channel on the unreality of the Conservative Candidates talk show style.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Did Iggy make one?


No he most unequivocally did not.


----------



## whatiwant

screature said:


> No he most unequivocally did not.


He said it would extend past the 2014 date, but didn't give a solid date which it would extend to.


----------



## Max

1.
the bubble campaign:
stick to script, say nothing real
lick soap scum and smile 

2.
Rank and file members
must toe the line constantly~
watch your facebook, pal!

3.
democracy's cool!
praise it while abusing it
hope no one watches


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> 1.
> the bubble campaign:
> stick to script, say nothing real
> lick soap scum and smile
> 
> 2.
> Rank and file members
> must toe the line constantly~
> watch your facebook, pal!
> 
> 3.
> democracy's cool!
> praise it while abusing it
> hope no one watches


Sad, but all too true in many instances, Max.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> No he most unequivocally did not.


he certainly did :

Liberals promise to extend health funding beyond 2014


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> he certainly did :
> 
> Liberals promise to extend health funding beyond 2014


My bad the report I read said 6% to 2014 with no mention beyond 2014.


----------



## i-rui

So Harper wants to buy Quebec with $2 Billion.

The irony is if this was in the budget a few weeks ago the Bloc probably doesn't vote to bring down the government, and we don't have an election right now.

But of course, Harper says he never wanted an election.....


----------



## BigDL

Conservatives want:

jets (with no idea what they will really pay for them)

jails (when the crime rate is falling)

and Corporate tax cut

and oh ya they will fund universal medical care with the funding "subject to change"*

*that's the promise from the budget.


----------



## Macfury

From the same article:



> The Conservatives immediately responded that a six per cent increase beyond 2014 is already built into their fiscal framework.
> 
> "We are flattered to see Mr. Ignatieff agree to our commitment," said campaign spokesman Ryan Sparrow in an email.


----------



## i-rui

i guessed you missed this part :



> However, the budget document also states: "From 2014-15 onward, *these growth rates have not been legislated and are subject to change*."


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Conservatives want:
> 
> jets (with no idea what they will really pay for them)
> 
> jails (when the crime rate is falling)
> 
> and Corporate tax cut
> 
> and oh ya they will fund universal medical care with the funding "subject to change"*
> 
> *that's the promise from the budget.


Well, sounds like a winning combination to me. As General Custer once said, "Onward to the Little Bighorn .......... onward to victory."

We shall see how the debates go next week, and then it comes down to Conservative gains in NL/NS/NB to offset loses in Quebec. Then, gains in ON and BC will give them their majority. What happens then to the country is anyone's guess. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> i guessed you missed this part :


I hope they ARE subject to change--as should be all prudent fiscal planning.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> I hope they ARE subject to change--as should be all prudent fiscal planning.


are f-35s included in "prudent fiscal planning"?


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Well, sounds like a winning combination to me. As General Custer once said, "Onward to the Little Bighorn .......... onward to victory."
> 
> We shall see how the debates go next week, and then it comes down to Conservative gains in NL/NS/NB to offset loses in Quebec. Then, gains in ON and BC will give them their majority. What happens then to the country is anyone's guess. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Recently on a noon hour radio talk show on CBC Radio 1 that is broadcast to the 3 Maritime Provinces, the question under discussion: "Would you rather see a majority or minority government after the May 2nd election?"

Much to my surprise the caller wanted a minority government at a rate of 4 to 1 in favour of a minority government after May2nd.

We shall have to wait to see the decision of Canadians. Our times may indeed be interesting.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Recently on a noon hour radio talk show on CBC Radio 1 that is broadcast to the 3 Maritime Provinces, the question under discussion: "Would you rather see a majority or minority government after the May 2nd election?"
> 
> Much to my surprise the caller wanted a minority government at a rate of 4 to 1 in favour of a minority government after May2nd.
> 
> We shall have to wait to see the decision of Canadians. Our times may indeed be interesting.


Interesting. I still feel, as do many pundits, that NL will be the key to a Conservative majority. If the Conservatives, who currently have none of our 7 MPs, are able to get 3 to even 5 seats, all from the Liberals, and then pick up a seat or two in NS and NB, then this will start a blue tide across the country ......... since it will be these seats that will balance off any seats that they may lose in Quebec. If they do as well in ON and BC as they hope, and hold on to what they have, then it's a Conservative majority. We shall see.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Recently on a noon hour radio talk show on CBC Radio 1 that is broadcast to the 3 Maritime Provinces, the question under discussion: "Would you rather see a majority or minority government after the May 2nd election?"
> 
> Much to my surprise the caller wanted a minority government at a rate of 4 to 1 in favour of a minority government after May2nd.
> 
> We shall have to wait to see the decision of Canadians. Our times may indeed be interesting.


I'm not surprised... outside of the die hard card carrying partisans I think the Canadian public doesn't much like or trust ANY of the current offerings... With a minority, ANY minority, the government can be turfed in short order.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I'm not surprised... outside of the die hard card carrying partisans I think the Canadian public doesn't much like or trust ANY of the current offerings... With a minority, ANY minority, the government can be turfed in short order.


Another election? And so soon? XX) Let's get this one over with ......... and paid for, before there is talk of the next election. A minority situation will bring leadership changes in many if not most of the five parties. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting. I still feel, as do many pundits, that NL will be the key to a Conservative majority. If the Conservatives, who currently have none of our 7 MPs, are able to get 3 to even 5 seats, all from the Liberals, and then pick up a seat or two in NS and NB, then this will start a blue tide across the country ......... since it will be these seats that will balance off any seats that they may lose in Quebec. If they do as well in ON and BC as they hope, and hold on to what they have, then it's a Conservative majority. We shall see.


Last election I was able to catch some of the early Atlantic province results using Twitter. Being in BC, often means the election is over when they finally lift the media blackout here at 8 pm Pacific.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Another election? And so soon? XX) Let's get this one over with ......... and paid for, before there is talk of the next election. A minority situation will bring leadership changes in many if not most of the five parties. We shall see.


I think this is going to be the way of things until we have a majority government, i.e., election after election. This minority (with multiple elections) is the longest in Canadian history, so if we have another minority of any flavour I don't see the tenor of things changing, i.e. constant election mode and partisan divisions in the House and elsewhere... Committee etc...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> I think this is going to be the way of things until we have a majority government, i.e., election after election. This minority (with multiple elections) is the longest in Canadian history, so if we have another minority of any flavour I don't see the tenor of things changing, i.e. constant election mode and partisan divisions in the House and elsewhere... Committee etc...


Our first-past-the-post electoral system is ill-suited to a situation where there is anything other than 2 big parties holding almost all of the vote. It will be this way until one day, far in the future, sanity prevails and we adopt a new electoral system. Or the Libs and NDP merge (not likely in my opinion). Or the Libs disappear (slightly more likely if they fall further down in this election).


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> I'm not surprised... outside of the die hard card carrying partisans I think the Canadian public doesn't much like or trust ANY of the current offerings... With a minority, ANY minority, the government can be turfed in short order.


Many of the Maritime Canadians mentioned that wanted to see the minority governments run like the mid-sisxties minority Liberal's Government or like the Nova Scotian minority government led by PC Premier Dr. Hamm.

Premier Hamm sought consensus and provided a stable government "propped up" by the Official Opposition NDP and the Liberals as well.

Some of all of the different Party's platforms were used in some measure during this time.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Is it true that Ralph Klein is running in Rahim (snorter) Jaffer's old riding in Edmonton? He'd make an excellent deputy PM.


----------



## whatiwant

jimbotelecom said:


> Is it true that Ralph Klein is running in Rahim (snorter) Jaffer's old riding in Edmonton? He'd make an excellent deputy PM.


uhhhh, he's actually out of commission due to dementia?
Ralph Klein, diagnosed with dementia, losing his ability to speak - The Globe and Mail


----------



## jimbotelecom

jawknee said:


> uhhhh, he's actually out of commission due to dementia?
> Ralph Klein, diagnosed with dementia, losing his ability to speak - The Globe and Mail


Oh the poor guy...I had no idea...does this happen to a lot of loud mouth Cons?


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> Oh the poor guy...I had no idea...does this happen to a lot of loud mouth Cons?


That's a really insensitive comment, considering the number of people here who are dealing with family members suffering from dementia.


----------



## ehMax

See attached image for PM Harper's new running mate.


----------



## Max

jimbotelecom said:


> Oh the poor guy...I had no idea...does this happen to a lot of loud mouth Cons?


Poor taste, man. Politics be damned... try a little compassion, please.


----------



## jimbotelecom

ehMax said:


> See attached image for PM Harper's new running mate.


Did he grope you? Where's his other hand. Are you OK?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> That's a really insensitive comment, considering the number of people here who are dealing with family members suffering from dementia.


True I apologize. Thank goodness we have a public health system to help with this horrible situation.


----------



## Max

10-4, thanks.


----------



## i-rui

I love how the Cons are saying they're going to be able to balance the budget one year earlier. I guess they found $11 billion in the couch cushions?

Oh wait, they're going to get that much from the computer systems, and streamlining the government. Haven't they been in power for 5 years? Didn't they introduce a new budget a couple of weeks ago? Couldn't they have done these steps when they took office? 

What a joke. Do they really expect people to buy this crap? It's almost as bad as their "buy one get one free" F-35 coupons they're telling us they have.


----------



## dona83

I see welfare cuts coming as part of the new magically found money. Good thing they're building prisons, will come in handy when the spike in crime rates comes along with that.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> That's a really insensitive comment, considering the number of people here who are dealing with family members suffering from dementia.


I agree with you, once again, Macfury.


----------



## Dr.G.

ehMax said:


> See attached image for PM Harper's new running mate.


Wow!!!!!!!! I am going to switch my vote from the NDP to Conservative. All PM Harper needed was an ehMacLand mug.


----------



## BigDL

ehMax said:


> See attached image for PM Harper's new running mate.


What did you have *to go through* to be vetted to stand so close to Our Glorious Leader?

I did not realise that virtual Mayors were accorded such....oh never mind the Conservatives do creep all over the net don't they.


----------



## 5andman

So, it boils down to: *American-Educated*-CDN vs.* American-KISSASS*-CDN ...


----------



## SINC

5andman said:


> So, it boils down to: *American-Educated*-CDN vs.* American-KISSASS*-CDN ...


Unless I misunderstood your post altogether, it should never have been made.


----------



## groovetube

well I'm slowly coming back on 'the grid', thank god for the ctrl scroll to enlarge stuff, I still can't read smaller type on day 3 after laser eye surgery. But hot dam I can spot the curling on the shingles on a house 5 blocks away...

I see not a whole lot has changed, except announcements from the conservatives to reduce government, from the party that bloated it in the first place, and to balance the budget a year ealier! From the party once again, who spent faster than any Canadian government in history, and that doesn't all include what the opposition wanted spending on either.

Oh. And tax cuts and incentives for the rest of us unwashed, well we'll have to wait, like, 5 years, while the rich corporations get their billions right -now-, likely til after the cons get voted out in 4 years and never even have to keep any of those promises. People voting for a party promising tax incentives for the middle class, in 5... years, but tax cuts for the rich, now. You gotta be kidding me....


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> well I'm slowly coming back on 'the grid', thank god for the ctrl scroll to enlarge stuff, I still can't read smaller type on day 3 after laser eye surgery. But hot dam I can spot the curling on the shingles on a house 5 blocks away...
> 
> I see not a whole lot has changed, except announcements from the conservatives to reduce government, from the party that bloated it in the first place, and to balance the budget a year ealier! From the party once again, who spent faster than any Canadian government in history, and that doesn't all include what the opposition wanted spending on either.
> 
> Oh. And tax cuts and incentives for the rest of us unwashed, well we'll have to wait, like, 5 years, while the rich corporations get their billions right -now-, likely til after the cons get voted out in 4 years and never even have to keep any of those promises. People voting for a party promising tax incentives for the middle class, in 5... years, but tax cuts for the rich, now. You gotta be kidding me....



Welcome back, screature. Now, get with the program and support the New Conservative government ............. the New Harper Team ............. and a new Canada. Just think, with your newly found vision you might find a way to become wealthy, and thus, tap into these new tax cuts for your new tax level. Kudos. :greedy:

Your mantra for today shall be "Majority .......... majority ......... Majority ............"


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Welcome back, screature. Now, get with the program and support the New Conservative government ............. the New Harper Team ............. and a new Canada. Just think, with your newly found vision you might find a way to become wealthy, and thus, tap into these new tax cuts for your new tax level. Kudos. :greedy:
> 
> Your mantra for today shall be "Majority .......... majority ......... Majority ............"


screature? bleh. 

actually I would stand to benefit greatly from Harper's proposed corp tax cut, but it isn't the right way to do things, at all.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> actually I would stand to benefit greatly from Harper's proposed corp tax cut, but it isn't the right way to do things, at all.


This is what I've never understood. You don't _need_ to benefit from such a cut if you just give the money back.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Welcome back, screature. Now, get with the program and support the New Conservative government ............. the New Harper Team ............. and a new Canada. Just think, with your newly found vision you might find a way to become wealthy, and thus, tap into these new tax cuts for your new tax level. Kudos. :greedy:
> 
> Your mantra for today shall be "Majority .......... majority ......... Majority ............"


Opps... maybe you need to have your eyes checked Dr.G.  There really is no mistaking gt for me.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This is what I've never understood. You don't _need_ to benefit from such a cut if you just give the money back.


Given I do support a umber of worthy causes, I'm not sure what you're rambling about. It makes better sense to me to give more tax breaks NOW to the families and individuals of Canada.

Surely you're not part of the crowd that actually believes in this trickle down theory hmmm? I didn't think you were.

It's breath-taking to see so many so quick to embrace handing huge tax benefits to the rich corporations, while being told they have to wait until the moon turns blue before they get theirs...


----------



## Dr.G.

"The REAL people who know how to run the country are too busy teaching school."


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Given I do support a umber of worthy causes, I'm not sure what you're rambling about. It makes better sense to me to give more tax breaks NOW to the families and individuals of Canada.


Simply take the rebate you receive and give it to someone else you believe really deserves it. What an efficient way for you to do good!


----------



## Rps

Do any of you really think that the parties platform will resemble their actual practice once they get into power? I, and I'm sure most of you who are reading this thread, have been around enough elections to know that very little of what is said makes its way to actual policy. I'm at the stage where instead of looking for a visionary who will guide us into the future, I'm looking for someone who won't screw up as much as the past. In that respect, maybe all 4 major party leaders will fit the bill.

What I find disturbing is that all the parties are supplying answers ... but what they really should be supplying is questions. Most of our policy screw-ups are a result of not asking the right question at the right time. To me, the party that asks more questions than supplying answers should be the one we should vote for.......


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Simply take the rebate you receive and give it to someone else you believe really deserves it. What an efficient way for you to do good!


well aren't you just full of suggestions!  

How do you know whether or not I have already done this or not?

And further, how do we know the rest of the beneficiaries will do the same? I can bet that won't happen, making your grand idea of trickle down, a total failure.

tax cuts, to the people, not to rich corporations. That's why this Harper government needs to be told, no. No to stuffing the rich with more money and no to this pie in the sky crap about waiting until the after the next election before making good on their promises to the rest of us.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> well aren't you just full of suggestions!
> 
> How do you know whether or not I have already done this or not?
> 
> And further, how do we know the rest of the beneficiaries will do the same? I can bet that won't happen, making your grand idea of trickle down, a total failure.


Just seeing if you would follow the typical spiel. It's not good enough for you to give it back. "The others have to do it to. Or it's not fairrrrrrrr."


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Just seeing if you would follow the typical spiel. It's not good enough for you to give it back. "The others have to do it to. Or it's not fairrrrrrrr."


I see, it's "typical spiel" that one would not buy this we'll give the rich billions now, and when we ah, y'know, balance the budget years from now, we'll get to the families/individuals.

Maybe you actually meant, treasonous?


----------



## Macfury

I'll stop roundhousing you until you recover from that eye thing.


----------



## MLeh

I love this perception that tax cuts are 'giving more' to the corporations whereas it is actually just 'taking less'. Semantics, more than anything, but it denotes perceived ownership of the (fiscal) resource.


----------



## whatiwant

MLeh said:


> I love this perception that tax cuts are 'giving more' to the corporations whereas it is actually just 'taking less'. Semantics, more than anything, but it denotes perceived ownership of the (fiscal) resource.


Right, taking less from corporations, INSTEAD of taking less from families and individuals who might, in fact, need it more.


----------



## MLeh

Now, was that so difficult?

Now, let's work on the whole concept of 'need' versus 'want' and we might actually get somewhere.


----------



## Macfury

MLeh said:


> I love this perception that tax cuts are 'giving more' to the corporations whereas it is actually just 'taking less'. Semantics, more than anything, but it denotes perceived ownership of the (fiscal) resource.


Exactly. That money belongs to the corporations as much as it belongs to the people. "the people" are trying to claim it according to their "need." The money belongs to them. If they were to tot up how much they pay in direct and indirect taxes each year and got that sum back, they'd find little "need."


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> screature? bleh.
> 
> actually I would stand to benefit greatly from Harper's proposed corp tax cut, but it isn't the right way to do things, at all.


Sorry, gt, mea culpa.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Opps... maybe you need to have your eyes checked Dr.G.  There really is no mistaking gt for me.


Sorry, screature. Mea culpa.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Exactly. That money belongs to the corporations as much as it belongs to the people. "the people" are trying to claim it according to their "need." The money belongs to them. If they were to tot up how much they pay in direct and indirect taxes each year and got that sum back, they'd find little "need."


The country needs revenue to run. That revenue comes from taxes. Taxes not paid *has* to be made up from somewhere. When corporations keep on getting tax breaks that revenue burden is shifted to citizens.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> The country needs revenue to run. That revenue comes from taxes. Taxes not paid *has* to be made up from somewhere. When corporations keep on getting tax breaks that revenue burden is shifted to citizens.


that's A OK with some people apparently. The citizens are responsible for their share of taxes, however, corporations, well they're tax exempt I guess.

And they'll fight tooth and nail to defend the corporation's right to operate here without paying their share to the country to cover the costs. You know, things like healthcare for their workers, the roads that serve their interests, to name a couple out of hundreds and hundreds of items.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> The country needs revenue to run. That revenue comes from taxes. Taxes not paid *has* to be made up from somewhere. When corporations keep on getting tax breaks that revenue burden is shifted to citizens.


The country could be run on half the money it currently takes.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> The country could be run on half the money it currently takes.


that's an interesting theory, but it hasn't been borne out in practice. Canada has been in debt for all of my life.

I think we can all agree that the government is wasteful, but that doesn't change the *reality* of the situation. The country needs tax revenue to run. When you reduce that revenue from corporations it has to be made by it's citizens. 

That's the cold hard truth.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> that's an interesting theory, but it hasn't been borne out in practice. Canada has been in debt for all of my life.
> 
> I think we can all agree that the government is wasteful, but that doesn't change the *reality* of the situation. The country needs tax revenue to run. When you reduce that revenue from corporations it has to be made by it's citizens.
> 
> That's the cold hard truth.


Depends what the effect is on net revenue. Some tax reductions for businesses actually result in economic expansion. For example, the statement: "When you increase revenue from corporations less has to be made up by it's citizens" is also not necessarily true. It isn't a zero-sum game


----------



## i-rui

As statistics have shown the recent tax reductions on corporations *HASN'T* resulted in economic expansion.

I think there's some validity to having Canada's corporate tax be competitive. We are more than that. Absolutely no need to continue to lower it when the truth is corporations are simply sitting on the extra dollars instead of re-investing.


----------



## MLeh

i-rui said:


> As statistics have shown the recent tax reductions on corporations *HASN'T* resulted in economic expansion.
> 
> I think there's some validity to having Canada's corporate tax be competitive. We are more than that. Absolutely no need to continue to lower it when the truth is corporations are simply sitting on the extra dollars instead of re-investing.


Corporations are owned by shareholders. When a corporation makes money it either reinvests the profits in equipment/people/services (which bolsters the economy) or pays the dividends out to their shareholders. Shareholders are people. When the shareholders get the dividends it's like money in the economy.

Just like 'the goverment' isn't 'them', so too, corporations aren't 'not people'. Corporations are owned by people at the heart of the matter.


----------



## MacDoc

Except that major corporate shareholders are rarely in the local or even national economy where as government is. Therein lies a huge difference.

Taxes stay at home .....except of course when they are spent on ludicrous fighter jets


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> Corporations are owned by shareholders. When a corporation makes money it either reinvests the profits in equipment/people/services (which bolsters the economy) or pays the dividends out to their shareholders. Shareholders are people. When the shareholders get the dividends it's like money in the economy.
> 
> Just like 'the goverment' isn't 'them', so too, corporations aren't 'not people'. Corporations are owned by people at the heart of the matter.


someone is drinkin a wee bit o'koolaid... 

have some more, brought to you by the party that also wants to spend just a filthy amount of money on jets we can't afford right now.

Oh but they'll give us regular people tax breaks, when, the cows jump over the moon. :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

The NDP is proposing that the latest 2% cut to the corporate tax be rescinded, while the rate for corporate small business, -- $500,000 in profits and under -- be dropped from 11% to 9%.

I agree with this, THESE corporations are your local small businesses and they should be given the breaks, not the General Electrics and other multinationals who would prefer to wipe the floor with local business if given half the chance.

The Cons are saying, it's ONLY the big dogs that need the breaks and incentives and we can only trust THEM to trickle it down. And people are still buying the failed trickle down theory, well proven to be nonsense. 

Screw small business, screw the middle class, we can't trust them with tax breaks. Who is the Harper Government speaking for? It's not you or I that's for sure.


----------



## Rps

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I agree with this, THESE corporations are your local small businesses and they should be given the breaks, not the General Electrics and other multinationals who would prefer to wipe the floor with local business if given half the chance.


I certainly agree with this point. Corporate tax cuts are really an illusion, to a certain degree. Yes they get reduced rates, but how many big corps actually pay any tax ... you could give them triple digit cuts, what difference would it make if they don't pay taxes anyway. Now the small guys, the real employers in our economy, a 2 to 3% cut to them would be a very big deal.

If you want to help grow the business community, one needs to listen to the local businesses, not the high dollar global companies ... they would [ and do ] transfer their production at the drop of a hat ... the local guys have no where to go. And so far, it would appear that the NDP are the only one's who CONSISTENTLY talk about this point.


----------



## Dr.G.

MLeh said:


> Corporations are owned by shareholders. When a corporation makes money it either reinvests the profits in equipment/people/services (which bolsters the economy) or pays the dividends out to their shareholders. Shareholders are people. When the shareholders get the dividends it's like money in the economy.
> 
> Just like 'the goverment' isn't 'them', so too, corporations aren't 'not people'. Corporations are owned by people at the heart of the matter.


Good in theory, but I think about Nortel and how most of their employees, and shareholder, fared when they went under.


----------



## CubaMark

Well... *Apple* has shareholders and $50-billion in cash / liquid assets. When was the last time they paid a dividend? *1995*.



> When asked about why the company pays no dividends, Jobs has repeatedly stated that the huge cash hoard represents a kind of security blanket for Apple -- a quick and easy way to make acquisitions (should the need arise) and/or develop new products through long-term R&D projects.
> (International Business Times, 7 Jan 2011)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> When was the last time they paid a dividend?


People can vote out the board of directors of a publicly-traded company if they believe it to be ill-run.


----------



## MLeh

I was really trying to point out the 'us vs them' attitude that permeates a lot of thinking when I brought up the fact that it is 'people' who own 'corporations'. So many people think that social programs are a great idea as long as 'someone else' pays for them. That is reflected in the 'tax the rich' or 'tax the corporations' attitude I hear so often. 

Of course, also, everyone wants to get his or her money's worth of the taxes they have paid, so they feel entitled to the programs that are out there, whether or not there is a 'need'. Personally I feel lucky that I can pay taxes and don't need to access the social programs that are available, but I also get upset with 'them vs us' attitudes. There is no 'them', there is only 'us'.

So: If you like the idea of 'small business' and think that they should be taxed less, then each person's actions should reflect that belief. 

It's little things like shopping locally, looking for the origin of products on labels, not buying the cheapest (made in China) thing at Walmart, that will make the difference in the economy.

Talk is cheap. What do your actions say?


----------



## PenguinBoy

Macfury said:


> The country could be run on half the money it currently takes.


While there is no doubt some waste in the operation of government, *most* of the money "spent" by the feds consists of transfers to individuals, or other levels of government. A fair chunk of change also goes to bondholders who hold the government debt.

Even if we were able to convince the fat cat civil servants who spend their days driving government Lincoln Navigators and flushing room service lobsters down hotel toilets to work for free it wouldn't move the needle on government spending that much.

That said, if it was up to me I wouldn't spend money on new jets *or* a new daycare program. I would still like to see government spending reduced - or at least held steady.



Macfury said:


> Depends what the effect is on net revenue. Some tax reductions for businesses actually result in economic expansion. For example, the statement: "When you increase revenue from corporations less has to be made up by it's citizens" is also not necessarily true. It isn't a zero-sum game


Well, ~that~ worked well for places like Ireland and the US, didn't it?

While I like the idea of tax cuts, now is not the time for them. We are running a deficit right now, so the first order of business should be balanced budgets. If we want to balance the budget we really only have two levers to pull - cutting spending (as a practical matter, this means cutting transfers) or increasing taxes.

When we are running a surplus we can have a discussion on wether we would be better served by tax cuts or increased program spending.

Groovetube: Good to see you back on line, and able to read a screen so soon!


----------



## Macfury

PenguinBoy said:


> If we want to balance the budget we really only have two levers to pull - cutting spending (as a practical matter, this means cutting transfers) or increasing taxes.


New Brunswick pulled two levers--HST and economic expansion--to balance the budget.


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> I was really trying to point out the 'us vs them' attitude that permeates a lot of thinking when I brought up the fact that it is 'people' who own 'corporations'. So many people think that social programs are a great idea as long as 'someone else' pays for them. That is reflected in the 'tax the rich' or 'tax the corporations' attitude I hear so often.
> 
> Of course, also, everyone wants to get his or her money's worth of the taxes they have paid, so they feel entitled to the programs that are out there, whether or not there is a 'need'. Personally I feel lucky that I can pay taxes and don't need to access the social programs that are available, but I also get upset with 'them vs us' attitudes. There is no 'them', there is only 'us'.
> 
> So: If you like the idea of 'small business' and think that they should be taxed less, then each person's actions should reflect that belief.
> 
> It's little things like shopping locally, looking for the origin of products on labels, not buying the cheapest (made in China) thing at Walmart, that will make the difference in the economy.
> Talk is cheap. What do your actions say?


The flaw in this thesis is that Corporations are not just "held" by people, but are "held' in the main by "institutions."


----------



## BigDL

Lot of talk about taxes and tax cuts/increases during this election.

Very little discussion of what Government should provide as goods/services for the money.

What are the vital goods/services that Government should be involved/associated with?

Perhaps for this discussion we should limit the Government to the Federal Government.


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> I was really trying to point out the 'us vs them' attitude that permeates a lot of thinking when I brought up the fact that it is 'people' who own 'corporations'. So many people think that social programs are a great idea as long as 'someone else' pays for them. That is reflected in the 'tax the rich' or 'tax the corporations' attitude I hear so often.
> 
> Of course, also, everyone wants to get his or her money's worth of the taxes they have paid, so they feel entitled to the programs that are out there, whether or not there is a 'need'. Personally I feel lucky that I can pay taxes and don't need to access the social programs that are available, but I also get upset with 'them vs us' attitudes. There is no 'them', there is only 'us'.
> 
> So: If you like the idea of 'small business' and think that they should be taxed less, then each person's actions should reflect that belief.
> 
> It's little things like shopping locally, looking for the origin of products on labels, not buying the cheapest (made in China) thing at Walmart, that will make the difference in the economy.
> 
> Talk is cheap. What do your actions say?


get real. People shop for the best deal. They look to save money, just like corporations do. Corporations aren't interested in what benefits the citizens of the country, they're main goal is to maximize the returns, end of story. If that means shipping a boat load of jobs to some other country where labor is cheap, so be it. Tax cuts, great, more BMWs to lease.

and people were interested in creating jobs, and believe tax cuts encourages this, small business is indeed, where most of this happens. This is well known for so many years.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> New Brunswick pulled two levers--HST and economic expansion--to balance the budget.


well raising taxes appears to have worked for them then.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> well raising taxes appears to have worked for them then.


Definitely. Just like you could balance your purchases against taking the money from your neighbour's wallet.


----------



## eggman

Macfury said:


> Definitely. Just like you could balance your purchases against taking the money from your neighbour's wallet.


Except that your neighbour also gets to use the stereo or lawnmower (or healthcare or highway or sewer system) that was bought with the money.

Not quite an accurate analogy MF - at least it is more inaccurate than mine.


----------



## Macfury

eggman said:


> Except that your neighbour also gets to use the stereo or lawnmower (or healthcare or highway or sewer system) that was bought with the money.
> 
> Not quite an accurate analogy MF - at least it is more inaccurate than mine.


No. This analogy is even more accurate. I want to buy a motorcycle for $5,000 and my neighbour wants everyone in the city to ride unicycles costing $1,000 each. My neighbour doesn't have the cash, so he asks me to give him $1,000 so he can get one. I refuse, so he finds someone to shake me down for $2,000--$1,000 for the unicycle and $1,000 for the guy who shook me down. Then the neighbour says: "Don't worry--you may not have a mortorcycle, but you can ride my unicycle any time!"


----------



## groovetube

it's that sense of entitlement conservatives seem to have.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> I was really trying to point out the 'us vs them' attitude that permeates a lot of thinking when I brought up the fact that it is 'people' who own 'corporations'. So many people think that social programs are a great idea as long as 'someone else' pays for them. That is reflected in the 'tax the rich' or 'tax the corporations' attitude I hear so often.
> 
> Of course, also, everyone wants to get his or her money's worth of the taxes they have paid, so they feel entitled to the programs that are out there, whether or not there is a 'need'. Personally I feel lucky that I can pay taxes and don't need to access the social programs that are available, but I also get upset with 'them vs us' attitudes. There is no 'them', there is only 'us'.
> 
> So: If you like the idea of 'small business' and think that they should be taxed less, then each person's actions should reflect that belief.
> 
> It's little things like shopping locally, looking for the origin of products on labels, not buying the cheapest (made in China) thing at Walmart, that will make the difference in the economy.
> 
> Talk is cheap. What do your actions say?


Great post.


----------



## screature

PenguinBoy said:


> ... *When we are running a surplus* we can have a discussion on wether we would be better served by tax cuts or increased program spending.



We shouldn't run surpluses at all. Surpluses are just the government effectively stealing from us and hoarding it, which for some reason the Chretien Liberals and Martin fans were so proud of. If the government is taking in more revenue than it is spending in transfer payments and on services then it should be paying down the debt or reducing taxes. Period.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> The flaw in this thesis is that Corporations are not just "held" by people, but are "held' in the main by *"institutions.*"


Institutions made up of people.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> We shouldn't run surpluses at all. Surpluses are just the government effectively stealing from us and hoarding it, which the for some reason the Chretien Liberals and Martin fans were so proud of. If the government is taking in more revenue that it is spending in transfer payments and and on services then it should be paying down the debt or reducing taxes. Period.


Interesting spin. So are you saying the massive debt sitting on the Conservative's watch is better than the surplus the Liberals achieved?

Love it! And you don't work for the Conservatives...


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Interesting spin. So are you saying the massive debt sitting on the Conservative's watch is better than the surplus the Liberals achieved?
> 
> Love it! And you don't work for the Conservatives...


Neither is good, but short-term debt is superior to long-term surplus.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Interesting spin. So are you saying the massive debt sitting on the Conservative's watch is better than the surplus the Liberals achieved?
> 
> Love it! And you don't work for the Conservatives...


The surplus the Liberals "achieved" was our money lest you forget. It should have used to pay down the debt or provide us with tax reductions.

The Libs did very little comparatively speaking in paying down the debt relative to what they should have.

The Cons did the right thing starting in 2006 using the surplus to pay down the debt, look it up.

Budgets should be balanced, it is our money. What's not to get? This is not a partisan issue beyond the fact that the Libs are so proud of that surplus all the while forgetting that it is our money and personally I would rather it be in my and my neighbours pocket than sitting in the government coffers.

Now if you are talking about the current deficit it is a complete red herring as we all know that the deficit would be every bit as large and likely larger under the Libs as despite the deficit they we calling for all kinds of increased spending.

And I really wish would cut out the working for the Cons crap despite your little winkie, I am getting more than a little tired of it... I thought that been made clear by now.


----------



## eMacMan

I am more than willing to give the Liberals credit for staying out of Iraq, but Ignats has made it clear that he would have willingly joined Harpo on the diving board.

But balancing the budget? Gimme a break. Neither party did that. Both parties stole from UI and Canada Pension funds in order to "balance" the budget. The Shrub and the Banksters ensured that Canadians paid dearly for the UI blunder. The Banksters almost certainly have something up their sleeve that will have Canadians paying even more dearly when it comes time to repay CPP. The one bright side is that with these colder than normal winters, there should be plenty of ice floes to serve as the final refuge for our nations seniors.

Not a lot different than corporations stealing from Union Pension funds except the chances of the culprits going to jail is absolute zero rather than almost absolute zero.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Now if you are talking about the current deficit it is a complete red herring *as we all know* that the deficit would be every bit as large and likely larger under the Libs as despite the deficit they we calling for all kinds of increased spending.


'We all know' _nothing._ This statement is purely speculative.



> The Libs did very little comparatively speaking in paying down the debt relative to what they should have.


Link please.

Also, give me short term surpluses any day over deficits created by spending on security, jets we don't need and super jails.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> 'We all know' _nothing._ This statement is purely speculative.
> 
> 
> 
> Link please.
> 
> *Also, give me short term surpluses any day over deficits created by spending on security, jets we don't need and super jails.*


Ottawa's cup runneth over Federal budget surpluses – FAQs



> the federal government has been in the black for seven years in a row. The accumulated surplus over that time has been more than $60 billion. The actual surpluses for the past seven years have been:
> 
> * 2003/04 $9.1B
> * 2002/03 $7B
> * 2001/02 $8.9B
> * 2000/01 $18.1B
> * 1999/00 $12.7B
> * 1998/99 $3.1B
> * 1997/98 $3.8B


During that time they could have reduced the national debt by another $60B, they didn't. 7 years is not a short term surplus, in my estimation it was systematic. The Chretien Liberals payed down the debt by $60B over their twelve year tenure only after having run it to its highest point in history at that time. They could have doubled the amount of debt they paid down. They didn't.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006 the debt was at 481.5B by 2008 they had paid it down to $457.6B, 23.9B in just two short years. Obviously times have changed due to the world wide financial crisis. But in terms of debt repayment when there was money to be had to do so, the Cons did it much faster and more substantially in a shorter period of time relatively speaking than the Libs did under Chretien.

Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada
Fiscal Year 2005–2006: 1 

Canadian public debt

Also there is currently *no* deficit created by jets and mega jails, this is myth and red herring being bandied about by the Opposition, the contract for the jets won't even be signed until 2016 and there are no moneys spent or even allocated to "mega" prisons (which is another Opposition myth, there is no federal plan for building "mega US style prisons" merely a plan to upgrade and expand existing institutions that are currently over crowded) in the current and past budgets. *ALL* of the deficit to now has been spent in reaction to the world wide economic crisis, one that around the world Canada has been recognized to have managed the best out of all the G8 nations.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> The surplus the Liberals "achieved" was our money lest you forget. It should have used to pay down the debt or provide us with tax reductions.
> 
> The Libs did very little comparatively speaking in paying down the debt relative to what they should have.
> 
> The Cons did the right thing starting in 2006 using the surplus to pay down the debt, look it up.
> 
> Budgets should be balanced, it is our money. What's not to get? This is not a partisan issue beyond the fact that the Libs are so proud of that surplus all the while forgetting that it is our money and personally I would rather it be in my and my neighbours pocket than sitting in the government coffers.
> 
> Now if you are talking about the current deficit it is a complete red herring as we all know that the deficit would be every bit as large and likely larger under the Libs as despite the deficit they we calling for all kinds of increased spending.
> 
> And I really wish would cut out the working for the Cons crap despite your little winkie, I am getting more than a little tired of it... I thought that been made clear by now.


It was used to pay down the debt. It is required to put the surplus against the debt, it is federal law, get your facts straight. And the cons inherited a balanced budget so of course they benefited in the first couple years until they ramped up spending faster than any govt in Canadian history, they were on track for deficit spending -before- the recession (which Flaherty and co seem not to see) and before any recession spending was started.

It's hard to imagine, that such great fiscal managers of our finances could think making payments on our increasing debt, as a bad thing.

The spin continues.


----------



## Rps

I think we should be clear on what a surplus really means .... Screature is right that any surplus should be used to pay down the debt....but the "surplus" that the politicians are talking about is not real money, as you would have in your bank account ... it is almost like a derivative... a promise on a promise. So the government didn't spend as much as it planned, big deal the debt is still out there .... so, is it really a surplus or just unspent claims against a probable future action within the country. A true surplus is when you have no debt, and you have unallocated money in the coffers of the country. 

I get annoyed at our leaders who throw around the term surplus as if it is a virtue. Government's transfer debt through the political system [ off-loading if you will ] all the time, so if the Feds off-load debt or obligations to the Provinces, does the Federal government have a surplus and the Provincial government have a deficit? Since it involves the dollar from our wallets, what's the difference?


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> I think we should be clear on what a surplus really means .... Screature is right that any surplus should be used to pay down the debt....but the "surplus" that the politicians are talking about is not real money, as you would have in your bank account ... it is almost like a derivative... a promise on a promise. So the government didn't spend as much as it planned, big deal the debt is still out there .... so, is it really a surplus or just unspent claims against a probable future action within the country. A true surplus is when you have no debt, and you have unallocated money in the coffers of the country.
> 
> *I get annoyed at our leaders who throw around the term surplus as if it is a virtue. Government's transfer debt through the political system [ off-loading if you will ] all the time, so if the Feds off-load debt or obligations to the Provinces, does the Federal government have a surplus and the Provincial government have a deficit? Since it involves the dollar from our wallets, what's the difference?*


Exactly! +100%

Plus a government shouldn't run a surplus even if we have no debt. The government isn't an individual where a surplus means "savings"... money in the bank. For a government to have a "true" surplus it would simply mean that they are taking more money from us than they need to run the government and their programs. The government should *not* make profit from us. The government is like a "not-for-profit" corporation. They should only take in what they need to run their day to day operations and run a balanced budget, i.e. revenues equal expenses on the balance sheet. Period.


----------



## CubaMark

*So - how do the Conservatives rate when it comes to something near and dear to all of us - the internet?*

*The Conservatives' Commitment to Internet Surveillance*



> While there are good and bad with each party, the Conservatives new commitment to lawful access - new laws that would establish massive Internet surveillance requirements and the potential disclosure of personal information without court oversight - is incredibly problematic for the Internet, privacy, and online freedoms. It requires real debate yet seems likely to slip under the public radar.





> There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.


(Michael Geist)


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *So - how do the Conservatives rate when it comes to something near and dear to all of us - the internet?*
> 
> *The Conservatives' Commitment to Internet Surveillance*
> 
> 
> 
> (Michael Geist)


Interesting how you neglected to quote:



> None of this is to say the Liberals would be any better. They introduced their own lawful access package many years ago and the reactionof MPs like McTeague in 2009 was "what took you so long." The Liberals point to protection from digital threats in their platform, but do not specifically discuss lawful access. They should be asked about where they stand now (so too for the NDP which marshalled opposition in 2009). Given the Conservatives have included fast tracking lawful access in their platform, they should be asked to explain the need for new Internet surveillance, address who will pay for it, and justify their proposal legislative approach to these dramatic reforms that have never been the subject of Parliamentary debate or hearings.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Exactly! +100%
> 
> Plus a government shouldn't run a surplus even if we have no debt. The government isn't an individual where a surplus means "savings"... money in the bank. For a government to have a "true" surplus it would simply mean that they are taking more money from us than they need to run the government and their programs. The government should *not* make profit from us. The government is like a "not-for-profit" corporation. They should only take in what they need to run their day to day operations and run a balanced budget, i.e. revenues equal expenses on the balance sheet. Period.


for the last time, surpluses ARE NOT profit. It is federal LAW, that surpluses be applied to the federal debt.

Period.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Institutions made up of people.


This is disingenuous and simplistic thinking. Regarding the branch of the thread and MLeh's post which you and others responded to, I find it hard to believe that someone would seriously try to make the claim that "corporations are just people". And a car is "just metal" and a guitar is "just wood". For that matter people are "just water". And that is all made up of "just atoms". It's silly.

Saying corporations are just people completely overlooks the immense power in our society large corporations wield. Not necessarily a bad thing at all. Corporations perform many functions in society that need doing and that we want them to do, that require large financial power. We are participants on a forum dedicated to appreciation of the products of one such huge corporation, Apple Inc. But I take issue when large corporations abuse their power and use their connections to the political power structure to rig the game in their favour. Then it is up to us to set the rules that they must abide by.

The members of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives may be just folks like us, they eat, they love, they sleep, they work just like regular folks, but they also get to sit down and bend the ear of Stephen Harper with a phone call, something only a few of us just folks can do. (I'd like the opportunity to bend Stephen Harper's ear )

Do we want to go the route of the US where corporations essentially control the government and both parties? Where they've even got their Supreme Court to grant them the status of "personhood" so they can funnel even more money into the political process unhindered because as a person, their free speech rights can't be hindered? This is what the Harper Government wants, and no doubt many who make up Liberal Party supporters too, as evidenced by the corporate coziness of the Chretien/Martin governments.

And pre-emptively, lest someone label me a "Marxist" for daring to suggest that corporate power be limited by citizens, nothing I've said here is remotely communist. I have not suggested abolishing corporations or capitalism or any such silly thing. I simply think in a democracy supreme power should come from ALL citizens, not a tiny subset of those citizens.


----------



## i-rui

MLeh said:


> Corporations are owned by shareholders. When a corporation makes money it either reinvests the profits in equipment/people/services (which bolsters the economy) or pays the dividends out to their shareholders. Shareholders are people. When the shareholders get the dividends it's like money in the economy.
> 
> Just like 'the goverment' isn't 'them', so too, corporations aren't 'not people'. Corporations are owned by people at the heart of the matter.


as others have pointed out, corporations may be owned by people, but not necessarily *Canadians*. So why should Canadians pay for their corporations with tax breaks?

And even those Canadians who *DO* own a piece of these corporations do not encompass the entire population. The working middle class & poor do not have the resources to invest in corporations, so why should they subsidize these corporations with tax breaks?

At the end of the day Tax Revenue is what we're talking about. As you give corporations a cut in the taxes that they pay then you must make up the difference somewhere else. And that is at the expense of Canadian citizens.

Here is a chart of the first full year the Harper government was in charge :










Here is a chart of the latest fiscal report from the Harper Government:










Corporations pay less, citizens pay more. These are from Department of Finance Canada * Ministère des Finances Canada and are official government statistics. *The numbers don't lie*.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is disingenuous and simplistic thinking. Regarding the branch of the thread and MLeh's post which you and others responded to, I find it hard to believe that someone would seriously try to make the claim that "corporations are just people". And a car is "just metal" and a guitar is "just wood". For that matter people are "just water". And that is all made up of "just atoms". It's silly.
> 
> Saying corporations are just people completely overlooks the immense power in our society large corporations wield. Not necessarily a bad thing at all. Corporations perform many functions in society that need doing and that we want them to do, that require large financial power. We are participants on a forum dedicated to appreciation of the products of one such huge corporation, Apple Inc. But I take issue when large corporations abuse their power and use their connections to the political power structure to rig the game in their favour. Then it is up to us to set the rules that they must abide by.
> 
> The members of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives may be just folks like us, they eat, they love, they sleep, they work just like regular folks, but they also get to sit down and bend the ear of Stephen Harper with a phone call, something only a few of us just folks can do. (I'd like the opportunity to bend Stephen Harper's ear )
> 
> Do we want to go the route of the US where corporations essentially control the government and both parties? Where they've even got their Supreme Court to grant them the status of "personhood" so they can funnel even more money into the political process unhindered because as a person, their free speech rights can't be hindered? This is what the Harper Government wants, and no doubt many who make up Liberal Party supporters too, as evidenced by the corporate coziness of the Chretien/Martin governments.
> 
> And pre-emptively, lest someone label me a "Marxist" for daring to suggest that corporate power be limited by citizens, nothing I've said here is remotely communist. I have not suggested abolishing corporations or capitalism or any such silly thing. I simply think in a *democracy supreme power should come from ALL citizens, not a tiny subset of those citizens.*


What is disingenuous and simplistic? 

Geesh... it is just a fact. Institutions are made up of people no matter how you cut it... You can like/support what they do or can be opposed to it but it is a simple fact... institutions are made up of people. If you want to ascribe greater nefarious or benign intentions to their purposes that its your choice. But "institutions" don't exist in any form without interested parties who are people. It is just a fact.

I didn't know as an entity corporation were entitled to a vote.. the last I checked it is only individual citizens that have a vote. Corporation have influence, individual citizens vote.


----------



## PenguinBoy

screature said:


> If the government is taking in more revenue than it is spending in transfer payments and on services then it should be paying down the debt or reducing taxes. Period.


Pay off the debt, and then reduce taxes.

The less interest we are paying to bondholders, the bigger the tax cuts can eventually be.


----------



## groovetube

people, vote. Large powerful rich corporations have immense power through money, and lobbying to get what suits them, since anyone who knows anything about a corporation, knows it's existence isn't to be nice, it's to get money.

And it seems to have worked well for them, since the people, who get to vote, pay by far, the most tax.

And Stephen Harper now proposes we give them even -more- tax breaks, and we can go fly a kite for the next who knows how many years while they spend wildly promising to someday balance the budget, and maybe we'll get our tax break.

You just can't make this stuff up.


----------



## screature

PenguinBoy said:


> Pay off the debt, and then reduce taxes.
> 
> The less interest we are paying to bondholders, the bigger the tax cuts can eventually be.


In principle I agree. However, depending on the tax involved it can actually have a negative overall influence of the revenues generated by government. It is not a one size fits all equation.


----------



## MacDoc

A little perspective against another resource based nation 



> Corporate tax cut to 28%
> BY TIM HUNTER
> Last updated 14:50 20/05/2010
> 
> After all the telegraphed changes Finance Minister Bill English still pulled off some big Budget surprises.
> 
> Among the biggest was the cut in the corporate tax rate from 30 percent to 28 percent from the 2011/12 tax year, well ahead of the cautious cut announced in Australia.
> 
> *Alongside the corporate tax cut, the top tax rate on savings vehicles such as portfolio investment entities and KiwiSaver will also fall to 28 percent.*
> 
> English described his tax reform package as "a centrepiece of the Budget", with company tax reducing to encourage corporate investment and boost New Zealand's international competitiveness.
> 
> "The government believes that in a world of mobile capital, business income is particularly sensitive to tax rates," he said.
> 
> A 33 percent rate may have been competitive 20 years ago, he said, but "since then company tax rates show stong downward momentum around the globe."
> 
> Prime minister John Key said the package gave an opportunity to come out of the downturn in better shape than other countries. "We are well palcedd to stand out from the crowd and deliver a rebalanced economy that focuses on investment in the right places."
> 
> At the current 30 percent rate, New Zealand's company tax matches Australia's but is still high compared to similar sized countries in the OECD*, which average 25percent. *


Corporate tax cut to 28% - budget-2010 - business | Stuff.co.nz

and it shows here.....this society has some distinct advantages over what we get in Canada.......
I see in Sydney the magnificent city Toronto COULD be given the national support it warrants.

Aus feels expensive ( all prices are tax in and there is no tipping ) but citizens get a lot for their tax dollars and the corporations get no where near the break they get in Canada.
The increased tax income shows in superb infrastructure and services.

Harper is a toadie to corporate interests and particularly the resource sector and the argument of losing investments is ridiculous in light of world demand for resources.

If Australia can do a 30% corporate tax then Canada can certainly get back to 20% and start fixing the damn infrastructure as well as the federal debt and deficit 

Con tax cut retards......let's cut taxes and throw the federal balance deep into deficit and then have no money for services.
Where have we heard that refrain before?

Like Norway and Sweden, Australians get good value for their money and corporations kick in a higher than average share.....

Harper's idiotic ideology rings very hollow from what I see from here.....and with mandatory voting, effective upper and lower houses and proportional election voting system - there are lessons Canada could learn. And Australia set that structure up in 1901
.....Canada? we're stuck in some Victorian time warp and a rapidly growing underclass living from pay cheque to pay cheque while the captains of industry chuckle at foolish Canadians pissing away their national wealth.

Why Australia even set up a proper coalition the moment it was needed.
Unlike our dingbats - what do we do? Have 4 elections in 7 years - toss the lot.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> What is disingenuous and simplistic?
> 
> Geesh... it is just a fact. Institutions are made up of people no matter how you cut it... You can like/support what they do or can be opposed to it but it is a simple fact... institutions are made up of people. If you want to ascribe greater nefarious or benign intentions to their purposes that its your choice. But "institutions" don't exist in any form without interested parties who are people. It is just a fact.
> 
> I didn't know as an entity corporation were entitled to a vote.. the last I checked it is only individual citizens that have a vote. Corporation have influence, individual citizens vote.


Yes, it is just a fact. Corporations and institutions are made up of people. People are made up of atoms. The sky is blue, water is wet. So what? This is simplistic and means nothing nor mentions the power imbalance that large multi-national corps have. 

The great power is only nefarious if we or the politicians that eagerly connect with the most powerful corps allow them to abuse that power. Corporations are neither good nor evil on their own, they have an agenda called return-on-investment which doesn't care about the distinctions of morality or fairness. It's up to citizens and our elected representatives to reign them in when the effect is negative.

If the corp lobbyists around the world had their way they would be entitled to vote. Goog thing they can't, although they don't need to vote when they have far more lucrative methods of influencing our governments.


----------



## chas_m

What GA said about corporation applies equally to large groups of people (insert gratuitous reference to any kind of societal atrocity here). People suffering from groupthink can pretty easily be made to act in an evil manner, and it is sadly also pretty easy to manipulate people into voting against their own interests. The book _What's the Matter With Kansas_ may sound like its all about US politics, but it should be more widely read.

As for Harper, I'm not a fan but I will say this: compared to some US politicians, he looks pretty good.


----------



## Macfury

> Like Norway and Sweden, Australians get good value for their money and corporations kick in a higher than average share.....


No. MaccyD: They spend the money on things you like, therefore you favour it. A fairy tale, told by someone with an axe to grind.


----------



## groovetube

vs letting us shoulder the tax burden while your rich buddies laugh at you filling your head with things like, "we'll raise prices if you don't give in to our demaaaaandssss!!"


----------



## i-rui

YouTube - Harper Government 3

humorous youtube vid spoofing the iphone 4 ones that were out last year, except this time with a conservative supporter asking for another Harper government.

I didn't want to embed it since it contains foul language and don't want to offend anyone here on the board. Click at your own peril!


----------



## i-rui

remember how Harper said they'd be able to balance the budget 1 year earlier by finding cuts in the government?.....yea right.

Pay hikes, severance deal approved for Tory staffers - The Globe and Mail



> The Harper government has quietly approved increases in the maximum salaries political staffers are entitled to receive.


and of course a nice little payday if they happen to get voted out :



> Adding it all up, Tory aides who have worked in ministerial offices throughout Mr. Harper's five years in government would be entitled to as much as 9.5 months of pay should they find themselves without jobs after May 2.


----------



## Dr T

PenguinBoy said:


> Pay off the debt, and then reduce taxes.
> 
> The less interest we are paying to bondholders, the bigger the tax cuts can eventually be.


I completely agree with you about the priorities.

However, how can the government pay off the debts when the interest must be paid first, and there is only a finite amount of money? Our govts can't ever pay off the debts to the interest takers, because there isn't enough money in the system to do so. The interest of the bloodsuckers, oops, I mean bondholders, sucks money out of the system so that there is never enough money to pay off the principal.


----------



## MacDoc

Funny - Paul Martin managed it....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Funny - Paul Martin managed it....


MacDoc, I know you love to play peek-a-boo, but please, man, for pity's sake:

* READ THE DAMNED THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## groovetube

Dr T said:


> I completely agree with you about the priorities.
> 
> However, how can the government pay off the debts when the interest must be paid first, and there is only a finite amount of money? Our govts can't ever pay off the debts to the interest takers, because there isn't enough money in the system to do so. The interest of the bloodsuckers, oops, I mean bondholders, sucks money out of the system so that there is never enough money to pay off the principal.


great reason why foolish corp tax cuts, and spending 30 billion bucks on fighter jets should wait.
In 4 years if the cons get a majority, they'll have spent themselves silly even more than they have already, and all those tax breaks they promised everyone they'll get 5 years from now, heh, sorryyyyy. No more money left. You just wait...

And then we'll once again, like after Mulroney need a Paul Martin to clean things up, put us back to a good place so another conservative government can come in, whisper sweet nothings to your ears about stopping waste, tax cuts, etc., and take credit fro the mess cleaning done by the previous govt then spend way more than anyone ever has, and plenty will fall for it, again.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> great reason why foolish corp tax cuts, and spending 30 billion bucks on fighter jets should wait.


How much do the libs want to spend on fighter jets, I wonder?


----------



## groovetube

likely not as much as the conservatives seem hell bent on.

You them righteous righters and their shoot'em up toys. Spare no expense!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, I know you love to play peek-a-boo, but please, man, for pity's sake:
> 
> * READ THE DAMNED THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!!!!!!!*


you need to take your own advice  read the post he responded to...

OM in the other thread (now there's two???) posted this.
Government grows under Harper

That's without the oppositions help. There's what actually occurred, and the "woulda" theories you present.


----------



## Gene B

I fear that Canada will again be be cursed with, 'The Best Government That Money Can Buy'. :greedy:

All levels of government and the justice system in Canada have been privatised. They are now owned and operated by corporate, private, and foreign interests. :greedy:

Whenever I get to thinking that things couldn't get any worse than they are here in Canada under the jackboots of yet another Tory regime. beejacon:greedy:XX):-(

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, it is just a fact. Corporations and institutions are made up of people. People are made up of atoms. The sky is blue, water is wet. So what? This is simplistic and means nothing nor mentions the power imbalance that large multi-national corps have.
> 
> *The great power is only nefarious if we or the politicians that eagerly connect with the most powerful corps allow them to abuse that power. Corporations are neither good nor evil on their own,*
> they have an agenda called return-on-investment which doesn't care about the distinctions of morality or fairness. *It's up to citizens and our elected representatives to reign them in when the effect is negative.*
> 
> If the corp lobbyists around the world had their way they would be entitled to vote. Goog thing they can't, although they don't need to vote when they have far more lucrative methods of influencing our governments.


You answer the "So what?" for yourself.... go figure... maybe you can get off your not so high horse now. You speak as if "corporations" were aliens from another planet and not made from the same atoms and DNA that we all are. 

To separate out corporations as somehow being "inhuman" serves no one well and is the over simplistic mantra that the left likes to bandy about and no not all corporations don't care about the distinctions of morality or fairness. This is again a simplistic mantra of the left so please keep your "disingenuous and simplistic" comment to yourself as the post was neither. 

There is nothing simple about human beings and the fact that institutions are made up of people is the only reason why they are capable of all form of abuse and alternatively good. You chose to look at a matter of fact post as disingenuous and simplistic when in fact if you stopped to think for a second instead of going on a condescending tirade you would realise that everything you said in bold above was implied with one simple statement of fact.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, I know you love to play peek-a-boo, but please, man, for pity's sake:
> 
> * READ THE DAMNED THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!!!!!!!*


Testy this AM are we? Chill...deep breaths...again....

Epic Fail!, when another poster is attacked instead of the ideas IMO.



Macfury said:


> How much do the libs want to spend on fighter jets, I wonder?


How come no Conservative policy supporter wants to address the fact that the Conservative Candidates have no idea what F-35 Jets cost in the real world? 

17 days ago Conservatives governed and you want an answer from a poster on Ehmac what another political party will pay for a Jet. Perhaps you might be able to travel into the bubble dimension and ask a Con Candidate for an updated cost of the F-35 programme and if you would be so kind and report back many here would appreciate it.

Talk about deflection.


----------



## BigDL

*Conservative Majority?*

It only gets better the conservatives during the election campaign.

Just in Auditor's draft report alleges Tories misspent G8 funds - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Should put them in the position they deserve for majority.


----------



## groovetube

ooooh ouch....

Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General - The Globe and Mail

and ohhh slap to the face again...

CTV 2011 Federal Election | Tory staffers to benefit from changes approved by gov't

And they think we should give them, absolute power.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> You answer the "So what?" for yourself.... go figure... maybe you can get off your not so high horse now. You speak as if "corporations" were aliens from another planet and not made from the same atoms and DNA that we all are.
> 
> To separate out corporations as somehow being "inhuman" serves no one well and is the over simplistic mantra that the left likes to bandy about and no not all corporations don't care about the distinctions of morality or fairness. This is again a simplistic mantra of the left so please keep your "disingenuous and simplistic" comment to yourself as the post was neither.
> 
> There is nothing simple about human beings and the fact that institutions are made up of people is the only reason why they are capable of all form of abuse and alternatively good. You chose to look at a matter of fact post as disingenuous and simplistic when in fact if you stopped to think for a second instead of going on a condescending tirade you would realise that everything you said in bold above was implied with one simple statement of fact.


Either you didn't comprehend my post or you are misrepresenting what I said intentionally.

I said yes, corporations are made up of people. It's a simple fact. And it is irrelevant to my critique. The issue is about the huge power they wield in our society, mostly unchecked by our political representatives. 

I took pains to say I'm not against corporations, I am against abuse of power. Not recognizing the amount of power they have in our society, power that in numerous cases through history has been used to subvert the democratic will of citizens is simplistic thinking, something the right usually fails to recognize. Large corporations do not automatically equal good, -- nor bad, as I pointed out. They are institutional machines built to maximize return on investment and as institutions they have no morality. Those who hold executive positions within those corporations often do not have the power to do anything about that, even if they wanted to, their value to the corporation and to the shareholder is judged by the returns they bring, not how they go about it.

Some corporations can have ethical values written into their constitutions, but the largest and most powerful rarely do. When corporations act in a way that is contrary to the public good, as many indisputably have done, then it is up to our elected governments to regulate that behaviour. I don't see how anyone, left, right or centre can have a problem with that.

To paraphrase someone I heard on the radio say yesterday, if your corporation wants to let me know how socially responsible it is being, here's how you do it ... take your bag of money and get the hell out of our government.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Interesting how you neglected to quote:_ (stuff about Liberals and the internet in Canada)_


Omission of the Liberal's record on this subject does not imply my endorsement. I would think that Canada's internet policy - and what the various parties have planned - would be of great interest to those of us who are so passionate about its use.

And for the record...



> Canada's left-leaning New Democratic Party have unveiled their Internet campaign promises for this election; they're a stark contrast to the Tories, who've vowed to re-engineer Canada's network to make it easier to spy on Canadians without a court order.
> 
> Instead, the NDP promises to extend broadband (wired and wireless) across the nation, to force the CRTC (the national telcoms regulator) to be more responsive to consumer interests, and to enshrine net neutrality (a term coined by Canadian Tim Wu!) into law. (BoingBoing)


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Either you didn't comprehend my post or you are misrepresenting what I said intentionally.
> 
> I said yes, corporations are made up of people. It's a simple fact. And it is irrelevant to my critique. The issue is about the huge power they wield in our society, mostly unchecked by our political representatives.
> 
> I took pains to say I'm not against corporations, I am against abuse of power. Not recognizing the amount of power they have in our society, power that in numerous cases through history has been used to subvert the democratic will of citizens is simplistic thinking, something the right usually fails to recognize. Large corporations do not automatically equal good, -- nor bad, as I pointed out. They are institutional machines built to maximize return on investment and as institutions they have no morality. Those who hold executive positions within those corporations often do not have the power to do anything about that, even if they wanted to, their value to the corporation and to the shareholder is judged by the returns they bring, not how they go about it.
> 
> Some corporations can have ethical values written into their constitutions, but the largest and most powerful rarely do. When corporations act in a way that is contrary to the public good, as many indisputably have done, then it is up to our elected governments to regulate that behaviour. I don't see how anyone, left, right or centre can have a problem with that.
> 
> To paraphrase someone I heard on the radio say yesterday, if your corporation wants to let me know how socially responsible it is being, here's how you do it ... take your bag of money and get the hell out of our government.


It seems to me there is a misunderstanding of what corporations are, and why they are setup. This whole "corporations are people" stuff is delusional, and completely misses what they actually are.

This sort of reminds of the time I had some food product, I really wish I had a picture of it now. It actually said, "friendly edible petroleum product"


----------



## jimbotelecom

Hookergate, inflated plane purchase without tender, G8 scandal.....things are starting to look good Steve!


----------



## groovetube

50 million bucks all lavished on some friends.

ClementScam?


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> It seems to me there is a misunderstanding of what corporations are, and why they are setup. This whole "corporations are people" stuff is delusional, and completely misses what they actually are.
> 
> This sort of reminds of the time I had some food product, I really wish I had a picture of it now. It actually said, "friendly edible petroleum product"





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> When corporations act in a way that is contrary to the public good, as many indisputably have done, then it is up to our elected governments to regulate that behaviour.


See, this is the difference between the left and the right.

The far left expects 'the government' to make the rules, while absolving themselves of personal responsibility for the ramifications of their choices and actions as individuals. (Hence 'the government otta make a rule', and a previous post where 'people are going to shop around and look for the best deal'.)

The far right expects every individual to take individual responsibility, and hence groovetube's 'edible oil product' might not be long on the shelves as the market would determine it is not a viable option. (Obviously there needs to be some ethics involved in not selling stuff that is going to be actually harmful to other humans.)

We're stuck somewhere in the middle - individuals need to acknowledge the ramifications of their individual actions and choices while pressuring government to see to the protection of society at large from those who would circumvent the rules or ethics to the detriment of society for their own personal (or corporate) gain.


----------



## BigDL

You mean like the lefties that insist that products are safe. The righties know what's safe and what's not. As in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaMBt1z3Bj8


----------



## MLeh

BigDL said:


> You mean like the lefties that insist that products are safe. The righties know what's safe and what's not.


*sigh*


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> See, this is the difference between the left and the right.
> 
> The far left expects 'the government' to make the rules, while absolving themselves of personal responsibility for the ramifications of their choices and actions as individuals. (Hence 'the government otta make a rule', and a previous post where 'people are going to shop around and look for the best deal'.)
> 
> The far right expects every individual to take individual responsibility, and hence groovetube's 'edible oil product' might not be long on the shelves as the market would determine it is not a viable option. (Obviously there needs to be some ethics involved in not selling stuff that is going to be actually harmful to other humans.)
> 
> We're stuck somewhere in the middle - individuals need to acknowledge the ramifications of their individual actions and choices while pressuring government to see to the protection of society at large from those who would circumvent the rules or ethics to the detriment of society for their own personal (or corporate) gain.


uuhhh. This has nothing to do, with your tangent of 'lefties and righties' and government making the rules.

Learn something about what corporations are, and how they work. And report back on this issue of, 'personal responsibility'.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> uuhhh. This has nothing to do, with your tangent of 'lefties and righties' and government making the rules.
> 
> Learn something about what corporations are, and how they work. And report back on this issue of, 'personal responsibility'.


I give up.

(I could go into it, but I think you're completely missing the point, and quite frankly, I don't have the time to waste.)


----------



## Sonal

MLeh said:


> The far right expects every individual to take individual responsibility, and hence groovetube's 'edible oil product' might not be long on the shelves as the market would determine it is not a viable option. (Obviously there needs to be some ethics involved in not selling stuff that is going to be actually harmful to other humans.


This is among the reasons why I cannot identify with being right-wing. It's one thing to expect individuals to take personal responsibility, but pragmatically speaking, not everyone will. Unfortunately, there are those who choose not to exercise responsibility in a way that adversely affects a number of people, and I do not see a way of preventing this except by introducing rules and consequences. 

Frankly, if everyone took individual responsibility as they should, there would be no need for any government interference... but in my view, there seem to be many examples where a lack of interference leads to more harm than good.


----------



## MLeh

Sonal said:


> This is among the reasons why I cannot identify with being right-wing. It's one thing to expect individuals to take personal responsibility, but pragmatically speaking, not everyone will. Unfortunately, there are those who choose not to exercise responsibility in a way that adversely affects a number of people, and I do not see a way of preventing this except by introducing rules and consequences.
> 
> Frankly, if everyone took individual responsibility as they should, there would be no need for any government interference... but in my view, there seem to be many examples where a lack of interference leads to more harm than good.


Which is why I said this:



MLeh said:


> We're stuck somewhere in the middle - individuals need to acknowledge the ramifications of their individual actions and choices while pressuring government to see to the protection of society at large from those who would circumvent the rules or ethics to the detriment of society for their own personal (or corporate) gain.


----------



## Sonal

MLeh said:


> Which is why I said this:


Which I largely agree with, except that I do not think there is much that anyone can do to ensure individuals see the ramifications of their individual choices. You can't make someone take responsibility for something that they don't want to, and even if you ensure they face the consequences, you can't make them see or understand what got them there.

In any case, I see that as being outside of the role of government.


----------



## arminia

*And*

Tories misquoted me on summit costs, Fraser says - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *Either you didn't comprehend my post or you are misrepresenting what I said intentionally.*
> *
> I said yes, corporations are made up of people. It's a simple fact.* And it is irrelevant to my critique. The issue is about the huge power they wield in our society, mostly unchecked by our political representatives.
> 
> I took pains to say I'm not against corporations, I am against abuse of power. Not recognizing the amount of power they have in our society, power that in numerous cases through history has been used to subvert the democratic will of citizens is simplistic thinking, something the right usually fails to recognize. *Large corporations do not automatically equal good, -- nor bad, as I pointed out.* They are institutional machines *built to maximize return on investment and as institutions they have no morality.* Those who hold executive positions within those corporations often do not have the power to do anything about that, even if they wanted to, their value to the corporation and to the shareholder is judged by the returns they bring, not how they go about it.
> 
> Some corporations can have ethical values written into their constitutions, but the largest and most powerful rarely do. When corporations act in a way that is contrary to the public good, as many indisputably have done, then it is up to our elected governments to regulate that behaviour. I don't see how anyone, left, right or centre can have a problem with that.
> 
> To paraphrase someone I heard on the radio say yesterday, if your corporation wants to let me know how socially responsible it is being, here's how you do it ... take your bag of money and get the hell out of our government.


Ha! Back at ya!!

Which you dismissed as disingenuous simplistic and basically irrelevant. Your critique...!!!??? I posted before you did... a single line of text that is indisputably true. You simply were dismissive, there was no critique, just a diatribe as to why I was being disingenuous and simplistic.

Really...? "*Large corporations do not automatically equal good, -- nor bad*"... *They are institutional machines built to maximize return on investment and as institutions they have no morality.* Are these not mutually exclusive concepts.... How many corporation are there? Probably hundreds of thousands and you lump them all into one to suit your argument which is convoluted at best... 

Oh and by the way were were initially talking about *institutions* not *corporations*... YOU were the one to switch gears to talking about corporations. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is an institution and one of the largest single holders of stock and other investments in the country... do you lump them in with corporations as well??

On this point we are done as you clearly have a specific bias and agenda are not even open to the most most basic and obvious of arguments.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> On this point we are done as you clearly have a specific bias and agenda are not even open to the most most basic and obvious of arguments.


As are you. I'm sorry my criticism of corporate power had provoked you so. Maybe we should talk about the election again.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As are you. I'm sorry my criticism of corporate power had provoked you so. Maybe we should talk about the election again.


Weak sauce, 'sauce. You haven't provoked him at all. He's just responding.


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As are you. I'm sorry my criticism of corporate power had provoked you so. Maybe we should talk about the election again.


oooh you are 'done'. Well.

It seems a few were upset by the criticism of corporations, and I was surprised by the lack of understanding of what corporations actually are in the first place. The reason I incorporated in the first place -was- to escape, personal responsibility as much as possible.


----------



## da_jonesy

screature said:


> "*Large corporations do not automatically equal good, -- nor bad*"... *They are institutional machines built to maximize return on investment and as institutions they have no morality.*


This is going to come totally out of context, but this statement is factual *AND* the reason why corporations should *NOT* be given the same rights as people.


----------



## groovetube

da_jonesy said:


> This is going to come totally out of context, but this statement is factual *AND* the reason why corporations should *NOT* be given the same rights as people.


I don't think it's out of context at all da_jonsey. Not only are you right, but I would go further to say corporations should not have the right to have lobbyists lobby government and affect legislation at all. Only citizens should. People.


----------



## SINC

Few would disagree with you on that point, gt.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's out of context at all da_jonsey. Not only are you right, but I would go further to say corporations should not have the right to have lobbyists lobby government and affect legislation at all. Only citizens should. People.



Sadly the only ones that would disagree are the banksters and the other greedy types, who feed so voraciously at the public trough.

BTW when you hear stateside politicians claiming that Social Security is bankrupt and unsustainable; Remember in the years since 1995 Congress has "borrowed" over $2 Trillion Dollar$ from the Social Security coffers and has no idea how to repay, now that a sizeable chunk of the American population is about to shift from contributing to withdrawing. Similar if smaller scale raids have been happening to CPP under the Cretin and those who have followed.


----------



## screature

> I don't think it's out of context at all da_jonsey. Not only are you right, but I would go further to say corporations should not have the right to have lobbyists lobby government and affect legislation at all. Only citizens should. People.



If legislation affects business then business should have the right to lobby their position. This is a democracy. Whether or not the government agrees is their choice, but everyone should have the right to have their voice heard. The notion that only individuals should be able to lobby is nonsense. You would then also be shutting the doors of Parliament to NGOs and every other form of institution out there. Or are you only anti-business and on what possible legal or ethical grounds could such an argument be validly made in a democracy.

Like I said before institutions and corporations are made up of people, whether you like it or not and they are and should be able to lobby for their interests.

Not to mention there is much legislation that only or most directly applies to corporations and institutions and so for them not be able to lobby for or against legislation that affects them directly in a manner that it does not affect individuals is patently absurd in a democracy.


----------



## Brainstrained

> Similar if smaller scale raids have been happening to CPP under the Cretin and those who have followed.


This is inaccurate.

CPP was designed and operated as a pay-as-you-go pension plan until 1998. The plan had to raise enough money annually to balance its books, plus maintain a two-year contingency fund. By law, the contingency fund had to be invested in provincial or federal gov't bonds. Ottawa has never been allowed to dip into CPP funds in the manner it has with Unemployment Insurance funds.

Rates were consistently rising to pay for our aging population, so the Chretien government changed the model about 1998, creating a partially funded/partially pas-as-you-go system with its own investment board. The board does hold gov't bonds, much of them 20-year bond the plan had to buy in the 1980s and 1990s. But those bonds are paying high rates of return for the current economy. 

CPP's annual reports for the past 10 years are online, and the investment board's entire portfolio is also available for view online.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> If legislation affects business then business should have the right to lobby their position. This is a democracy. Whether or not the government agrees is their choice, but everyone should have the right to have their voice heard. The notion that only individuals should be able to lobby is nonsense. You would then also be shutting the doors of Parliament to NGOs and every other form of institution out there. Or are you only anti-business and on what possible legal or ethical grounds could such an argument be validly made in a democracy.
> 
> Like I said before institutions and corporations are made up of people, whether you like it or not and they are and should be able to lobby for their interests.
> 
> Not to mention there is much legislation that only or most directly applies to corporations and institutions and so for them not be able to lobby for or against legislation that affects them directly in a manner that it does not affect individuals is patently absurd in a democracy.


I would be careful about throwing around the term 'democracy' in the current climate of how business is done between large corporations, and government. There are plenty, of reasons why the current model should be scrapped, and I wouldn't call we have currently much of a democracy. Governments have even played lip service to the notion of limiting corporate access to government, mainly because it's a recognized serious problem, yet never really seems to be addressed properly.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> If legislation affects business then business should have the right to lobby their position. This is a democracy. Whether or not the government agrees is their choice, but everyone should have the right to have their voice heard. The notion that only individuals should be able to lobby is nonsense. You would then also be shutting the doors of Parliament to NGOs and every other form of institution out there. Or are you only anti-business and on what possible legal or ethical grounds could such an argument be validly made in a democracy.
> 
> Like I said before institutions and corporations are made up of people, whether you like it or not and they are and should be able to lobby for their interests.
> 
> Not to mention there is much legislation that only or most directly applies to corporations and institutions and so for them not be able to lobby for or against legislation that affects them directly in a manner that it does not affect individuals is patently absurd in a democracy.


Perhaps if the lobbyist is the CEO or CFO of a Corporation, not paid shills paid by "industry", your point might be similar to NGO's making representations to government.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Perhaps if the lobbyist is the CEO or CFO of a Corporation, *not paid shills paid by "industry*", your point might be similar to NGO's making representations to government.


Doesn't matter it is a democracy... and just because it is an NGO doesn't mean they aren't protecting vested interests, you may like those interests of a a given NGO more than the interests of a given Corporation but all lobbyists paid to represent those interests and who gets to decide what interests get to represented to government and those that don't. To paint all corporations or all industry with the same brush is simplistic and so is the notion that they should be banned from making representations to government.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I would be careful about throwing around the term 'democracy' in the current climate of how business is done between large corporations, and government. There are plenty, of reasons why the current model should be scrapped, and I wouldn't call we have currently much of a democracy. Governments have even played lip service to the notion of limiting corporate access to government, mainly because it's a recognized serious problem, yet never really seems to be addressed properly.


Limiting is one thing... Disallowing altogether is another... it becomes a very slippery slope very quickly, along the lines of censorship when you start disallowing one group or another from lobbying for their interests. Rules are in place when it comes to lobbying. Are they broken? Sure just like we have laws that are broken all the time, but the rules are there so that if you get caught there are supposed to be repercussions for those lobbyists.

The system isn't perfect and probably never will be, but disallowing corporations or other large institutions from lobbying would not be a step forward IMO it would be a regressive move in a democracy.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> the system isn't perfect and probably never will be, but disallowing corporations or other large institutions from lobbying would not be a step forward imo it would be a regressive move in a democracy.


+1


----------



## Max

Besides which, they would soon figure out how myriad ways to cirumnavigate pesky gubbmint regs... and those regs would likely be toothless, with no one watching the watchdog - perfect conditions for bribery.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Besides which, they would soon figure out how myriad ways to cirumnavigate pesky gubbmint regs... and those regs would likely be toothless, with no one watching the watchdog - perfect conditions for bribery.


I don't doubt you are right.



screature said:


> Limiting is one thing... Disallowing altogether is another... it becomes a very slippery slope very quickly, along the lines of censorship when you start disallowing one group or another from lobbying for their interests. Rules are in place when it comes to lobbying. Are they broken? Sure just like we have laws that are broken all the time, but the rules are there so that if you get caught there are supposed to be repercussions for those lobbyists.
> 
> The system isn't perfect and probably never will be, but disallowing corporations or other large institutions from lobbying would not be a step forward IMO it would be a regressive move in a democracy.


Currently, the corporations wield far, far too much power over government and, our country, have a look at the US, can anyone truthfully say, that's a real democracy, 'for the people'? 

It's more like, for the corporations, which aren't people at all, and if the people are lucky enough, loud enough or certainly number enough to begin to matter in a politician's mind for election, then, perhaps then, we see some democracy in action. But to equate corporations as 'the people' in any way, that just doesn't jive whatsoever with what a corporation actually is.

"far from perfect', I think, is the understatement.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Doesn't matter it is a democracy... and just because it is an NGO doesn't mean they aren't protecting vested interests, you may like those interests of a a given NGO more than the interests of a given Corporation but all lobbyists paid to represent those interests and who gets to decide what interests get to represented to government and those that don't. To paint all corporations or all industry with the same brush is simplistic and so is the notion that they should be banned from making representations to government.


Once again my point was missed or perhaps disregarded.

My problem is with paid shills to wit the "Lobbyist." 

If the leadership CEO/CFO of a corporation wishes some face time as a citizen with his/her MP good for them. If the CEO/CFO wants to have a discussion with a Minister of the Crown step in line wait your turn. 

When industry councils and or business association's shills bend the ear of the Minister, that is where I have a concern. 

Please do not reply as if it is Parliamentary Question Period when words are added when nothing of the like were said.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> I don't doubt you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, the corporations wield far, far too much power over government and, our country, have a look at the US, can anyone truthfully say, that's a real democracy, 'for the people'?
> 
> It's more like, for the corporations, which aren't people at all, and if the people are lucky enough, loud enough or certainly number enough to begin to matter in a politician's mind for election, then, perhaps then, we see some democracy in action. But to equate corporations as 'the people' in any way, that just doesn't jive whatsoever with what a corporation actually is.
> 
> "far from perfect', I think, is the understatement.


You gotta' remember those cats and how the fattest cats don't want to work too hard for a meal.

Corporations think they are entitled to their entitlements. Pay the least for the most to be offloaded on the rest of society.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Once again my point was missed or perhaps disregarded.
> 
> My problem is with paid shills to wit the "Lobbyist."
> 
> If the leadership CEO/CFO of a corporation wishes some face time as a citizen with his/her MP good for them. If the CEO/CFO wants to have a discussion with a Minister of the Crown step in line wait your turn.
> 
> When industry councils and or business association's shills bend the ear of the Minister, that is where I have a concern.
> 
> *Please do not reply as if it is Parliamentary Question Period when words are added when nothing of the like were said.*


Huh??? Not sure what you are on about with that.

Not many people know much about how meetings are arranged and who gets to meet with a Minister as this is not part of the average citizens experience. It all depends on the Minister's responsibility (i.e. if you want to meet with the Fisheries Minister regarding a matter relevant to another Minister's portfolio your likelihood of getting a meeting will be remote) and their availability at a given point in time and who has interests in their riding and the overall National interest of the issue as it relates to Federal jurisdiction. Often times meetings are requested with Federal Ministers when the meeting should be be with a Provincial Minister or even a municipal councillor or representative. Obviously other considerations enter into the equation as well. Requests for meetings with Ministers, if every one were given a number in the queue, would out number the hours in a day.

Meeting requests come in and as much as possible they are accommodated (in general) that is the way it works. It isn't good optics to refuse to meet with those that may oppose your policy, it is far easier to accept the meeting and then say "I have listened to so and sos concerns and I will take it under consideration." Whether or not that "consideration" is genuine is another matter... but by far and large it is the way things are done.

Additionally CEO's and CFO's are generally far too busy to meet with Ministers they have VPs for Government Relations for that. 

I know I will get "chastised" for this but the fact is many people really don't understand or have much first hand experience with how such matters work and are only speaking from a point of view of idealism, speculation and suspicion rather than actual knowledge.

Obviously unless an individual is a constituent of a Minister's riding it is difficult to get face time with a Minister depending on the subject matter. Often times even if a request for a meeting with a Minister comes from a back bencher they will only get to meet with the PS or Secretary of State, there is only so much time that a Minister has available for meetings and generally speaking their time is better spent with individuals who represent a *group* of individuals, not one solitary citizen. Outside of the realm of extreme idealism I think one can see how this only makes sense.

It is idealistic and unrealistic to think that a meeting with a Minister is vetted and decided upon on a first come first serve basis.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Currently, the corporations wield far, far too much power over government and, our country, have a look at the US, can anyone truthfully say, that's a real democracy, 'for the people'?
> 
> It's more like, for the corporations, which aren't people at all, and if the people are lucky enough, loud enough or certainly number enough to begin to matter in a politician's mind for election, then, perhaps then, we see some democracy in action. But to equate corporations as 'the people' in any way, that just doesn't jive whatsoever with what a corporation actually is.
> 
> "far from perfect', I think, is the understatement.


That is undoubtedly your opinion and I never "equate(d) corporations as 'the people' in any way, that just doesn't jive whatsoever with what a corporation actually is." If that is your take on what I said so be it. Corporations are made up of people and are owned by people, they do whether you like it not represent the interests of people and are entitled to make representations to to the government in a democracy.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


>


Inquiring minds want to know...

Fraser launches probe into report leaks

Less inquiring minds don't care....

'Cause they are friends of Julian Assange and the ends justify the means.


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


>


So it's the old boys club at it once again abusing and having contempt for Parliamentary conventions. 

Jack Layton has drafted a letter to Sheila Fraser, Harper, Ignatieff, Duceppe to me on Thursday to problem solve a manner to release the final draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8 &G20 summits.


----------



## BigDL

As I write this we have about 5 minutes until the political debate of the leaders of 4 of the 5 major political parties.

I hope everyone has their beer and popcorn at the ready and are prepared to settle in to be enlightened and entertained.


----------



## Sonal

Gilles Duceppe: "I'd like to thank Mr. Harper for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in this campaign...."

Oooh, snap!


----------



## SINC

Duceppe is no more than a provincial party leader who has no place in a national debate.


----------



## Max

SINC said:


> Duceppe is no more than a provincial party leader who has no place in a national debate.


Thankfully, not everyone in Canada subscribes to that belief.

I have no love for Duceppe and his separatist cause, but his party got the most votes in Quebec - and last time I checked, a substantial chunk of Canada's population resides in Quebec. I have no problem with him being in the debate. He's the one who has to deal with the conundrum of being a separatist leader participating in a debate that's about the nation from which he supposedly wants to split. I find it just a tad strange and a quizzical position for him to be in.

Wouldn't be Canada without such high weirdness.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> That is undoubtedly your opinion and I never "equate(d) corporations as 'the people' in any way, that just doesn't jive whatsoever with what a corporation actually is." If that is your take on what I said so be it. Corporations are made up of people and are owned by people, *they do whether you like it not represent the interests of people* and are entitled to make representations to to the government in a democracy.


No, they do not. You need to understand what a corporation, actually is. I have one. It does NOT, represent the interests of the people, whatsoever.

This isn't an opinion, it's simply fact. A corporation represents the interests, of the corporation, period. If it benefits the persons involved, it will likely be financial.


----------



## kps

OMG, I'm watching Iggy self destruct. Both Layton and Harper are destroying him.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> No, they do not. You need to understand what a corporation, actually is. I have one. It does NOT, represent the interests of the people, whatsoever.


So, just how many people does this "corporation" of yours employ? Exactly?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> So, just how many people does this "corporation" of yours employ? Exactly?


certainly more than myself.

But what does that have to do with the subject? Anyone who understands what a corporation is would know a corporation's interests, is itself.

If you consider money, to be the only interest of the people, I suppose, corporations can fulfill this.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Duceppe is no more than a provincial party leader who has no place in a national debate.


I would agree with you on this point, Sinc. I disliked his saying "When I go to Canada to serve the province of Quebec in Ottawa." Still, my Canada includes Quebec, and they have the right to vote for whomever they want.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> OMG, I'm watching Iggy self destruct. Both Layton and Harper are destroying him.


I wouldn't say Iggy was being destroyed by anyone. I thought Harper did very well, Iggy, did surprisingly well, but that's based on the fact that I didn't expect much from him at all, Layton did pretty well, but Duceppe, well he really should consider dumping the bloc and leading a national party. Seriously.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I wouldn't say Iggy was being destroyed by anyone. I thought Harper did very well, Iggy, did surprisingly well, but that's based on the fact that I didn't expect much from him at all, Layton did pretty well, but Duceppe, well he really should consider dumping the bloc and leading a national party. Seriously.


If I was scoring this like a prize fight, I would say Harper, Layton, Ignatieff and Duceppe. No one made a major "goof", nor did anyone really lay a knock out blow to anyone else. 

I liked the debate and felt it was well worth the effort to watch.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> If I was scoring this like a prize fight, I would say Harper, Layton, Ignatieff and Duceppe. No one made a major "goof", nor did anyone really lay a knock out blow to anyone else.
> 
> I liked the debate and felt it was well worth the effort to watch.


Interesting. I agree it was well worth watching. My score card would say, Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Ignatieff. A bit of a tie between Layton and Ignatieff. I felt they weren't coherent enough in their taking Harper to task, which could well play into Harper's numbers in the next week.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> I wouldn't say Iggy was being destroyed by anyone. I thought Harper did very well, Iggy, did surprisingly well, but that's based on the fact that I didn't expect much from him at all, Layton did pretty well, but Duceppe, well he really should consider dumping the bloc and leading a national party. Seriously.


LOL, I said that the last election about Duceppe, although he's a little too far left for my liking. 

Nah, I think Iggy did terribly...total fail. He sounded desperate, tongue tied and clueless when it came to gun control in this country. Kept pushing that "jails" and "fighter plane" non sense. Full of empty promises as Layton correctly pointed out.


----------



## dona83

As someone on the fence, I don't think that debate really helped sway me much.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> Interesting. I agree it was well worth watching. My score card would say, Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Ignatieff. A bit of a tie between Layton and Ignatieff. I felt they weren't coherent enough in their taking Harper to task, which could well play into Harper's numbers in the next week.


I think that all three did not gang up against Harper, which was wise. However, I still contend that NL, ON and BC will determine if Harper gets his majority government. We shall see.


----------



## i-rui

Layton did the best. Iggy was also good.

I do have to hand it to Harper. He is a masterful liar. I can see why the uninformed would believe him with his calm delivery.


----------



## kps

i-rui said:


> Layton did the best. Iggy was also good.
> 
> I do have to hand it to Harper. He is a masterful liar. I can see why the uninformed would believe him with his calm delivery.


Of course the other two don't lie...just Harper.:lmao:


----------



## singingcrow

dona83 said:


> As someone on the fence, I don't think that debate really helped sway me much.


I have to agree with you there.... To be honest, I was frustrated by Harpers diverging the direct questions regarding his choices, Layton's constant attack tactics, Duceppe's separatist attitude, and Iggy's sticking his Liberal chest out. Unlike the rest of you, I wasn't impressed; I didn't feel like I learned anything, nor was there anything that made me inspired to vote for anyone. Nonetheless, I will vote on May 2.


----------



## BigDL

I have to say everyone in the debate did everything expected of them and there weren't any surprises or big gaffs.

Layton did get off a couple good lines like the offer of a crutch to Harper as Igantieff did for him the last parliament, and the shot at Ignatieff if you want a promotion you have to show up for work.

As Sonal pointed out Duccepe's comment on answering a citizen's question.

Harper looked at the camera and stayed on message track.

Ignatieff had to look like he could string a coherent thought together and he did that, and with lowered expectations he looked much better than the Conservative Ad's

All and all I would think none of the leaders lost any supporters but I don't think the leaders gained many new supporters.


----------



## Max

I think that about sums it up, BigDL.


----------



## dona83

My thoughts exactly. I'm really no more or less likely to vote for any party right now, except Duceppe. I'm not voting for Duceppe.

Tomorrow's French language debate will be fun to watch though. I haven't heard Ignatieff speak French yet.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Seweeeee Seweeee Seweee

Conservatives fattened salaries of aides: report - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Seweeeee Seweeee Seweee


----------



## fjnmusic

I thought Spock's dad…er…Iggy…did the best, to be honest. He spoke with convicyion. Except when Layton asked him why he was absent for so many votes. He didn't come up with an answer to that question. Harper was B-O-R-I-N-G, emotionless and quite predictable. Standard Harper. He also offered no explanation for why the young lady was escorted from the Tory rally, all because of her Facebook page. Kind of a creeper, that makes him and his people. Gilled Duceppe was the most admirable for staying the course of his party, even though most of us can't vote for him or his party. I didn't keep up with Elizabeth May's Twitter feed, so I have no comment there.


----------



## Ottawaman

Transcript of the 2011 English language federal leaders' debate 

Warning; some "f bombs" in this article.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> certainly more than myself.
> 
> But what does that have to do with the subject? Anyone who understands what a corporation is would know a corporation's interests, is itself.
> 
> If you consider money, to be the only interest of the people, I suppose, corporations can fulfill this.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. I know exactly what a corporation is and I would say based on your comments that you certainly do not own a publicly held corporation. I have worked at the highest level (with CEO and VPs) of publicly held corporations and none of them see the corporations that they lead in such a narrow minded one dimensional way.

There are many, many, many corporations that do work that provide all kind of benefits and "essential" services to society. In fact they are an important part of the economic (and even cultural) engine of society and even at times help to provide the physical infrastructure that keep societies running and they take these roles and responsibilities very seriously.

I certainly would not want to work under your "leadership" if you don't think that a corporation is made up of it's employees and shareholders and that the only thing they provide to them (especially the employees) is money.

Sure there are some "bad" eggs out there just like there are bad people (again because corportations are run by and made up of people) but they are far from being in the majority.


----------



## groovetube

Well so have I, I do every day, but that's fine screature, however, the very definition of a corporation disagrees with you. It makes no difference how many people, are beneficiaries of the corporation financially, the corporation itself, does not have an inherent interest in people, it simply exists to benefit itself, solely. Whether or not it is a publicly traded corp, or not, it doesn't change this basic concept. The directors themselves, can make decisions for other benefits beyond the financial ones, but ultimately any corporation and it's directors will make decisions that benefit the corporation. Because of this, corporations, will lobby government to legislate to benefit the corporation, with little regard to people, the citizens of this country. There is a monstrous abundance of history to support this.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Well so have I, I do every day, but that's fine screature, however, the very definition of a corporation disagrees with you. It makes no difference how many people, are beneficiaries of the corporation financially, the corporation itself, does not have an inherent interest in people, it simply exists to benefit itself, solely. Whether or not it is a publicly traded corp, or not, it doesn't change this basic concept. The directors themselves, can make decisions for other benefits beyond the financial ones, but ultimately any corporation and it's directors will make decisions that benefit the corporation. Because of this, corporations, will lobby government to legislate to benefit the corporation, with little regard to people, the citizens of this country. There is a monstrous abundance of history to support this.


Like I said we are going to have to agree to disagree. A corporation is a legal entity separate from its members but in actual every day real terms you cannot have corporations without people and any corporation worth its salt values both the people that work for them and the people they "serve"/sell things to/provide services to as well as their shareholders.

There are bad "corporate citizens" out there without doubt but there are also very good ones. I just choose not to paint them all with the same brush as I know that it is not the case.

Anyway this subject has now become a dead horse and not much point in continuing on...


----------



## mneub

screature said:


> I certainly would not want to work under your "leadership" if you don't think that a corporation is made up of it's employees and shareholders and that the only thing they provide to them (especially the employees) is money.


Oh wow. Someone doesn't understand basic economic principles. Didn't ever take an intro Econ course?


----------



## screature

mneub said:


> Oh wow. Someone doesn't understand basic economic principles. Didn't ever take an intro Econ course?


Sigghhh... *obviously* a corporation is a separate legal entity. I am talking about every day operational reality... geesh some people get so hooked on definitions without any consideration for the real world. What corporation exists (publicly held) *without* employees and shareholders. What's so hard to understand?


----------



## singingcrow

Anyone interested in what Elizabeth Green would have said had she been at the debate, she was tweeting during and throughout. The first four pages has her comments:
Elizabeth May's blog | Green Party of Canada


----------



## MLeh

screature said:


> Sigghhh... *obviously* a corporation is a separate legal entity. I am talking about every day operational reality... geesh some people get so hooked on definitions without any consideration for the real world. What corporation exists (publicly held) *without* employees and shareholders. What's so hard to understand?


You fought the good fight. 

I still think it goes back to the whole concept of 'us' versus 'them'. It's easier when the bad guys are 'them' (or even 'it'). No grey allowed. No 'CEO with a social conscious' making decisions allowed.


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> You fought the good fight.
> 
> I still think it goes back to the whole concept of 'us' versus 'them'. It's easier when the bad guys are 'them' (or even 'it'). No grey allowed. No 'CEO with a social conscious' making decisions allowed.


It's confusing Corporations as peoples organizations. If the difference between the two can't be noted so be it.

Please carry on with an unmitigated approval of Corporations if it's your choice.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> for the last time, surpluses ARE NOT profit. It is federal LAW, that surpluses be applied to the federal debt.
> 
> Period.


Sorry I missed this post...

You are categorically WRONG!










BALANCE SHEETS AND BUDGET SURPLUSES:
AN ANALYSIS, 1997-1998 – 2003-2004



> INTRODUCTION
> 
> Between 1997-1998 and 2003-2004, the federal government generated a cumulative budgetary surplus of $61.4 billion. Media reports and even some government statements have, over the years, suggested that these surpluses were used to “automatically” pay down the debt.(1) This is inaccurate. * There is no law or convention that says the government must use its budgetary surpluses to repay debt, a point emphasized by the Auditor General in her 2002 review of the federal government’s financial statements:
> 
> The surplus for the year does NOT automatically pay down the debt. There is neither any law nor accounting rule that requires this.* This year’s surplus was applied to several areas, only one of which was the reduction of debt. Part of the surplus was used, for example, to support increases in financial assets such as loans, investments and advances.(2)


PERIOD.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> It's confusing Corporations as peoples organizations. If the difference between the two can't be noted so be it.
> 
> Please carry on with an unmitigated approval of Corporations if it's your choice.


There is no unmitigated approval of corporations at all, there is just no unmitigated painting them all with the same brush... CORPORATIONS BAD, "the people" good.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> There is no unmitigated approval of corporations at all, there is just no unmitigated painting them all with the same brush... CORPORATIONS BAD, "the people" good.


I don't believe anyone said "CORPORATIONS BAD, people good", I know I very clearly did not say that myself. You are choosing to do the painting and your form of arguing is to paint your opponent's position as black and white. Then once you unfairly simplify your opponent's position you argue against that caricature. Classic straw man technique.


----------



## Max

When we have come to the point where we must stridently capitalize and bold our declarations, it's time to draw a deep breath and simply move on.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't believe anyone said "CORPORATIONS BAD, people good", I know I very clearly did not say that myself. You are choosing to do the painting and your form of arguing is to paint your opponent's position as black and white. Then once you unfairly simplify your opponent's position you argue against that caricature. Classic straw man technique.


The argument of late was not directed to you GA but in particular to the notion that corporations should be banned from lobbying. The most recent post was (I thought) rather obliviously an extreme over simplification used for purely rhetorical purposes and not meant to actually accurately reflect any one's actual opinion... sorry that it came across that way, my bad I guess I should have put a winkie after it.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> When we have come to the point where we must stridently capitalize and bold our declarations, it's time to draw a deep breath and simply move on.


I agree however, when things are said repeatedly that are completely false the record needs to be corrected... I will deflate the text.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Sorry I missed this post...
> 
> You are categorically WRONG!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BALANCE SHEETS AND BUDGET SURPLUSES:
> AN ANALYSIS, 1997-1998 – 2003-2004
> 
> 
> 
> PERIOD.


You're falling into the same trap many people fall into, that is seeing this as a simple, have too much money, pay the principle of the mortgage. As the article explains further, than the likely googled part that you're excited about, it's far more complicated than that.


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't believe anyone said "CORPORATIONS BAD, people good", I know I very clearly did not say that myself. You are choosing to do the painting and your form of arguing is to paint your opponent's position as black and white. Then once you unfairly simplify your opponent's position you argue against that caricature. Classic straw man technique.


Unfortunately discussions tend to fall into the talking point nonsense that results in the wildly flailing of arms, (bolding text), and the boiling things down to bad, good, right, left, right, wrong, etc etc.

I don't think I've ever said corporations are bad, hell I incorporated! I work with CEOs of many all the time.

I just think it's important to see the distinction between them and people, and what is happening. There's something very wrong when a massive corporation like GE pays no tax, while the middle class pays through the flippin nose. Once again we're being asked to forgo tax relief because we need to further appease corporations (at a time of record high deficits) with the fear mongering of lost jobs and corporations slinking away into the night.


----------



## Lawrence

The good news is the Liberals accept the truth, Unlike Harper as quoted on the debate last
night as saying and I quote his exact words "I reject the truth", I'm surprised this wasn't
plastered all over the news services. LMFAO 

(I actually submitted this as a comment on the CTV news site, Stay tuned)


----------



## Lawrence

> April 13, 2011 at 1:00:38 PM
> David Lawrence
> I can't believe the quote by Harper wasn't plastered all over the news services, As quoted from Harper in response to "Iggy", Harper said "I reject the truth"
> 
> That may have just been the biggest blunder I have ever heard from a Prime Minister.
> 
> How could the media have missed this?


They published it


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You're falling into the same trap many people fall into, that is seeing this as a simple, have too much money, pay the principle of the mortgage. As the article explains further, than the likely googled part that you're excited about, it's far more complicated than that.


Damn, you don't like to admit when you are wrong do you.


----------



## groovetube

oh I can google the law that says surpluses must be used to pay down debt, as those words do exist.

But do I get a hero's sandwich for that?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh I can google the law that says surpluses must be used to pay down debt, as those words do exist.
> 
> But do I get a hero's sandwich for that?


You're simply wrong this is not some *Google the internet* report this is from the Library of Parliament and a direct quote from the Auditor General. 

If you can google the law go right ahead I challenge you to find the law because it does not exist.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> You're simply wrong this is not some *Google the internet* report this is from the Library of Parliament and a direct quote from the Auditor General.
> 
> If you can google the law go right ahead I challenge you to find the law because it does not exist.


yes you did.

I don't have the time to find it, but I have seen that by federal law, any surplus by fiscal end must be used to the debt.

However, during the year, new spending can be announced with surplus during the year.

I think you may even find quotes by the 'honourable' flaherty stating it is federal law.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yes you did.
> 
> I don't have the time to find it, but I have seen that by federal law, any surplus by fiscal end must be used to the debt.
> 
> However, during the year, new spending can be announced with surplus during the year.
> 
> I think you may even find quotes by the 'honourable' flaherty stating it is federal law.


Nope found it by searching the Library of Parliament, or did you forget I work here.

You're wrong I'm done with you.... once again.


----------



## groovetube

I suppose you missed the 'by the fiscal year end' part.

Oh well. You're "done with me", if you can't be civil then off you go. thanks.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> They published it


They publish 99 per cent of what they get, man.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I suppose you missed the 'by the fiscal year end' part.
> 
> Oh well. You're "done with me", if you can't be civil then off you go. thanks.


You want to talk about civility.... how about accepting the facts when they are presented to you in black and white. There is NO law stipulating that a surplus has to be spent on the debt. Period. 

You continue yammering on with no evidence to back up your claim and yet purport my evidence/facts to be wrong... how about some civility or even logic on your part.... It astounds me that you can be so illogical and disrespectful.... actually I take that back... it is what I have come to expect.... why would I not be done with you when you display no respect of any kind, even for the facts?

Present a reasoned, researched argument and maybe you will have some credibility until then "either put up or"... you know the rest... on this issue...


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> They publish 99 per cent of what they get, man.


No doubt... talk about self congratulations.


----------



## groovetube

you're the one getting excited and throwing names at me like illogical disrespectful etc. I have read in several places that it is federal law that by fiscal year end the surplus cannot be carried into the next and spent it must be applied to debt. I'm pretty sure I have seen this, and I think I am right.

If I am wrong, it won't be the end of the world, however that is my belief, however illogical, and disrespectful it may be, thanks.


----------



## Macfury

When the land of "pretty sure" wages war against the land of "I will quote you the statute" there can be only one victor.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> When the land of "pretty sure" wages war against the land of "I will quote you the statute" there can be only one victor.


I saw no 'statute', only some confusion as to what we are actually talking about.
 

look carefully


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I saw no 'statute', only some confusion as to what we are actually talking about.
> 
> 
> look carefully


And the confusion is completely on your part.... and MacFury isn't wrong as there is NO statute to quote from despite your claims to the contrary.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> When the land of "pretty sure" wages war against the land of "I will quote you the statute" there can be only one victor.


"To the victor shall go the spoils."


----------



## groovetube

if it ain't ice cream cake, then forget it, I lose.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> if it ain't ice cream cake, then forget it, I lose.


I am sorry to hear this, gt. :-(


----------



## groovetube

wait. That looks damn, damn sweet.

I win!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> wait. That looks damn, damn sweet.
> 
> I win!


Guess that this is your lucky day, grasshopper. You have chosen well.


----------



## groovetube

man it just keeps on stinkin doesn't it...
Conservatives quit over Vaughan health-care money -  News - MSN CA


----------



## groovetube

this is interesting:
Scatological attack on Stephen Harper’s record goes viral - The Globe and Mail

I'm sensing a real interest in young voters this time round. I wonder which party benefits most from this?


----------



## Ottawaman

French debate 

Harper: "I have great respect for the truth"
Duceppe: "Good, then maybe you'll start speaking it"


lol


----------



## SINC

Hmmm, with over 75% of Canadians not understanding the language, what's the point?


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Hmmm, with over 75% of Canadians not understanding the language, what's the point?


if Harper loses the conservative seats in Quebec there goes any chance of a majority.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Hmmm, with over 75% of Canadians not understanding the language, what's the point?


Really?


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> Hmmm, with over 75% of Canadians not understanding the language, what's the point?


Clearly REAL Canadians don't bother learning our two OFFICIAL languages. :lmao:

P.S. You're way off:



> English and French are the mother tongues of 59.7% and 23.2% of the population respectively.[194] Approximately 98% of Canadians speak English or French (57.8% speak English only, 22.1% speak French only, and 17.4% speak both).[194] English and French Official Language Communities, defined by First Official Language Spoken, constitute 73.0% and 23.6% of the population respectively.[195]


----------



## SINC

MannyP Design said:


> Clearly REAL Canadians don't bother learning our two OFFICIAL languages. :lmao:
> 
> P.S. You're way off:


From YOUR link:

English and* French* are the mother tongues of 59.7% and *23.2% of the population* respectively.[194] Approximately 98% of Canadians speak English or French (57.8% speak English only, *22.1% speak French only, and 17.4% speak both)*.[194] English and French Official Language Communities, defined by First Official Language Spoken, constitute 73.0% and* 23.6% of the population* respectively.[195]

I'd say that my less than 25% is dead on.

Now I guess I should put a laughing icon here, should I?


----------



## groovetube

I barely speak french and I followed the debate. But more importantly, the actual debate is often not as effective as the aftermath in the media.

If Harper doesn't maintain/improve in quebec, no majority.


----------



## groovetube

hmmm. if 25% speak french only, and 17% speak both english and french, hmm let's see, 25 + 17 equals, er, carry the 4, no, that's not right...

OMG! 42% can understand the french debate!!

Ice cream cake for me!!!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> hmmm. if 25% speak french only, and 17% speak both english and french, hmm let's see, 25 + 17 equals, er, carry the 4, no, that's not right...
> 
> OMG! 42% can understand the french debate!!
> 
> Ice cream cake for me!!!


Official Language Spoken, constitute 73.0% (English) and 23.6% (French) of the population respectively.


----------



## groovetube

sorry sinc, even with my lasered eyes, I can see the discrepancy.

You're referring to what people identify as their official 'first language'.

A far cry from from the other numbers you re-quoted, which states 22% (oops I said 25 I blame it on the eye surgery) speak french only, and -also, in addition-, 17% speak BOTH.

Which means, surprise to me as well, 39% can understand the french debate. That's pretty significant!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> sorry sinc, even with my lasered eyes, I can see the discrepancy. Which means, surprise to me as well, 39% can understand the french debate. That's pretty significant!


Not nearly as "significant" as 61% who cannot, and that percentage grows every year with immigration.


----------



## MannyP Design

Quebec is the largest province in Canada…that's pretty significant.


----------



## groovetube

it's funny how suddenly 61% makes the 39% irrelevant, insignificant.

Does that make the 38% of those who voted for Stephen Harper not much to concern ourselves with too?


----------



## SINC

MannyP Design said:


> Quebec is the largest province in Canada…that's pretty significant.


You have a point until you compare the area of the province that is occupied by actual towns, cities and rural farmland. Most of it is isolated and unoccupied.


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> You have a point until you compare the area of the province that is occupied by actual towns, cities and rural farmland. Most of it is isolated and unoccupied.


Funny… you could say the same about every province.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Does that make the 38% of those who voted for Stephen Harper not much to concern ourselves with too?


Only if you compare it with those who voted for the Liberals as even less to concern ourselves about.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> You have a point until you compare the area of the province that is occupied by actual towns, cities and rural farmland. Most of it is isolated and unoccupied.


you can say that for most of Canada.

I hope Harper dismisses Quebec as easily as you do.


----------



## groovetube

What?

I was thinking about the 62% that voted NOT for Stephen Harper.

But anyway. I'm just amused at how numbers mean different things, at different times.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Hmmm, with over 75% of Canadians not understanding the language, what's the point?


Most Canadians live outside of Alberta....thats the point.



SINC said:


> You have a point until you compare the area of the province that is occupied by actual towns, cities and rural farmland. Most of it is isolated and unoccupied.


Is PEI really impressive then?


----------



## i-rui

http://****harperdid.ca.nyud.net/

lol at the pencil sketch portrait.
purrrfect!


----------



## singingcrow

groovetube said:


> hmmm. if 25% speak french only, and 17% speak both english and french, hmm let's see, 25 + 17 equals, er, carry the 4, no, that's not right...
> 
> OMG! 42% can understand the french debate!!
> 
> Ice cream cake for me!!!


:lmao: Merci de m'avoir fait rire! :clap:


----------



## Macfury

Happy birthday, groovetube!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> this is interesting:
> Scatological attack on Stephen Harper’s record goes viral - The Globe and Mail
> 
> I'm sensing a real interest in young voters this time round. I wonder which party benefits most from this?


We all benefit from young voters becoming active and actually going out to vote for some candidate. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G.

i-rui said:


> if Harper loses the conservative seats in Quebec there goes any chance of a majority.


I still predict that the Conservative votes here in NL will spell a majority or minority for PM Harper. He has no seats in NL, and if he gains at least 3 here, with a couple in NS and NB, then this will balance out his losses in Quebec. A gain of 5-7 in ON, with holding what he has in the prairie provinces, and then picking up some more in BC will give him his majority. 

Personally, I am voting for the NDP here in St.John's East, so it is not that I want to see PM Harper get a majority, but that is where I think the wise money will be placed .......... IF he gains at least three seats here in NL. If not ............ well, then it's anyone's game. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> You have a point until you compare the area of the province that is occupied by actual towns, cities and rural farmland. Most of it is isolated and unoccupied.


This sounds like NL to me. You could drop PEI into parts of NL and not kill any person underneath. You would kill off a great deal of wildlife and plantlife, but there are no people living in vast parts of our province.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Happy birthday, groovetube!


Sorry, the local bake shop misspelled your name. Who are Gracie and Bridget? Your French mistresses???  Paix, mon ami. Happy Birthday.


----------



## Dr.G.

Mme. Paillé, Quebec's Joe the Plumber?


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> I still predict that the Conservative votes here in NL will spell a majority or minority for PM Harper. He has no seats in NL, and if he gains at least 3 here, with a couple in NS and NB, then this will balance out his losses in Quebec. A gain of 5-7 in ON, with holding what he has in the prairie provinces, and then picking up some more in BC will give him his majority.
> 
> Personally, I am voting for the NDP here in St.John's East, so it is not that I want to see PM Harper get a majority, but that is where I think the wise money will be placed .......... IF he gains at least three seats here in NL. If not ............ well, then it's anyone's game. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


In Nova Scotia the Conservatives are vulnérable in South Shore St. Margarets. Gearld Keddy yes Big Conservative Cheque Gerald Keddy won by less than 1000 votes. It will be interesting to see if his antics have an effect on his future employment in the riding. 

The Riding of Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe is held by a Liberal former Mayor Brian Murphy who won with a little over 1200 votes. Former Premier Mr. Bernard Lord who earlier indicated he would run in Moncton R,D but backed out. A Conservative Party executive member jump into the breach to run in the riding which indicates to me the Conservatives do not hold much faith in winning on May 2nd.

Egmont on PE Island the Conservatives only won by 55 votes so that could be an interesting riding as well

Other than these three ridings, I don't feel, there maybe any changes in the Maritime Provinces


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> In Nova Scotia the Conservatives are vulnérable in South Shore St. Margarets. Gearld Keddy yes Big Conservative Cheque Gerald Keddy won by less than 1000 votes. It will be interesting to see if his antics have an effect on his future employment in the riding.
> 
> The Riding of Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe is held by a Liberal former Mayor Brian Murphy who won with a little over 1200 votes. Former Premier Mr. Bernard Lord who earlier indicated he would run in Moncton R,D but backed out. A Conservative Party executive member jump into the breach to run in the riding which indicates to me the Conservatives do not hold much faith in winning on May 2nd.
> 
> Egmont on PE Island the Conservatives only won by 55 votes so that could be an interesting riding as well
> 
> Other than these three ridings, I don't feel, there maybe any changes in the Maritime Provinces



We shall see, BigDL. The Conservatives are trying to win back three of the ridings that they usually held here in NL. Don't think that they have much of a chance doing that here in St.John's East, but they have shots at three others in NL. If that happens, I stand by my predicition of a blue-surge across the other three Atlantic Provinces ........ then a road bump in Quebec ........ and then onwards through ON and all the way to Battleground BC where they will win or lose their chance at a majority. 

Should the tide go against them in NL, and they stall in the other three Atlantic Provinces, lose ground in Quebec, and then actually decline in ON, then there is a chance of a Liberal minority government ........... again with Battleground BC making or breaking that scenario. 

It all begins in NL and ends in BC for this election ........... the way it should be here in Canada. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

What are the federal election regulations re revealing election results online in one time zone to those in other time zones here in Canada? We could actually get some results here in NL before the polls close in NB/NS/PEI. So, if I told BigDL that the Conservatives gained four seats here in NL, even before the polls close in NB, what are the consequences for me? 

I remember that in the last election, all sorts of people sent me PMs asking me for NL results ........... which I gave to them in cryptic language once their checks cleared and were deposited into the Amalgomated Bank of ehMacLand and then on into my Swiss bank account. I am just wondering if election laws have changed in any way.


----------



## BigDL

A quick google search show the prohibition on the media. Private citizens? Internet board? 

The hours of voting is as provided in the following link Election poll hour of operation? if these times are still in effect?

The difference between NL and Maritime poll closing times and poll results would not have any real effect as by the time of reporting early results from St. John's (TV station) would be reported at closing time of Maritime polls. 

The rest of Canada polls close two and a half to three hours later than NL so will the Atlantic Provinces sensibilities change the views of the rest of Canada, it could happen, hard to imagine, but it could.


----------



## groovetube

the polls now show the cons leading quite handily in the east. Halfway in the campaign, it'll be interesting to see how things start to play out.


----------



## BigDL

Ahhh but things could be changing in the further East

Look at this. Surely this will make all the difference especially in an area with institutions of higher learning as a growth industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-TEGzstjg8


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> A quick google search show the prohibition on the media. Private citizens? Internet board?
> 
> The hours of voting is as provided in the following link Election poll hour of operation? if these times are still in effect?
> 
> The difference between NL and Maritime poll closing times and poll results would not have any real effect as by the time of reporting early results from St. John's (TV station) would be reported at closing time of Maritime polls.
> 
> The rest of Canada polls close two and a half to three hours later than NL so will the Atlantic Provinces sensibilities change the views of the rest of Canada, it could happen, hard to imagine, but it could.


Merci, BigDL. The polls are opened up later this time around. It has usually been 8PM. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> I still predict that the Conservative votes here in NL will spell a majority or minority for PM Harper. He has no seats in NL, and if he gains at least 3 here, with a couple in NS and NB, then this will balance out his losses in Quebec. A gain of 5-7 in ON, with holding what he has in the prairie provinces, and then picking up some more in BC will give him his majority.
> 
> Personally, I am voting for the NDP here in St.John's East, so it is not that I want to see PM Harper get a majority, but that is where I think the wise money will be placed .......... IF he gains at least three seats here in NL. If not ............ well, then it's anyone's game. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


If Quebec starts to sense a conservative majority, then voters there will jump on the bandwagon. They would rather be in the government than out should a majority transpire.

I think the rest of Canada should just give Harper his majority and avoid all these shenanigans with Quebec and the Bloc. If they screw it up the liberals will storm back to power in the next election.


----------



## Max

1.
respectfully sir:
I disagree, heartily
Harper an ingrate

2.
Con majority:
permission to wreck more things
I don't think so, eh

3.
Who deserves the crown?
the masses stir, unhappy~
sad choices ahead


----------



## Macfury

Hand it to Harper
Spring is the time to clean house
For Iggy, a fork


----------



## Max

stick it to Harper
permit wisdom to prevail;
control freak's undone


----------



## Macfury

Forsooth, what form would "wisdom" take, were it to prevail? Out with it, wise man!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> I think the rest of Canada should just give Harper his majority and avoid all these shenanigans with Quebec and the Bloc. If they screw it up the liberals will storm back to power in the next election.


... or in other words.

Lie back and enjoy,
your severe pain is reduced
if stuggle is ceased


----------



## Max

1.
well, wise I may seem
but that's for others to say~
I yam what I yam.

2.
oh, minority!
another snap election~
time to twiddle thumbs


----------



## Lawrence

"Live long and prosper"


----------



## singingcrow

I met a man today, who used to work for CBC in a high level position, and ended up on EI, because of Harper's budget cuts. He just got a job selling pens at Staples. It appears Harper's intention to save us money and create jobs has the opposite effect. As far as I'm concerned he's just juggling.

And no Vandave I'm not going to give up my right to vote for someone I feel represents my views, just so people who disagree with me can have their way. I have a right to be represented too, and the conservatives threaten those rights, as far as I'm concerned. Is this not a democracy?

Canadians have a reputation of being peaceful, democratic, and honest. Harper is tainting the country's reputation. Canada used to be looked up to, and now the world is looking down on our government (luckily not the people - not yet anyway). Things are happening behind closed doors, and our government, the one who is supposed to be representing the people, is not permitting the people to know what they are doing. Not only that, but my hard earned money, is being spent on ridiculous things like a fake lake. So, no, I am not going to apeese you, or any other conservative supporter for that matter, just because it would be easier in your eyes.

What really needs to be done is people need to get out there and vote, so we can have a stronger representation proportionate the the actual population. I suspect, if that happened, conservatives would not win the majority or the minority for that matter.


Edit: Sorry if this came across as too strong or as an attack, it was not my intention. I'm just frustrated by the situation, and the fact that I don't think any one of the candidates represent me. It's like there's parts and pieces here and there, but no cohesive representative, you know?


----------



## Dr.G.

singingcrow said:


> I met a man today, who used to work for CBC in a high level position, and ended up on EI, because of Harper's budget cuts. He just got a job selling pens at Staples. It appears Harper's intention to save us money and create jobs has the opposite effect. As far as I'm concerned he's just juggling.
> 
> And no Vandave I'm not going to give up my right to vote for someone I feel represents my views, just so people who disagree with me can have their way. I have a right to be represented too, and the conservatives threaten those rights, as far as I'm concerned. Is this not a democracy?
> 
> Canadians have a reputation of being peaceful, democratic, and honest. Harper is tainting the country's reputation. Canada used to be looked up to, and now the world is looking down on our government (luckily not the people - not yet anyway). Things are happening behind closed doors, and our government, the one who is supposed to be representing the people, is not permitting the people to know what they are doing. Not only that, but my hard earned money, is being spent on ridiculous things like a fake lake. So, no, I am not going to apeese you, or any other conservative supporter for that matter, just because it would be easier in your eyes.
> 
> What really needs to be done is people need to get out there and vote, so we can have a stronger representation proportionate the the actual population. I suspect, if that happened, conservatives would not win the majority or the minority for that matter.


Amen, brother. Voting is one of the key responsibilities of Canadian democracy. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, brother. Voting is one of the key responsibilities of Canadian democracy. Paix, mon ami.


I think that should be "sister" in this case.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> I think that should be "sister" in this case.


Oops. Mea culpa, singingcrow. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Vandave

singingcrow said:


> I met a man today, who used to work for CBC in a high level position, and ended up on EI, because of Harper's budget cuts. He just got a job selling pens at Staples. It appears Harper's intention to save us money and create jobs has the opposite effect. As far as I'm concerned he's just juggling.


That's the reality that every person in the private sector lives with. Government workers are not entitled to their job. 

It baffles me that the CBC even exists to begin with. If this person cannot find another career in the media, it makes me wonder what their skill set really was working for the CBC. This just reinforces my view that the organization is chalk full of bureaucrats and political hacks.



singingcrow said:


> And no Vandave I'm not going to give up my right to vote for someone I feel represents my views, just so people who disagree with me can have their way. I have a right to be represented too, and the conservatives threaten those rights, as far as I'm concerned. Is this not a democracy?


My suggestion had absolutely nothing to do with rights. In no way did I suggest taking away your rights. You have a choice, just like the rest of us.

I am suggesting that people on the fence should support Harper to put an end to this minority and Bloc Quebecois nonsense.



singingcrow said:


> Canadians have a reputation of being peaceful, democratic, and honest. Harper is tainting the country's reputation.


Do you feel that the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition was peaceful, democratic and honest? Canadians voted to give Harper a minority government and the three clowns undermined that by doing dirty backroom non-transparent deals. It's sick. And it is certainly not the Canadian Way.


----------



## singingcrow

Vandave said:


> That's the reality that every person in the private sector lives with. Government workers are not entitled to their job.
> 
> It baffles me that the CBC even exists to begin with. If this person cannot find another career in the media, it makes me wonder what their skill set really was working for the CBC. This just reinforces my view that the organization is chalk full of bureaucrats and political hacks.


Might I suggest you don't make judgements on someone you don't know. Have you researched the availablity for the job he's qualified to do? No, You don't even know what that is.



> My suggestion had absolutely nothing to do with rights. In no way did I suggest taking away your rights. You have a choice, just like the rest of us.
> 
> I am suggesting that people on the fence should support Harper to put an end to this minority and Bloc Quebecois nonsense.


Then you mistakenly think that most people who are sitting on the fence are including Harper in the equation. And not all of us play the political manipulative game to try and create a result, not that I would in anyway want the result you're suggesting. There are many of us who vote for someone, just so there could be some hope that there could be at least one voice in a seat who could speak up for our needs. In my eyes, giving the conservatives my vote would equate to muffling me for four years. And I suspect you think this would be the easy thing because, well let's face it, you would get what you want. 

I agree with you with one point, it would be helpful to have a majority government, but only for that one respect. Unfortunately, I, personally, find all of the candidates, including Harper to be too immature to run our country. Their lack of ability to cooperate and share, leads to a waste of time and money for all of us i.e. "minority[...] nonsense".




> Do you feel that the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition was peaceful, democratic and honest? Canadians voted to give Harper a minority government and the three clowns undermined that by doing dirty backroom non-transparent deals. It's sick. And it is certainly not the Canadian Way.


Again, the immaturity is discouraging.


----------



## singingcrow

SINC said:


> I think that should be "sister" in this case.





Dr.G. said:


> Oops. Mea culpa, singingcrow. Paix, mon amie.


C'est pas grave, mon amie. Let's just say, we have a "brotherly" kind of connection.


----------



## Vandave

singingcrow said:


> Might I suggest you don't make judgements on someone you don't know. Have you researched the availablity for the job he's qualified to do? No, You don't even know what that is.


I never asserted what his skill set was. I questioned it.

If you have those details, I am happy to hear them. Either way, Harper can hardly be blamed for the reality of free markets. 



singingcrow said:


> In my eyes, giving the conservatives my vote would equate to muffling me for four years. And I suspect you think this would be the easy thing because, well let's face it, you would get what you want.


Yes that's what I want. But, it's also in the interest of Liberals who are ideologically close to the Conservatives. If you are a swing voter between those two parties, then now is the time to swing that vote to Harper. It will end this problem of a minority government and having the Bloc in a position of power. If the Conservatives truly mess things up and do things Canadians don't want, then the Liberals will surely make a huge comeback and win the next election. Canadians love nothing more than to vote parties out of power. That's the stick.



singingcrow said:


> Again, the immaturity is discouraging.


At least you are being honest for calling a spade a spade.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> That's the reality that every person in the private sector lives with. Government workers are not entitled to their job.


I agree. Sometimes the gravy train comes to a stop. Two private sector workers can often live happily on the wages of a single public sector employee.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> That's the reality that every person in the private sector lives with. Government workers are not entitled to their job.


 CBC Workers are private sector workers, ignorant fellow 



Vandave said:


> It baffles me that the CBC even exists to begin with. If this person cannot find another career in the media, it makes me wonder what their skill set really was working for the CBC. This just reinforces my view that the organization is chalk full of bureaucrats and political hacks.


Again never mind the facts. Gut spewing is good enough.





Vandave said:


> My suggestion had absolutely nothing to do with rights. In no way did I suggest taking away your rights. You have a choice, just like the rest of us.
> 
> I am suggesting that people on the fence should support Harper to put an end to this minority and Bloc Quebecois nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel that the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition was peaceful, democratic and honest? Canadians voted to give Harper a minority government and the three clowns undermined that by doing dirty backroom non-transparent deals. It's sick. And it is certainly not the Canadian Way.


Ignorance is bliss I guess. When your right your right and everyone else better step in line. Harper's Right Atrocious.


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> CBC Workers are private sector workers, ignorant fellow


An accounting slight of hand hardly makes them private sector workers. 

I guess you would therefore support the government no longer funding the CBC and letting stand on their own since they are a part of the private sector and all, right?



BigDL said:


> Again never mind the facts. Gut spewing is good enough.


And what are the facts? Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for a left wing mouth piece? That there a group of bureaucratic fatcats enriching themselves of the backs of hardworking Canadians? That a national broadcaster is not needed in the context of where technology is today?


----------



## Macfury

What the hell did you mean by that, BigDL? I can't make heads or tails from that post.

Calling CBC "the private sector" is certainly one of the most amazing things i've heard today.


----------



## Vandave

Fox News was talking about coming into Canada. I think the federal government should fund them to the same level as the CBC to provide a fair and balanced voice for Canadians.


----------



## Dr.G.

singingcrow said:


> C'est pas grave, mon amie. Let's just say, we have a "brotherly" kind of connection.


Merci.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> An accounting slight of hand hardly makes them private sector workers.
> 
> I guess you would therefore support the government no longer funding the CBC and letting stand on their own since they are a part of the private sector and all, right?
> 
> 
> 
> And what are the facts? Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for a left wing mouth piece? That there a group of bureaucratic fatcats enriching themselves of the backs of hardworking Canadians? That a national broadcaster is not needed in the context of where technology is today?


People that are employed with the CBC are covered by the Canadian Labour Code same as employees at CTV or Global, same as employees of Railways, same as employees of Chartered Banks, and same as employees of Inter-provincial Trucking firms. Those are facts good fellow.

It's fine if someone don't like public broadcasters but without any knowledge why disparage people? 

Disparaging people without cause as in this instance is called stereotyping. It something right-winged fascists used to resort to. I have little tolerance for Stereotyping.


----------



## Vandave

This whole election is going to come down to a handful of tight ridings.

Jack Latyon is picking up steam in Quebec and that might split some of the left wing vote and give the Conservatives a boost. My read of BC is that some ridings could swing Conservative. 

The NDP could lose some seats in Ontario due to the gun registry nonsense. 

Turnout is going to be a big factor as well. I think we are set for the lowest voter turnout ever. I'm not sure who that favours though.


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> People that are employed with the CBC are covered by the Canadian Labour Code same as employees at CTV or Global, same as employees of Railways, same as employees of Chartered Banks, and same as employees Inter-provincial Truckers. Those are facts good fellow.


The Sky is blue and water is wet. Facts.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> People that are employed with the CBC are covered by the Canadian Labour Code same as employees at CTV or Global, same as employees of Railways, same as employees of Chartered Banks, and same as employees Inter-provincial Truckers. Those are facts good fellow.


This is misleading. They're covered by the CLC because the government at one time thought that broadcasting was an essential service. This makes no distinction between public and private employees.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> This is misleading. They're covered by the CLC because the government at one time thought that broadcasting was an essential service. This makes no distinction between public and private employees.


The CBC is federally regulated because its business is interprovincial in scope. Same as some railways, canals, trucking companies and banks. 

Public employees are covered by a "Staff Relations Act," I did a google check and the act is the "Public Service Relations Act," anyway, private sector employees are covered by the Canadian Labour Code, and if some are luck enough may be affiliated with the CLC, Canadian Labour Congress. :clap:

The CBC is a Crown Corporation and as such is a private sector employer.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> The CBC is a Crown Corporation and as such is a private sector employer.


If that's true, then why wail when Harper says he will privatize it? Nothing will have changed.


----------



## MLeh

Vandave said:


> Turnout is going to be a big factor as well. I think we are set for the lowest voter turnout ever. I'm not sure who that favours though.


I guess it favours those who get out and vote. 


My daughter was once having a conversation with her boyfriend's mother, and the mother was complaining about the government, but then let it slip that she hadn't voted. Being her mother's daughter, my daughter said "If you didn't vote then you don't have any right to bitch." That didn't go over well.

(My daughter will be out of the country on election day. She's already voted.)


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> If that's true, then why wail when Harper says he will privatize it? Nothing will have changed.


That would be the same effect for CBC as it was for CN Railways when it went from a Crown Corporation to a publicly traded Private Corporation.

In both instances CN remained a private sector employer covered by the Canada Labour Code.


----------



## Vandave

MLeh said:


> I guess it favours those who get out and vote.
> 
> 
> My daughter was once having a conversation with her boyfriend's mother, and the mother was complaining about the government, but then let it slip that she hadn't voted. Being her mother's daughter, my daughter said "If you didn't vote then you don't have any right to bitch." That didn't go over well.
> 
> (My daughter will be out of the country on election day. She's already voted.)


I think we should have some kind of tax penalty for not voting. In return, we should put a 'none of the above' on the ballet.


----------



## da_jonesy

Vandave said:


> Turnout is going to be a big factor as well. I think we are set for the lowest voter turnout ever. I'm not sure who that favours though.


Low turn out will favour the Conservatives as their target demographic (people over 50) tend to vote more than younger people.

That being said, these "voter mobs" and facebook/twitter pushes might get more of the younger crowd to vote which would favour the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> That would be the same effect for CBC as it was for CN Railways when it went from a Crown Corporation to a publicly traded Private Corporation.
> 
> In both instances CN remained a private sector employer covered by the Canadian Labour Code.



Uh-huh. Keep diggin'.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> I am suggesting that people on the fence should support Harper to put an end to this minority and Bloc Quebecois nonsense.


by "nonsense" you mean our democracy?



Vandave said:


> Do you feel that the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition was peaceful, democratic and honest?


a coalition is not violent, fascist or dishonest. In fact it's written into how our government works.

When a party is found in contempt of parliament that's a sure sign that they're *NOT* "democratic and honest".



Vandave said:


> Canadians voted to give Harper a minority government and the three clowns undermined that by doing dirty backroom non-transparent deals. It's sick. And it is certainly not the Canadian Way.


a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. More voted for other parties. What's not to understand (besides basic math)?


----------



## i-rui

also LOL at using "non-transparent" to describe parties other than Harper's.


----------



## Vandave

i-rui said:


> by "nonsense" you mean our democracy?


Yup, you nailed it. I was definitely referring to our democracy.



i-rui said:


> a coalition is not violent, fascist or dishonest. In fact it's written into how our government works.
> 
> When a party is found in contempt of parliament that's a sure sign that they're *NOT* "democratic and honest".


Can't argue with that because there wasn't anything political about the vote of contempt.



i-rui said:


> a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. More voted for other parties. What's not to understand (besides basic math)?


I forgot how the vast majority of Canadians embraced the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition with open arms. Mea culpa.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> forgot how the vast majority of Canadians embraced the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition with open arms. Mea culpa.


They hailed the conquering hero! Many is the day people speak the name of...err, what's his name?--with reverence.


----------



## BigDL

i-rui said:


> by "nonsense" you mean our democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> a coalition is not violent, fascist or dishonest. In fact it's written into how our government works.
> 
> When a party is found in contempt of parliament that's a sure sign that they're *NOT* "democratic and honest".
> 
> 
> 
> a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. More voted for other parties. What's not to understand (besides basic math)?


It's really too hard for some to understand we have a representative democracy. The Elected Representatives decide who will govern. The best that the Party with the largest number of representatives elected gets in Parliament is the "Right of First Refusal" if you will but that it.

At the point when the Party with the Largest number of elected representatives can't play nicely with others and that party can't maintain the confidence of the house they can't govern. 

Somebody else gets to gather up enough Elected Representatives to see if they can get along with others and have the confidence of the house.

But some folks can't understand the concept of playing nicely.


----------



## i-rui

BigDL said:


> At the point when the Party with the Largest number of elected representatives can't play nicely with others and that party can't maintain the confidence of the house they can't govern.


exactly. and it's funny how conservative supporters demonize our system this time around, but didn't have a problem when :

-the Martin government fell on a vote of non-confidence in 2006

- Harper tried to form his Coalition in 2004 (Because the NDP & Bloc were on the same side of the Political spectrum as the conservatives...right.....)

holy selective memory.....


----------



## Vandave

i-rui said:


> exactly. and it's funny how conservative supporters demonize our system this time around, but didn't have a problem when :
> 
> -the Martin government fell on a vote of non-confidence in 2006


And rightfully so. The Liberal Party and the PM were caught in a very serious situation involving theft of taxpayer money. Have they even paid us back yet?

Whilst you may not agree with their politics, at least the Conservatives have not stolen taxpayer money. 



i-rui said:


> - Harper tried to form his Coalition in 2004 (Because the NDP & Bloc were on the same side of the Political spectrum as the conservatives...right.....)
> 
> holy selective memory.....


It wasn't a coalition. It was an agreement to simply approach the GG and let her know that other options are possible if the Martin government were to fail. That's hardly comparable to an outright coalition.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Harper tried to form his Coalition in 2004 (Because the NDP & Bloc were on the same side of the Political spectrum as the conservatives...right.....)
> 
> holy selective memory.....


Do you recall him bringing this matter before the GG? Did he request to govern?


----------



## screature

I'll just be glad when the whole damn thing is over whatever the out come. I am really getting tired of all the BS from all camps, most especially from the media for whom elections are a heyday....

The only problem is that if the out come is anything less than a majority for whoever we will almost certainly be back here in a couple of years tops...

C'est la guerre...


----------



## groovetube

da_jonesy said:


> Low turn out will favour the Conservatives as their target demographic (people over 50) tend to vote more than younger people.
> 
> That being said, these "voter mobs" and facebook/twitter pushes might get more of the younger crowd to vote which would favour the Liberals and NDP.


it seems to be snowballing...
Thanks a heap, Rick Mercer – the students might actually vote - The Globe and Mail

damn CBC Rick Mercer guy...


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Do you recall him bringing this matter before the GG? Did he request to govern?


+1 a fallacy spread by the Opposition.... they like to read between the lines don't you know and turn their own speculation into fact.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Do you recall him bringing this matter before the GG? Did he request to govern?


he clearly said there was another option to an election.

What would that be?


----------



## Sonal

Vandave said:


> It wasn't a coalition. It was an agreement to simply approach the GG and let her know that other options are possible if the Martin government were to fail. That's hardly comparable to an outright coalition.


Text of the now-famous letter.

Text of Stephen Harper's 2004 letter signed by Layton and Duceppe - Winnipeg Free Press



> September 9, 2004
> 
> Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
> 
> C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
> 
> Governor General
> 
> Rideau Hall
> 
> 1 Sussex Drive
> 
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
> 
> Excellency,
> 
> As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
> 
> We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
> 
> Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
> 
> Leader of the Opposition
> 
> Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
> 
> Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
> 
> Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
> 
> Jack Layton, M.P.
> 
> Leader of the New Democratic Party


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> It's really too hard for some to understand we have a representative democracy. The Elected Representatives decide who will govern. The best that the Party with the largest


Please point out where I said their actions were not Constitutional. I never made that claim. What they did was un-Canadian. I know many on the left who were absolutely outraged by their disgusting grab for power. This isn't some banana republic.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it seems to be snowballing...
> Thanks a heap, Rick Mercer – the students might actually vote - The Globe and Mail
> 
> damn CBC Rick Mercer guy...


Didn't I read that crap in the last 18 elections: Students makin' a diff this time!!! Yawnnnnnn.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> it seems to be snowballing...
> Thanks a heap, Rick Mercer – the students might actually vote - The Globe and Mail
> 
> damn CBC Rick Mercer guy...


Hey if there isn't a screaming crowd involved those drunken coeds will not likely participate... it is all "fun and stuff" to be in front of the cameras in a crowd with a bunch of your friends. When you have to stand in line to vote... not so much fun.


----------



## Vandave

Big difference.

The Conservative letter says to consider options and the second letter was an out and out deal and agreement to govern.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Text of the now-famous letter.
> 
> Text of Stephen Harper's 2004 letter signed by Layton and Duceppe - Winnipeg Free Press


Sonal we have seen this a dozen times by now.... The letter was carefully crafted and there was no mention of a coalition just that the GG consider the options... you can read between the lines all you want there was never a formal agreement or even a proposal for one... end of story.


----------



## i-rui

what would "other options" be?

a pillow fight?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> he clearly said there was another option to an election.
> 
> What would that be?


Allowing the confidence of the House to decide... such agreements need not be formal or do you not know your history... nothing need be signed and that is the difference the suggestion was one of an "ad hoc" government based on the support of the House... this happened in Ontario least you forget.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> what would "other options" be?
> 
> a pillow fight?


the cons will =never=... EVER, answer that question, because they know Harper is a liar.

There IS no other option, than a coalition, that's clear.

Although I happy to hear what other options there may be


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> the cons will =never=... EVER, answer that question, because they know Harper is a liar.
> 
> There IS no other option, than a coalition, that's clear.
> 
> Although I happy to hear what other options there may be


Little slow on the draw there oh simple one.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Allowing the confidence of the House to decide... such agreements need not be formal or do you not know your history... nothing need be signed and that is the difference the suggestion was one of an "ad hoc" government based on the support of the House... this happened in Ontario least you forget.



"a rose by any other name...."


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Hey if there isn't a screaming crowd involved those drunken coeds will not likely participate... it is all "fun and stuff" to be in front of the cameras in a crowd with a bunch of your friends. When you have to stand in line to vote... not so much fun.


So what you're really saying is, getting young voters interested in the election and participating, is a bad thing. You sound a little unhappy about it.


----------



## Max

Let them eat cake!


----------



## groovetube

awesome. I like cake.


----------



## Sonal

If the cake has different flavours on different layers, is it a coalition cake? Or merely one that represents our many-flavoured mosaic of cakes in this country.


----------



## i-rui

it's not a "formal" coalition cake, it just tastes *exactly* the same as one.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Big difference.
> 
> The Conservative letter says to consider options and the second letter was an out and out deal and agreement to govern.


Exactly.


----------



## groovetube

exactly what?

Funny enough we never hear much past "there's a difference".


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Please point out where I said their actions were not Constitutional. I never made that claim. What they did was un-Canadian. I know many on the left who were absolutely outraged by their disgusting grab for power. This isn't some banana republic.


Yes, what they did is British as in the Westminster tradition. So the familiarity with ideals held so dear from a bunch of Bananas in some Republic Right to the South are not to be confused with the Canadian Westminster Brand?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> So what you're really saying is, getting young voters interested in the election and participating, is a bad thing. You sound a little unhappy about it.


Nope... I just remember what it was like to be young and full of p**s and vinegar and I went out on demonstrations with lots of my lefty friends but when it came to to vote most of us were too busy nursing a hangover....

Same as it ever was.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> the cons will =never=... EVER, answer that question, because they know Harper is a liar.
> 
> There IS no other option, than a coalition, that's clear.
> 
> Although I happy to hear what other options there may be


One of the parties could have made the choice to not show up. The Liberals use that one all the time.

It's possible that Harper could have become PM without any support from the Bloc. Some Liberals may very well have jumped ship or abstained. 

Until you have a vote in the house, you don't know how it would have played out.

But the menage-a-trois was a written and signed deal. Hardly comparable.


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> it's not a "formal" coalition cake, it just tastes *exactly* the same as one.


Formal vs. informal. As long as it tastes pretty good, what does it matter?

Basically, we're talking about whether or not you put different layers together as one cohesive cake and stick with it for the whole slice, or just keep putting together different bits one bite at a time until you've had enough.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Nope I just remember what it was like to be young and full of p**s and vinegar and I went out on demonstrations with lots of my lefty friends but when it came to to vote most of us were too busy nursing a hangover....
> 
> Same as it ever was.


so, in simpler terms, young people have no idea what they want or should believe in, and mistakenly lean to the left, all of them are only interested in getting smashed drunk, so they should leave the voting to the older crowd, since none of them have any drinking problems and so much smarter.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Formal vs. informal. As long as it tastes pretty good, what does it matter?
> 
> Basically, we're talking about whether or not you put different layers together as one cohesive cake and stick with it for the whole slice, or just keep putting together different bits one bite at a time until you've had enough.


No. In the first case, we're talking about the possibility of baking a cake, with ingredients as yet to be determined. In the second, Dion handed the GG a bowl of cake batter as the members of the troika licked icing from their lips.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> exactly what?
> 
> Funny enough we never hear much past "there's a difference".


There is a HUGE difference between, "don't just dissolve parliament" to "please hand over the keys to Sussex Drive".

Read the 2004 agreement. The opposition is saying to not allow the government to fall on it's own sword. They are saying that should the Liberals put a 'poison pill' before Parliament (to force an election), don't consider Parliament voting that item down as the opposition not supporting the government in power.

Very, very different.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> so, in simpler terms, young people have no idea what they want or should believe in, and mistakenly lean to the left, all of them are only interested in getting smashed drunk, so they should leave the voting to the older crowd, since none of them have any drinking problems.


No they should have at it with the same vigour they bring to each election.


----------



## BigDL

Yes it's all clear now, the measured attack Ad's on Iggy at Conservative expense, the 26 Million dollars spent on Action Plan Ad's at the taxpayers expense, the phoney budget to get out of Parliament before the release of the Auditor General's report on the mismanaged, incompetent, wasteful spending on the G8/20 fiasco.

No wonder Harper wanted out of Dodge. 

Harper must have jumped in the air and clicked his heels when he and his cronies were found in Contempt of Parliament and lost the Confidence of the House.

By comparison Contempt of Parliament must look like a cake walk compared to the AG's report.


----------



## i-rui

I can't wait for a Coalition government. It'll be the first time in 5 years since we get honest answers in parliament.

yummy!


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> so, in simpler terms, young people have no idea what they want or should believe in, and mistakenly lean to the left, all of them are only interested in getting smashed drunk, so they should leave the voting to the older crowd, since none of them have any drinking problems and so much smarter.


Nope your twisted words not mine... but by all means continue it is very entertaining.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> There is a HUGE difference between, "don't just dissolve parliament" to "please hand over the keys to Sussex Drive".
> 
> Read the 2004 agreement. The opposition is saying to not allow the government to fall on it's own sword. They are saying that should the Liberals put a 'poison pill' before Parliament (to force an election), don't consider Parliament voting that item down as the opposition not supporting the government in power.
> 
> Very, very different.


or maybe the queen brought in as leader?

I see where you're going with this!


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> I can't wait for a Coalition government. It'll be the first time in 5 years since we get honest answers in parliament.
> 
> yummy!


You are dreaming in technicolor if you believe that. :lmao:


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> There is a HUGE difference between, "don't just dissolve parliament" to "please hand over the keys to Sussex Drive".
> 
> Read the 2004 agreement. The opposition is saying to not allow the government to fall on it's own sword. They are saying that should the Liberals put a 'poison pill' before Parliament (to force an election), don't consider Parliament voting that item down as the opposition not supporting the government in power.
> 
> Very, very different.


Harper wanted to form coalition in 2004, former chief of staff says - 680News



> Tom Flanagan told the National Post the agreement had been seen by Conservatives as a way to get a Harper-led minority government without winning an election.


----------



## Sonal

Call me naive ("you're naive!") but I'm not quite sure how a minority government is vastly superior to a coalition government....


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Nope your twisted words not mine... but by all means continue it is very entertaining.


that's pretty much exactly what you said.

You said young people were more interested in drinking, and because they're young, lean to the left. The disdain in your post was just dripping. 

I welcome the young getting involved in huge way. Regardless of which way they vote.

There are far more discussion events happening lately that don't involve drinking, the subject matter has been quite interesting, too bad much of this doesn't hit the media much. But it's all over twitter in a massive way. Great to see.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Call me naive ("you're naive!") but I'm not quite sure how a minority government is vastly superior to a coalition government....


because they're conservative...


----------



## Vandave

i-rui said:


> Harper wanted to form coalition in 2004, former chief of staff says - 680News


Couldn't possibly be sour grapes.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Call me naive ("you're naive!") but I'm not quite sure how a minority government is vastly superior to a coalition government....


Or why a coalition is vastly superior to a minority!


----------



## BigDL

Sonal said:


> Call me naive ("you're naive!") but I'm not quite sure how a minority government is vastly superior to a coalition government....


Parliamentarians have to work harder to stay in power? As in they have to go to 4 meetings instead of 1.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Or why a coalition is vastly superior to a minority!


Yeah, that too.


----------



## Vandave

Canadians are about to hand Harper a third government, regardless of whether it be minority or majority. That puts Harper into only a small group of Canadian Prime Ministers who have achieved such a feat. 

Harper looks to stay around for quite a while. The polling has been dead flat and consistent for a long while and it isn't going to substantially shift. If we have to go back in a couple years, Harper will win again. Rinse-wash-repeat.

The alternative is to give him a shot at a majority. If he fails, he'll be done. If you don't like Harper, this might actually be the quickest way of getting rid of him, if you truly believe Canadians won't endorse a second majority.

Either way, it's a win or win for me.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Canadians are about to hand Harper a third government, regardless of whether it be minority or majority. That puts Harper into only a small group of Canadian Prime Ministers who have achieved such a feat.
> 
> Harper looks to stay around for quite a while. The polling has been dead flat and consistent for a long while and it isn't going to substantially shift. If we have to go back in a couple years, Harper will win again. Rinse-wash-repeat.
> 
> The alternative is to give him a shot at a majority. If he fails, he'll be done. If you don't like Harper, this might actually be the quickest way of getting rid of him, if you truly believe Canadians won't endorse a second majority.
> 
> Either way, it's a win or win for me.


Not with the AG's report on the G8/20 fiasco hanging over his head. That bombshell will blow his chances for a majority out of the water.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> Canadians are about to hand Harper a third government, regardless of whether it be minority or majority. That puts Harper into only a small group of Canadian Prime Ministers who have achieved such a feat.
> 
> Harper looks to stay around for quite a while. The polling has been dead flat and consistent for a long while and it isn't going to substantially shift. If we have to go back in a couple years, Harper will win again. Rinse-wash-repeat.
> 
> The alternative is to give him a shot at a majority. If he fails, he'll be done. If you don't like Harper, this might actually be the quickest way of getting rid of him, if you truly believe Canadians won't endorse a second majority.
> 
> Either way, it's a win or win for me.


Harper minority = Coalition government.


----------



## Sonal

BigDL said:


> Not with the AG's report on the G8/20 fiasco hanging over his head. That bombshell will blow his chances for a majority out of the water.


I don't know that it was such a bombshell.... I mean, did anyone really think that the money was spent properly and appropriately _before_ the AG's report? *cough*fakelake*cough*


----------



## Max

No, it's not a bombshell. Who can be surprised that they did a laid out a ton of pork in Clement's backyard?

The way this is going to play out is that the people who like Harper will stick by him. Much the same applies to the other guys... the battle lines have barely shifted at all.


----------



## Macfury

Even those who accept it as pork have to place it aside the real spending increases Iggy promises.

Layton? That's just hopeless.


----------



## BigDL

Max said:


> No, it's not a bombshell. Who can be surprised that they did a laid out a ton of pork in Clement's backyard?
> 
> The way this is going to play out is that the people who like Harper will stick by him. Much the same applies to the other guys... the battle lines have barely shifted at all.


Swiping money from the border to spend Three Hundred Km away on porkbarrel gazebos and sidewalks to nowhere. I think the AG was going to rip Harper, Clement and Baird new ones.

For the Harper's narrative of a well managed economy the AG's report spells doom.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Even those who accept it as pork have to place it aside the real spending increases Iggy promises.
> 
> Layton? That's just hopeless.


it doesn't appear Iggy plans to spend more than Harper. However, so far Harper has the crown in that regard.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Swiping money from the border to spend Three Hundred Km away on porkbarrel gazebos and sidewalks to nowhere. I think the AG was going to rip Harper, Clement and Baird new ones.
> 
> For the Harper's narrative of a well managed economy the AG's report spells doom.


Harper has lost your vote for the umpteenth time--unfortunately, the result is not cumulative.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Even those who accept it as pork have to place it aside the real spending increases Iggy promises.


I don't see a whole world of differences. One team promises to spend more and the other team pretends to spend less while spending more. Their claims of financial accountability are mutually fraudulent. Same with the whole ethics platform. It's a joke on the public.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I don't see a whole world of differences. One team promises to spend more and the other team pretends to spend less while spending more. Their claims of financial accountability are mutually fraudulent. Same with the whole ethics platform. It's a joke on the public.


Again, I'm going with the epic cuts that BigDL fears.


----------



## Sonal

BigDL said:


> Swiping money from the border to spend Three Hundred Km away on porkbarrel gazebos and sidewalks to nowhere. I think the AG was going to rip Harper, Clement and Baird new ones.
> 
> For the Harper's narrative of a well managed economy the AG's report spells doom.


Gotta disagree on the doom. It spells "Yep, pretty much what we all thought anyway."

For it to be doom, it would have to be a surprise.


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> Not with the AG's report on the G8/20 fiasco hanging over his head. That bombshell will blow his chances for a majority out of the water.


Do you wonder why the three stooges haven't been pushing this issue? It's because they know it has zero traction with Canadians. People know that events like the G8 and G20 occur despite whatever government is in power and people know that sometimes such events happen in our backyard.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Again, I'm going with the epic cuts that BigDL fears.


Oh, I don't doubt there will be epic cuts in certain areas… I'm guessing the middle class will continue to shrink and the wealthy will get ever cushier breaks. There will be cuts, just as there will be epic splurges on paranoid fantasies like super prisons for the billions of unruly Canuckistanis out there, on the loose. Oh, and fighter jets that were never part of a tendering process. Not to mention all the continued ladling of pork needed to grease the palms of crafty bureaucrats and obstreperous lobbyists. Doesn't much matter if the money comes from Liberals or Conservatives, it's going to flow.


----------



## Macfury

Go back to Maxland where you came from.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Go back to Maxland where you came from.


That's somewhere between "The more things change..." and "cynical", yes?

Sounds like my neighbourhood.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Again, I'm going with the epic cuts that BigDL fears.


What cuts? The ones to the public purse to have lucre line the pockets of the porkers at the Harper spend fest?

If that brings happiness it says little about fiscal prudence and much about largess on the tax payers dime.


----------



## Max

Thank you, Sonal!


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Go back to Maxland where you came from.


Max you'll have to endure such witty repartee when your cutting so close to the quick.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> I don't see a whole world of differences. One team promises to spend more and the other team pretends to spend less while spending more. Their claims of financial accountability are mutually fraudulent. Same with the whole ethics platform. It's a joke on the public.


+1. Or like. Take your pick.


----------



## BigDL

I just saw an iPod Tax attack Ad. The Conservatives are feeling a minority report coming from the electorate to pull that out of their arse...nal. 

Might get dangerous to engage the young'uns interest. Could get them off the(ir) ______ (please fill in the blank) for those disposed to disparage.


----------



## singingcrow

Sonal said:


> Call me naive ("you're naive!") but I'm not quite sure how a minority government is vastly superior to a coalition government....


Your not naive, you just know something Harper doesn't. In either case, no one has actually won, and ideally, everyone is to work together cooperatively (During the debate Harper stated that the Cons won with a minority).


----------



## arminia

Who wants to charge a $75 iPod tax? Uh, no one - Reality Check - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## BigDL

arminia said:


> Who wants to charge a $75 iPod tax? Uh, no one - Reality Check - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


+1

Yeah but it doesn't matter in the world of the big lie.

The fact the Conservatives pulled the fire alarm indicates they're not prepared to face the up coming *test*


----------



## MannyP Design

arminia said:


> Who wants to charge a $75 iPod tax? Uh, no one - Reality Check - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


Sounds like ghosts of Sheila Copps past. :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

Well, now... wonder if this will have any impact on Canadians' views of the Conservatives....?

*'Serious allegations' against Guergis revealed*



> CBC News has learned that the "serious allegations" Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to last year in connection with former Conservative MP Helena Guergis included unsubstantiated claims of fraud, extortion and involvement with prostitutes.





> "Jaffer and Guergis on tape, partying with hookers and doing cocaine" and that "not only does Helena tolerate Jaffer hanging out with, with escorts, and prostitutes, but there's apparently video of her snorting cocaine off the breasts of a prostitute."


(CBC)


----------



## wwj

Max said:


> I don't see a whole world of differences. One team promises to spend more and the other team pretends to spend less while spending more. Their claims of financial accountability are mutually fraudulent. Same with the whole ethics platform. It's a joke on the public.




A self-defeating joke, and we’re in on it too, cause we keep electing the clowns.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> Do you feel that the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition was peaceful, democratic and honest? Canadians voted to give Harper a minority government and the three clowns undermined that by doing dirty backroom non-transparent deals. It's sick. And it is certainly not the Canadian Way.


Reading through today's new blatherings and I come across this gem. I know there's been much discussion of it through the day, so I don't want to turn the discussion back. But I just gotta say how I'm constantly amazed how people who are well-read political junkies such as Vandave or others simply don't understand how our Parliament and our system of government works.

"Canadians" did not vote to give Harper a minority government. "Canadians" did nothing of the kind. 30-something-odd percent of Canadians voted for Conservative Party candidates as their Members of Parliament. Under our system this gives the Conservative Party with the largest amount of MPs, but not a majority of them, the first right to try and form a government. If they fail to get the confidence of the majority of Canada's Members of Parliament, they cannot govern.

There is absolutely no theft of power here. Parliament, -- meaning ALL of Canada's MPs collectively, -- give that power to our government, as our elected representatives. The Prime Minister does not have any power other than what Parliament grants to him. If the majority of Parliament, representing the majority of MPs who represent the majority of Canada's electoral districts chooses to take away that power -- it is gone.

Now the fact that casual people who pay little attention to issues don't get this, or think we have a presidential system, or think they somehow voted Harper in, is understandable. And that many people fall sway to Conservative Party political lies that the proposed coalition would have been illegitimate is also understandable. That still doesn't make it a fact or a credible opinion in any way.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

CubaMark said:


> Well, now... wonder if this will have any impact on Canadians' views of the Conservatives....?
> 
> *'Serious allegations' against Guergis revealed*
> 
> (CBC)


Might explain that little public meltdown at that airport. Coke can do weird things to people.


----------



## Max

_Egads._ Coke-snorting off of fleshy pillows! Sounds like that scene from the original _Robocop._

You know, I think I smell Rome burning. Yessir, this is one fine election brewing up.


----------



## Macfury

*The devil has come home!*



Max said:


> _Egads._ Coke-snorting off of fleshy pillows! Sounds like that scene from the original _Robocop._
> 
> You know, I think I smell Rome burning. Yessir, this is one fine election brewing up.


Caligula, Canada style.

Jaffer came to Guergis and he took her, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on his breath. And you know what? Guergis_ liked_ it!!


----------



## Max

As I said, one fine election. And to think I didn't even know Harper played the fiddle.


----------



## BigDL

Until One fine election, when we wake up, I can only offer you in consolation 
it is cheerier 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvVN_KRriTM


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is absolutely no theft of power here. Parliament, -- meaning ALL of Canada's MPs collectively, -- give that power to our government, as our elected representatives. The Prime Minister does not have any power other than what Parliament grants to him. If the majority of Parliament, representing the majority of MPs who represent the majority of Canada's electoral districts chooses to take away that power -- it is gone.


I never made the claim that what they did was unconstitutional. It was unethical. It's not how we do politics in this country. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now the fact that casual people who pay little attention to issues don't get this, or think we have a presidential system, or think they somehow voted Harper in, is understandable. And that many people fall sway to Conservative Party political lies that the proposed coalition would have been illegitimate is also understandable. That still doesn't make it a fact or a credible opinion in any way.


I don't think you give the public enough credit. Most people understand our system just fine and the vast majority of people were outraged. And rightfully so.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> I never made the claim that what they did was unconstitutional. It was unethical. It's not how we do politics in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you give the public enough credit. Most people understand our system just fine and the vast majority of people were outraged. And rightfully so.


Would this be a Jerry Falwell type majority as in silent and nonexistent? Well except for the vast majority space in the Bubble dimension of Mr. Harper's campaign?


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> I never made the claim that what they did was unconstitutional. * It was unethical*. It's not how we do politics in this country.


i guess you missed the part about the Harper government being found in Contempt of Parliament.

Or is that what you consider "ethical"?


----------



## Macfury

You guys are great, shaking your little fisties at the next Conservative government.


----------



## Vandave

i-rui said:


> i guess you missed the part about the Harper government being found in Contempt of Parliament.
> 
> Or is that what you consider "ethical"?


And who made that judgement of Contempt? Some independent group like the GG, or a judge? The electorate? Oh wait, it was the opposition parties. Couldn't possibly be self serving.

In contrast, we know the three knobs signed a dirty filthy backroom deal.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> And who made that judgement of Contempt? Some independent group like the GG, or a judge? The electorate? Oh wait, it was the opposition parties. Couldn't possibly be self serving.


Actually it was a House Committee.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Actually it was a House Committee.


The committee of procedure and house affairs, dominated by opposition MPs.


----------



## i-rui

Contempt of Parliament isn't some "partisan trick" opposition parties pull on governments.

The opposition didn't force Bev Oda to lie to Parliament.
The Opposition didn't force the Harper Government to lie about the cost of the Fighter Jets, The Mega Jails / New Crime Bills, and The corporate tax cuts. Harper refused to release the official estimates to Parliament.

Those things are contempt of Parliament. Full stop. No excuses. You can't blame this on the opposition.

This was the first time this charge came against a government in the history of Parliament. Not just OUR Parliament, ANY commonwealth Parliament

It's not this meaningless thing you pretend it is. Honestly, if you doubt the integrity of a House Committee, just dissolve the entire Parliamentary system. You can discount ANY ruling whatsoever.

(which I'm sure you two do if you don't like what it says).


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Those things are contempt of Parliament. Full stop. No excuses. You can't blame this on the opposition.


Of course you can. The committee was using a sledge hammer on a gnat in this case.


----------



## singingcrow

Macfury said:


> Of course you can. The committee was using a sledge hammer on a gnat in this case.


Have you ever tried to get rid of a gnat? Not always an easy thing, you know!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Of course you can. The committee was using a sledge hammer on a gnat in this case.


I love how te cons reduce these actions by the government as a 'gnat'.

I can hardly wait until Harper does achieve a majority (if) and he starts with things bigger than a gnat...


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> And who made that judgement of Contempt? Some independent group like the GG, or a judge? The electorate? Oh wait, it was the opposition parties. Couldn't possibly be self serving.
> 
> In contrast, we know the three knobs signed a dirty filthy backroom deal.


Just the little thing the right can't stand Democracy. Yes Democracy *The Power Leveller.*™


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> You guys are great, shaking your little fisties at the next Conservative government.


Little fisties shaking wee papers on May 02nd makes all the difference.

Diminish Your Glorious Leader with little fisties and wee papers and nary a paper cut.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> I never made the claim that what they did was unconstitutional. It was unethical. It's not how we do politics in this country.


I remember what you said. You said "Canadians elected Harper to a minority government". That was not true and that's what I addressed.

And this misunderstanding is what lies at the basis of what you and others claim is "unethical" or "not the Canadian way". There could be no "usurping of power" in this situation because power belongs to Parliament and the PM and governing party's power flows from Parliament. Parliament has the right to align itself in either formal or informal coalitions. Without informal coalitions, such as verbal or handshake agreements to support particular issues, Harper's minority government couldn't have survived since 2006. Without the whipping power of a majority government, Parliament requires all manner of deals and agreements to function.

Harper has played to the population's ignorance of how our system works to demonize the idea of coalitions, yet all the while being a hypocrite on the issue because he was fully in favour of using our system when the Libs had a minority.

It's "not the Canadian way" because it's only ever occurred in our system rarely, not because it is not a part of our system. This is because of the fact that throughout most of Canada's history we have had power divided between 2 parties only. In every other country that uses a Westminster style Parliament, coalitions have occurred with regularity, including currently the mother of our Parliament, Great Britian. Informal coalitions have occurred many times in Canada, most notably during the Pearson era. Your charge of it being unethical is pure political nonsense.



Vandave said:


> I don't think you give the public enough credit. Most people understand our system just fine and the vast majority of people were outraged. And rightfully so.


It's a fact that most people didn't pay attention to civics class, if they even had one and don't really grasp the fundamental nature of how Parliamentary democracy is different from a system like the US has. If their understanding was "just fine" then many would not have fallen prey to Harper's lying demagoguery on the issue. As to a "vast majority" being outraged, I'd question this claim. Some very loud Con supporters were, but I think many others were in support of the coalition idea and currently many would be open to future coalitions.

What people didn't and don't like is the idea of the Bloc being a participant in a formal coalition, but that was never once on the table or ever will be, because the Bloc themselves has taken the position that they would never enter into a governing situation. I know that Con supporters like to gloss over the details so they can utter the words "Coalition with the separatists" constantly, but it's just more lies from your Harper Government.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Little fisties shaking wee papers on May 02nd makes all the difference.
> 
> Diminish Your Glorious Leader with little fisties and wee papers and nary a paper cut.


Right. Those wee little papers will come in with numbers unlikely to leverage your desires. So keep waving that fistie!


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Right. Those wee little papers will come in with numbers unlikely to leverage your desires. So keep waving that fistie!


As the good Doctor often opines "we shall see."

The truth shall be revealed, until then, the many opinions will prevail


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> As the good Doctor often opines "we shall see."
> 
> The truth shall be revealed, until then, the many opinions will prevail


Do I really "opine" that phrase that often to be quoted? If so, merci, mon ami. Excelsior.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Of course you can. The committee was using a sledge hammer on a gnat in this case.


This may come as a shock to you, but you're not allowed to lie and hide things from Parliament.

Even if you're a Conservative.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> This may come as a shock to you, but you're not allowed to lie and hide things from Parliament.
> 
> Even if you're a Conservative.


Ahhh but Parliamentarians are allowed and even to encourage to; lie to and hide things from their employers. You and I.

Similar rules exist South of 49 yet the Shrub has as yet to be tried for treason, even though hundreds of thousands deaths can be directly linked to his lies. Go figger.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Do I really "opine" that phrase that often to be quoted? If so, merci, mon ami. Excelsior.


A phrase properly used often catches the ear when often an incorrect common usage is accepted as being correct, therefore the proper usage of the language is an "earworm" into the brain. 

Accept this as a proud moment of teaching the masses correct usage of "shall." I could not retain the information of shall vs. will. You have indelibly etched the correct usage upon my always resistant brain by practical example.

Worthy of much greater acknowledgment but the best I may offer

In recognition of much wisdom, wit, compassion and inherent ingeniousness to communicate with elegance and grace your fine traits an Attaboya Dungood Award:

I hereby bestow upon you with all rights and privileges contained thereby

Atta'Boy Ya Done Good with the much coveted Keep Up the Good Work degree.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> A phrase properly used often catches the ear when often an incorrect common usage is accepted as being correct, therefore the proper usage of the language is an "earworm" into the brain.
> 
> Accept this as a proud moment of teaching the masses correct usage of "shall." I could not retain the information of shall vs. will. You have indelibly etched the correct usage upon my always resistant brain by practical example.
> 
> Worthy of much greater acknowledgment but the best I may offer
> 
> In recognition of much wisdom, wit, compassion and inherent ingeniousness to communicate with elegance and grace your fine traits an Attaboya Dungood Award:
> 
> I hereby bestow upon you with all rights and privileges contained thereby
> 
> Atta'Boy Ya Done Good with the much coveted Keep Up the Good Work degree.


Thank you for the award, BigDL. Guess I done did good [sic]. 

Yes, shall and will are oftentimes misused, as is can and may. 

Now, back to the elections. 

Jack Layton is here in St.John's tomorrow afternoon, and I shall go to the rally. I sense some momentum for the NDP, and there is a chance that they could pick up one more seat here in NL, at the expense of the Liberals. 

I sense from what I am reading that there just might be a surge for both the NDP and the Conservatives, at the expence of the Green and Liberal parties. Thus, we might just get a Conservative majority government with the NDP as the official opposition. If it happens, remember where you heard it first. We shall see. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

If I may, so far little has happened to sway Canadians one way or the other I think. But I do notice a trend and I am wondering if the knives are out for Harper in his own party. While it is not unusual for "issues" to surface, I find the increasing regularity of items hitting Harper and their timing suspect. I'm wondering if there isn't a "biggie" out there sitting in the weeds ... if the points don't move this week I would bet that something will surface around the end of next week .... maybe the Easter Bunny will have something for us in his basket....


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> If I may, so far little has happened to sway Canadians one way or the other I think. But I do notice a trend and I am wondering if the knives are out for Harper in his own party. While it is not unusual for "issues" to surface, I find the increasing regularity of items hitting Harper and their timing suspect. I'm wondering if there isn't a "biggie" out there sitting in the weeds ... if the points don't move this week I would bet that something will surface around the end of next week .... maybe the Easter Bunny will have something for us in his basket....


The proverbial knives will be out only if he loses gaining a majority government for the Conservatives in May. For now, as the old saying goes, "You don't change horses in the middle of a race." 

As I just mentioned, I have a sense that there might just be a shift to the NDP away from the Liberals and Greens, and a shift away from some Liberals towards the Conservatives. This could result in a Conservative majority government and an NDP official opposition status. It is not as strange as when the Bloc was the official opposition. We shall see.


----------



## BigDL

I just listened to this podcast by Power and Politics entitled "The War Room."

This is a very interesting interview just on a human interest basis.



CBC News said:


> We speak with Helena Guergis, right after she accused the PMO of running a smear campaign against her. How do the Tories shut this one down? Plus, hundreds of University of Guelph students cast their vote in a special ballot, but will a dispute over the ballot discourage other young voters?
> 
> We're in The War Room with Scott Reid of Feschuk.Reid, Ian Capstick of MediaStyle, and Jaime Watt of Navigator Limited.


the linky War Room Podcast


----------



## MacDoc

Who is going to get blindsided with this wave......

Youth Nation


----------



## Dr.G.

MacDoc said:


> Who is going to get blindsided with this wave......
> 
> Youth Nation


Well, if Allan Rock is for it and John Baird is against it, you know that this can't be good for democracy. The Harper Government should send out the RCMP to put down these people who make a travesty of the democratic vote. If the RCMP refuses to wage war on these mobs, then the Harper Government should hire private security to rid our academies of these mobs. Who ever heard of the youth of Canada voting en masse ......... and for any candidate of their choosing??? tptptptp

While they are at it, they should arrest and lock up Rick Mercer for treason. XX)

Better still, they should declare all non-Harper ballots cast ....... from coast to coast to coast as null and void. Then PM Harper should go to the Gov. General and declare that he is to be made the ultimate leader of The New Harper Government in the House. This should put an end to the nonsense of voting for a minority/majority standing in the House.

One leader ........ one voice ......... one nation. 

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## groovetube

besides, these unruly youth are only interested in getting drunk, laid, and hangovers. And because of their sheer recklessness they'll likely vote to the left.

They must be stopped. Perhaps they need to set up temporary holding locations for the mass arrests across the country. Just think, of the jobs created in security!


----------



## Max

Later on, they can be used to staff the super-prisons HarperCo wants to build, for the sake of us all. As the youngsters like to say, '_epic._'


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> besides, these unruly youth are only interested in getting drunk, laid, and hangovers. And because of their sheer recklessness they'll likely vote to the left.
> 
> They must be stopped. Perhaps they need to set up temporary holding locations for the mass arrests across the country. Just think, of the jobs created in security!


I love this old man talk about what the youth are going to do.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I love this old man talk about what the youth are going to do.


yeah me too. Though the person I was quoting I don't think was even an old man himself. Funny that!


----------



## Macfury

14 or fight!




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## i-rui

Dr.G. said:


> The Harper Government should send out the RCMP to put down these people who make a travesty of the democratic vote.


he already did. it was called the G20.


----------



## Dr.G.

i-rui said:


> he already did. it was called the G20.


No, those were just protesters. Calling out the RCMP to stop these "voting mobs" will take a coordinated effort. He should take out the playbook that Richard Nixon created during the massive protests against the war in Vietnam just before the 1972 presidential election.


----------



## Dr.G.

Just got back from an NDP rally. Must say. Layton looks good and sounds good. Very vibrant crowd and I think that they just might make an inroad here in NL, expanding upon their one seat here in St.John's East (that is Jack Harris on the right), with a victory in St. John's South by Ryan Cleary (on the left), which is currently held by the Liberals. If this happens, it could be a blue surge and an orange surgelett, spelling trouble for the Liberals. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

I hope your NDP candidate takes out the Liberal, Dr. G.

Layton appears to be doing a creditable job of mixing with the proles.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I hope your NDP candidate takes out the Liberal, Dr. G.
> 
> Layton appears to be doing a creditable job of mixing with the proles.


Jack Harris is the incumbant for St.John's East. Ryan Cleary lost by less than 1000 votes to the Liberal MP in St.John's South. So, that might prove to be an interesting race since Harper was here pushing the Conservative candidate in St.John's South, Ignatieff was here trying to drum up support for their sitting MP in this district, and Jack Layton was here drumming up support for Cleary. So, all three national leaders are seeing this as a true litmus test for what lies ahead as the results come in to the west of us. The Conservatives have a shot at St.John's South and maybe Avalon, and possibly the one seat in Labrador. That would be three from the Liberals. If the NDP could win St. John's South and retain St.John's East, that would be a pickup of one, which would mean one less Liberal. 

Yes, NL will be a true test of what is to come before the heavy hitters come out in Battleground ON. Still, BC will determine who has a majority or minority government. 

We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Layton appears to be doing a creditable job of mixing with the proles.



Yes, the people of St.John's, just like the proles of Oceania, love their traditional music.


----------



## SINC

The latest Liberal strategy mystifies me. Iggy shows up in Edmonton and decides to introduce his cap and trade plans here in energy central. And then to add insult to injury, he drags Paul Martin out of his box to bolster his campaign. We tossed Martin out resoundingly a few elections back, but he seems to have forgotten his rejection by Albertans. A carbon tax and a dumped former PM. A brilliant campaign move? I think not.


----------



## hbp

YouTube - An Open Letter to Canada


----------



## SINC

hbp said:


> YouTube - An Open Letter to Canada


Meh, some anon without the cajones to identify himself or his party, holds no sway with me.


----------



## Macfury

hbp said:


> YouTube - An Open Letter to Canada


Gosh, that was (anonymously) weak.


----------



## Max

MF, your response is more than a bit odd, considering the pains you take to disguise yourself.


----------



## groovetube

It's that Tom Flanagan thing, they wanna know where they live...


----------



## rgray

Which Canada will You Vote for?


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> MF, your response is more than a bit odd, considering the pains you take to disguise yourself.


It was not weaker because it was anonymous. Besides, I take no pains to disguise myself. I just make no effort to reveal.


----------



## groovetube

and, how is this different than say, having a username on youtube.


----------



## fjnmusic

rgray said:


> Which Canada will You Vote for?


Interesting, albeit slanted. It won't convince any Conservatives to change their vote, but it may reinforce the views of all the other parties faithful.


----------



## screature

Gawd, I can hardly wait for this to be over... regrettably with anything other than a Con majority we will be back here soon enough... Guaranteed. Not that I am advocating for that beyond that all the BS is exhausting. 

I think Stephen Harper needs to go to get the CPC back on track to being truly a National party and clear out the dead wood... but if it is a minority and a collation ensues, which I think we all know it will, it still leaves for a government that can fall at anytime... and I can't see a scenario where a Lib, NDP coalition with support form the Bloc won't fold in very short order... two years tops. In which case Stephen Harper will most likely be forced out of leadership, which is probably a good thing but we will be back here within at most 24months.

If the Harper Cons get a majority at least they will either dispel everyone's fear or prove them to be correct and the Cons will be routed after their majority comes to an end. Hopefully Iggy will be gone by then... Jack will be for sure in my estimation and then we can start fresh. 

I think a minority just prolongs the suffering (from my stand point) and a Con majority will either prove not to be so bad or it will be shot down in flames... time will tell.


----------



## groovetube

I'm fine with going back to the polls 3 more times if it means getting a government that represents the middle class better than these liars that seem only to be promising huge dollars for the rich, and some maybes in 5 years from now.

It's kinda like having a dad, that spends his face off with the paycheck buying toys, motorcycles, guns, and landscaping his buddy's house. Then returns home to tell his family they haven't got much money left for health and quality food because well we gotta cut back eh.


----------



## Macfury

What's a bussy in this context? The urban dictionary says: "A male homosexual's anal opening."


----------



## groovetube

buddy. sorry the Ss were next to the Ds.

But your reference could be used in there as well I suspect.


----------



## BigDL

I came across this article explaining the conservative need for tax cuts.It explains much for me about our resident rugged individualist as well. 

This article explains the situation of those in the Excited States but as we know there is a spill over into our politics and the up coming election.



Jonathan Chait said:


> Taxophobia has spawned an epistemology of its own and has completely reshaped the landscape of American politics. It more than anything else has driven the widely decried rise in partisan conflict. More profoundly, conservative taxophobia has redefined the terms of the political debate. Two generations ago, economic liberalism meant Keynesian deficit spending and a rapidly expanding welfare state with little concern for deficits. Fiscal conservatism meant opposition to deficits and inflation. Today, the old fiscal conservatism has been embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The old fiscal liberalism has been confined to the margins, espoused by left-wing dissidents to the Democratic mainstream. And the Republican Party inhabits an otherworldly new realm that even the staunchest right-wingers of a generation before could scarcely have imagined. As the two parties trade power back and forth, the ideological basis for economic policy pingpongs between the old right and a loopy kind of far-right. Periods of Republican governance have grown increasingly disastrous, while periods of Democratic governance are largely consumed with staving off fiscal collapse.


The Triumph of Taxophobia
First Principles: Arguing the Economy
Jonathan Chait


----------



## CubaMark

*
Well, well, well.... looking forward to Monday's editorial cartoons. This should be good...*

*Canada's F-35s: Engines not included*












> The multi-million dollar F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives want to purchase comes with all the accoutrements of a high-tech aircraft — everything, that is, except an engine.
> 
> The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.





> DND stated that Canada is purchasing the least costly variant of the F-35.
> 
> But DND did not provide an explanation about why the government is required to provide the engines.
> 
> It also did not provide any details on the price tag of the engines or the cost to install them.


(Ottawa Citizen)


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Gawd, I can hardly wait for this to be over... regrettably with anything other than a Con majority we will be back here soon enough... Guaranteed. Not that I am advocating for that beyond that all the BS is exhausting.
> 
> I think Stephen Harper needs to go to get the CPC back on track to being truly a National party and clear out the dead wood... but if it is a minority and a collation ensues, which I think we all know it will, it still leaves for a government that can fall at anytime... and I can't see a scenario where a Lib, NDP coalition with support form the Bloc won't fold in very short order... two years tops. In which case Stephen Harper will most likely be forced out of leadership, which is probably a good thing but we will be back here within at most 24months.
> 
> If the Harper Cons get a majority at least they will either dispel everyone's fear or prove them to be correct and the Cons will be routed after their majority comes to an end. Hopefully Iggy will be gone by then... Jack will be for sure in my estimation and then we can start fresh.
> 
> I think a minority just prolongs the suffering (from my stand point) and a Con majority will either prove not to be so bad or it will be shot down in flames... time will tell.


There is also hope that another minority government would engender leadership renewal and hopefully leaders that could "get over themselves" and govern for Canadians and not political gain or political games.

In Nova Scotia, Premier John Hamm, lead a minority government without a coalition. The citizens were governed from the centre with input form all Parties in the legislature. Nova Scotia prospering at this time.

So if we are fortunate we shall have statesmanship, instead of gamesmanship (sorry for the lack of gender neutrality) then we might be ahead by a century.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE2joQsWXJg


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I came across this article explaining the conservative need for tax cuts.It explains much for me about our resident rugged individualist as well.


Doesn't explain it for me, but glad it works for you. Sheesh.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *
> Well, well, well.... looking forward to Monday's editorial cartoons. This should be good...*


But...



> the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.


----------



## steviewhy

Macfury said:


> But...





> the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.


Well if the engines aren't included they can always get some more Sea King choppers and retrofit the rotors to the jets and make some stealth harrier jump jets. :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

BigDL said:


> In Nova Scotia, Premier John Hamm, lead a minority government without a coalition. The citizens were governed from the centre with input form all Parties in the legislature. Nova Scotia prospering at this time.


One flaw in your logic here: Hamm was a _Progressive Conservative_. (aka folks whose economic policies are less than enlightened, but who generally have their hearts in the right place). The Federal Conservatives arose from the western pre-tea-party nutters that were the _Reform Party._

My skin crawls every time I hear someone refer to the Conservatives as _Tories..._


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> One flaw in your logic here: Hamm was a _Progressive Conservative_. (aka folks whose economic policies are less than enlightened, but who generally have their hearts in the right place). The Federal Conservatives arose from the western pre-tea-party nutters that were the _Reform Party._
> 
> My skin crawls every time I hear someone refer to the Conservatives as _Tories..._


Way over the top again I see, CM.

Well, carry on.


----------



## Macfury

SINC, I think CM probably needs to wash his underpants after each of these heartfelt and agonizing posts.


----------



## mrjimmy

CubaMark said:


> One flaw in your logic here: Hamm was a _Progressive Conservative_. (aka folks whose economic policies are less than enlightened, but who generally have their hearts in the right place). The Federal Conservatives arose from the western pre-tea-party nutters that were the _Reform Party._
> 
> My skin crawls every time I hear someone refer to the Conservatives as _Tories..._


I completely agree. The reforms would be nowhere politically if they hadn't assimilated.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I completely agree. The reforms would be nowhere politically if they hadn't assimilated.


Oh yeah? Well the NDP would be nowhere if they hadn't... never mind.


----------



## BigDL

mrjimmy said:


> I completely agree. The reforms would be nowhere politically if they hadn't assimilated.


...resistance was futile...


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Way over the top again I see, CM.


I'm not the only one to see a stark and obvious discrepancy between the PCs and the Cs:



> Following the merger, a rump Progressive Conservative caucus remained in Parliament, consisting of individuals who declined to join the new Conservative Party. In the House of Commons, Joe Clark, André Bachand and John Herron sat as PC members.
> 
> In the 2004 election, Bachand and Clark did not run for re-election, and Herron ran as a Liberal, losing to Rob Moore in his riding of Fundy—Royal. Scott Brison, who had joined the Liberal caucus immediately upon departing the Conservative Party, was reelected as a Liberal in the 2004 election.
> 
> In the Senate, William Doody, Lowell Murray and Norman Atkins also declined to join the new party, and continued to sit as Progressive Conservative senators. On March 24, 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed nine new senators, two of whom, Nancy Ruth and Elaine McCoy, were designated as Progressive Conservatives. Thus there may be Progressive Conservative senators until 2021 when McCoy, the youngest of the five, attains the mandatory retirement age of 75, or later if subsequent senators designate themselves Progressive Conservatives. Nancy Ruth has since left to sit with the Conservative Party. Adding the death of Senator Doody on December 27, 2005, and the mandatory retirement of Norman Atkins on June 27, 2009, this reduced the number of PC Senators to two.
> 
> After being expelled from the Conservative Party caucus in June 2007, Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey designated himself as an "independent progressive conservative". (Wikipedia)


----------



## CubaMark

...and... how lovely that those of you who are likely to vote Conservative are willing to take personal potshots, rather than discuss the issues raised.

Nobody concerned that the (supposed) $75-million-per-plane pricetag doesn't include engines? ....anyone? 

How about the Harper government's desire to introduce warrantless wiretapping. That doesn't concern you at all?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I'm not the only one to see a stark and obvious discrepancy between the PCs and the Cs:


No. Good riddance....!


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> ...and... how lovely that those of you who are likely to vote Conservative are willing to take personal potshots, rather than discuss the issues raised.
> 
> Nobody concerned that the (supposed) $75-million-per-plane pricetag doesn't include engines? ....anyone?
> 
> How about the Harper government's desire to introduce warrantless wiretapping. That doesn't concern you at all?


The local crop of Conservative supporters are not inclined to discuss this issue at all.

The issue does not hold their interest one bit. Oh sure they want to discuss and argue about the right jet, the rearmament of the of the forces and the failure of the other Parties.

The local crop of conservative supporters do not wish to discuss the total incompetence or is it the covert plans of Harper and his candidate with regard to what the jet costs, what equipment the jets might include.

Just like Christmas morning so far Stevie's GI jets engines not included. What about those weapons thingys are they in the fine print as accessories sold separately?

The big on personal freedom types know they are *not* bound for re-education camps, and really CM it is only people like you and I that have something to hide from Our Glorious Leader.

The personal freedom types know they are inoculated and save harmless from the benevolence of Our Glorious Leader.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> I'm not the only one to see a stark and obvious discrepancy between the PCs and the Cs:


Agreed CM.

Interestingly enough, if this was a progressive conservative party from the previous days, they'd have had their majority by now. I be some in that party is really second guessing that one about now...

Imagine if the bloc decided they wanted to become a national party, but decided to merge with say the libs or the ndp to broaden their base...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Agreed CM.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if this was a progressive conservative party from the previous days, they'd have had their majority by now. I be some in that party is really second guessing that one about now...


Yeah--but there'd be no point because they'd be the Liberals.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Yeah--but there'd be no point because they'd be the Liberals.


the liberals are conservatives?

Here I thought they were too far to the left for some.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Yeah--but there'd be no point because they'd be the Liberals.


I guess if it doesn't walk like a Republican, if it doesn't squawk like a Republican, it's a Progressive Conservative.

But if it walks like a Democrat, and if it squawks like a Democrat then it's a Liberal?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> the liberals are conservatives?
> 
> Here I thought they were too far to the left for some.


The Progressive Conservatives of then are the Liberals of today.


----------



## groovetube

right, I didn't realize the PCs were so far left then. Sure thing...

anyway, in the news...
Safe injection site cuts OD deaths - The Globe and Mail

It seems they've found the numbers of Os, and importantly things like HIV spread has been sharply reduced.

But apparently that goes against the tories anti drug strategy... They'd rather more HIV spread, spending way more millions of our tax money (since they seem to REALLY love doing that) on failed policies.

Just yet another reason to toss these idiots.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> How about the Harper government's desire to introduce warrantless wiretapping. That doesn't concern you at all?


This is* BS*... clearly they never read the BIll. A warrant for taping is still to be required, just no warrant to get names and contact info for suspects from the ISP which is the way it is now!

LEGISinfo

C-52 An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations



> Bill C-52 requires telecommunications service providers to include interception capability in their networks and to provide basic information about their subscribers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province.* Requirements to obtain court orders to intercept communications will not be changed by this Act, which will require service providers to supply basic subscriber information to law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service on request. *


Do you or the people you read actually ever conduct any research before spouting off your drivel.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Do you or the people you read actually ever conduct any research before spouting off your drivel.


I honestly think that for some people if the headline or first paragraph serve their purposes, it's enough.

Just like the jet story, in which it hasn't yet been determined whether the cost of the jets includes engines--but all indications are that it does.


----------



## KC4

Interesting observation here in Calgary:

There is a dearth of campaign signs here, of every color and strip, even along high traffic areas. I like it. 

I'm guessing it is because Calgary is thought to be so Conservative that it is a waste of time and money to place signs here. Better to spend the money in areas that are thought to be more of a contest?

Anybody else seeing anything similar in their areas?


----------



## chasMac

One giant Ablonczy placard in our area. That's it.


----------



## Dr.G.

KC4 said:


> Interesting observation here in Calgary:
> 
> There is a dearth of campaign signs here, of every color and strip, even along high traffic areas. I like it.
> 
> I'm guessing it is because Calgary is thought to be so Conservative that it is a waste of time and money to place signs here. Better to spend the money in areas that are thought to be more of a contest?
> 
> Anybody else seeing anything similar in their areas?


Yes, same here in St.John's East. Mostly orange NDP signs, since our current MP is from the NDP and is very well liked.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Ablonczy placard..


Sounds like something that clogs the arteries.

Have seen mostly Liberal signs in my Toronto neighbourhood, with a smattering of Conservative. Not as single sign from any other party.


----------



## Dr.G.

Our advance polls here in NL opened up half hour ago. I am tempted to go and vote now, but I like the tradition of getting on a line to go and vote at my local polling station, so I shall be patient.


----------



## SINC

chasMac said:


> One giant Ablonczy placard in our area. That's it.


I have not yet seen a single election sign here.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I honestly think that for some people if the headline or first paragraph serve their purposes, it's enough.
> 
> Just like the jet story, in which it hasn't yet been determined whether the cost of the jets includes engines--but all indications are that it does.


Got any independent information on this or is the *word* of a Laurie Hawn or a Stephen Harper good enough. 

The lack of transparency, the lack of analysis and the lack of accountability from Harper and his Candidates caused the former government to fall. 

Now the facts aren't available because a conservative supporter say so? Spin it.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Got any independent information on this or is the *word* of a Laurie Hawn or a Stephen Harper good enough.
> 
> The lack of transparency, the lack of analysis and the lack of accountability from Harper and his Candidates caused the former government to fall.
> 
> Now the facts aren't available because a conservative supporter say so? Spin it.


If I were to jump on any other political stories involving other parties just because there was a suspicion there was something I didn't like, I'd be blogging, morning, noon and night. It's just that many ehMacers seem to have a bone for micro-reporting on Conservative issues.


----------



## groovetube

Given they were the government, that's hardly a surprise.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> If I were to jump on any other political stories involving other parties just because there was a suspicion there was something I didn't like, I'd be blogging, morning, noon and night. It's just that many ehMacers seem to have a bone for micro-reporting on Conservative issues.


Being off by *21 BILLION DOLLARS* (said in the voice Dr. Evil with the right pinky extended at the side of the mouth) for jets is micro-reporting on a Conservative issue!

What in your mind should constitute an reasonable healthy interest for Ehmaceians or Canadian citizens with regard to Conservative Candidates' policies in the upcoming election?

the evil Dr.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Being off by *21 BILLION DOLLARS* (said in the voice Dr. Evil with the right pinky extended at the side of the mouth) for jets is micro-reporting on a Conservative issue!
> 
> What in your min should constitute an reasonable healthy interest for Ehmaceians or Canadian citizens with regard to Conservative Candidates' policies in the upcoming election?


If it were just the jets, I would be unlikely to comment on this situation. If I had such an unhealthy interest in the Liberals when they were in power, I'd be worried about myself.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Got any independent information on this or is the *word* of a Laurie Hawn or a Stephen Harper good enough.
> 
> The lack of transparency, the lack of analysis and the lack of accountability from Harper and his Candidates caused the former government to fall.
> 
> Now the facts aren't available because a conservative supporter say so? Spin it.


No a vote in Committee and then a vote in the House of Commons caused the government to be brought down. Period. Those are the facts.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Being off by *21 BILLION DOLLARS* (said in the voice Dr. Evil with the right pinky extended at the side of the mouth) for jets is micro-reporting on a Conservative issue!
> 
> What in your mind should constitute an reasonable healthy interest for Ehmaceians or Canadian citizens with regard to Conservative Candidates' policies in the upcoming election?


the first step is the denial, next, watch out, anger...


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> No a vote in Committee and then a vote in the House of Commons caused the government to be brought down. Period. Those are the facts.


All's lost in a popularity contest? This is what we should understand?


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> All's lost in a popularity contest? This is what we should understand?


Pretty much.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> This is* BS*... clearly they never read the BIll. A warrant for taping is still to be required, just no warrant to get names and contact info for suspects from the ISP which is the way it is now!


Screature, 

(a) the link to LEGISINFO you provided is broken.
(b) So the Conservatives wanted to introduce a bill that does... nothing? Why, then, are so many (prominent) folks up in arms about this?



> Last month, *Canada’s privacy commissioner,* Jennifer Stoddart,* along with every provincial privacy commissioner in the country*, sent Public Safety Canada a letter expressing their concerns about the lawful access bill. Namely, they didn’t see any need for it—ISPs already hand over whatever information police ask for, without a warrant, when the cops claim there is immediate danger or child endangerment. They called the bill “problematic” and wrote that there was “insufficient justification” for* the new powers,* suggesting “less intrusive” ways for law enforcement to fight crime.


----------



## i-rui

Conservative time line :

2005/6 - Parliament is a sacred institution, and the Liberals are abusing the public's trust by not being transparent in the way they govern.

2011 - Parliament is a popularity contest.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Pretty much.


Aren't we counting on a popularity contest for the next Parliament, and aren't the MP's going to rely on a popularity contest to pass bills or not?

Pesky popularity means nothing in any of these propositions?


----------



## mneub

BigDL said:


> All's lost in a popularity contest? This is what we should understand?


The ignorance on this board is amazing. I suggest you read about responsible government.


----------



## groovetube

yes DL. you better figure that all out before mouthing off I tells ya.


----------



## i-rui

mneub said:


> The ignorance on this board is amazing. I suggest you read about responsible government.


and where would someone read about "responsible government"?


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> yes DL. you better figure that all out before mouthing off I tells ya.


You did warn us about anger coming next.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> No a vote in Committee and then a vote in the House of Commons caused the government to be brought down. Period. Those are the facts.


A rather pithy statement of the facts, in fact. Here's a little more of the details:



> Speaker’s contempt rulings add ammunition to election-minded opposition
> 
> Stephen Harper faces not just the prospect of being found in contempt of Parliament. He faces a new challenge: to fight an election not simply on economic issues, but on the charge his government abuses power.
> 
> House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken ruled on Wednesday that, “on its face,” the government withheld information from a parliamentary committee, and that International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda may have misled the House.
> 
> If the finding is upheld, as expected, by another parliamentary committee next week and affirmed by the House the week after, for the first time in Canadian history, a government and a cabinet minister will be guilty of contempt of Parliament.


Speaker’s contempt rulings add ammunition to election-minded opposition - The Globe and Mail

_Let me be clear_: t would seem that Mr. Harper's hypocrisy on the subjects of accountability and transparency in government is _clearly_ evident.


----------



## BigDL

mneub said:


> The ignorance on this board is amazing. I suggest you read about responsible government.


Yah! I grew up in Nova Scotia, a province that had the first responsible government in all of the British Colonies, some 250 years ago, and this was after Nova Scotian, Joe Howe won freedom of the press in a landmark court case, not failed revolutions in the Canadas.

But what do I know?

The Conservatives seemingly do not understand the principles of responsible governance. They seem to understand the governance of a corporation though and act accordingly.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> My how misinformed some folks are. 143 seats won to the nearest party's seventy some? Gimme a break.


No, that's true actually. Compared to the other parties, Harper's party didn't win so much as they lost by the smallest number of seats.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> You did warn us about anger coming next.


for the love of all things sacred bring on the acceptance already!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

groovetube said:


> anyway, in the news...
> Safe injection site cuts overdose deaths - The Globe and Mail
> 
> It seems they've found the numbers of ODs, and importantly things like HIV spread has been sharply reduced.
> 
> But apparently that goes against the tories anti drug strategy... They'd rather more HIV spread, spending way more millions of our tax money (since they seem to REALLY love doing that) on failed policies.
> 
> Just yet another reason to toss these idiots.


This is the kind of illogic that I fail to understand about Conservatives, their supporters or some small-c conservatives in general.

So lets say one doesn't give the tiniest damn about the lot of drug addicts, or their families or thinks that those who are addicts should be completely on their own and fully suffer all consequences for their own bad decisions. Fine, I tend to think we bear some responsibility for helping others in our society and world because we don't exist in a vacuum and I think much of people's success in life has to do with getting the right parents in the birth lottery over many other factors, but I'll grant this point for the sake of argument.

What now confuses me is how those same people can ignore the pragmatism, utility and ultimately the cost savings to society as a whole of initiatives that can potentially reduce the health costs and possibly policing costs of practical ideas like this.

Social conservatives will say that even with this, drugs are wrong and it is wrong to not prosecute drug users. Well, one can't argue logically with this viewpoint, but most conservatives in Canada are not social conservatives, but fiscal conservatives. How do they defend policies that cost us all more in the long run, -- not always directly in terms of government expenditures? If harm reduction policies mean that desperate addicts aren't going straight into crime to fund their habit or that the black market is not as healthy and by extension there are fewer gangs fighting over lucrative drug profits and if this then means that a business owner doesn't have to buy a metal cage for the front of his store or hire a security firm to police his business, this can also be a cost to society that is reduced. Instead, the Conservative answer is -- promote longer sentences, and build more prisons to house the inmates, an approach that has failed spectacularly in the USA.

The same goes for child poverty which was touched on further back in this thread. In BC 1 in 5 children grow up in poverty. The conservative answer seems to be "too bad", they should have thought about that before they got pregnant. Beside the fact that the innocent children born into this had no say in the matter, even if you don't care squat about those kids, how does it make our society stronger or healthier to just shrug and throw them to the wolves? Most of those children, without the support of social programs will be less well-educated, less healthy, both physically and in terms of mental health and more prone to crime and drug abuse. This results in huge long-term costs to society that no doubt make the cost of the social programs pale in comparison. And greater economic disparity and greater economic vulnerability for a larger share of society simply make our country a meaner and less beautiful place to live. Even the rich have to step over the homeless sprawled on the sidewalk next to mall.


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is the kind of illogic that I fail to understand about Conservatives, their supporters or some small-c conservatives in general.


I support it and I am a Conservative.

I think we are, in general, too afraid of change and afraid of trying new things. That can be applied to every department and responsibility of government. We should try new things all the time and when things work, apply them across the whole country. I think we would collectively be better off if we took this attitude to all levels of government.

Now that said, we need to be very careful in reading into those statistics. Who's collecting the data? What's the control? It's not so simple. A drop could be caused by other factors (e.g. safer heroin on the street).


----------



## CubaMark

Vandave said:


> Now that said, we need to be very careful in reading into those statistics. Who's collecting the data? What's the control?


I think I'm over my limit on provoking Conservatives this month, _otherwise I might have to bring up recent history between the Harper government and Statistics Canada_


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Screature,
> 
> (a) the link to LEGISINFO you provided is broken.*
> (b) So the Conservatives wanted to introduce a bill that does... nothing? Why, then, are so many (prominent) folks up in arms about this?*


Link fixed sorry that was an Interparl link to legisinfo not the public portal.

Read the Bill CM and the associated information at Legisinfo... you know it is part of the Parliamentary web site for all Canadians to see and use for themselves don't you?

Primarily what the Bill does is:



> Bill C-52* requires telecommunications service providers to include interception capability in their networks*


 the rest is just old hat.



> *There is currently no legal requirement for companies offering telecommunications services in Canada to build intercept capability into their networks. As a result, we now have situations where judicial authorization is granted (i.e. a warrant is issued), but cannot be effected because the service provider's network is not intercept-capable. * Criminals and terrorists are aware of interception “safe havens” and exploit them to continue their criminal activities undetected. New telecommunications services and products are being rolled out every day and there are far too many instances where judicially authorized warrants cannot be executed in a timely manner due to a lack of intercept capability on telecommunications networks.
> 
> *The Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act will address challenges posed by modern technologies that did not exist when the legal framework for interception was designed nearly 40 years ago. It does not provide the police or CSIS with any new interception powers, nor will it change or expand existing interception authorities in any way. The police and CSIS will continue to require warrants for interception. This legislation will simply help ensure that when warrants are issued, telecommunications companies have the technical ability required to intercept communications for the police and CSIS.*
> 
> While building and maintaining intercept-capable networks will generate costs for companies, the Government will provide reasonable compensation when retrofits to existing networks are needed. Telecommunications service providers will also be entitled to compensation for specialized telecommunications support provided in assisting with the implementation of interceptions and for providing basic subscriber information to designated officials from the police, CSIS and the Competition Bureau. This is a shared response to a problem that directly affects the safety of Canadians.


Maybe because they haven't done their homework and see a "spy" hiding behind every corner... I really don't care.... they don't know what they are talking about.

If more people actually read what was publicly available for them to read then maybe they would be less dependant on receiving the spin from the media and other organizations and could make up their own minds instead of having someone else do it for them.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Aren't we counting on a popularity contest for the next Parliament, and aren't the MP's going to rely on a popularity contest to pass bills or not?
> 
> Pesky popularity means nothing in any of these propositions?


It's all a popularity contest... your point? Do you have one?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> A rather pithy statement of the facts, in fact. Here's a little more of the details:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaker’s contempt rulings add ammunition to election-minded opposition - The Globe and Mail
> 
> _Let me be clear_: t would seem that Mr. Harper's hypocrisy on the subjects of accountability and transparency in government is _clearly_ evident.


I watched the ruling being given by Miliken, ne never said "_Let me be clear_: t would seem that Mr. Harper's hypocrisy on the subjects of accountability and transparency in government is _clearly_ evident. 

That is false.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> I support it and I am a Conservative.
> 
> I think we are, in general, too afraid of change and afraid of trying new things. That can be applied to every department and responsibility of government. We should try new things all the time and when things work, apply them across the whole country. I think we would collectively be better off if we took this attitude to all levels of government.


And how would we know if these new ideas were working?? By Statistics??

We all know that conservatives only believe statistics that they want to hear.



Vandave said:


> Now that said, we need to be very careful in reading into those statistics. Who's collecting the data? What's the control? It's not so simple. A drop could be caused by other factors (e.g. safer heroin on the street).


The data isn't skewed by any local factors. The research has been proven all over the world.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: How Portugal treats drug addicts


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> I support it and I am a Conservative.
> 
> I think we are, in general, too afraid of change and afraid of trying new things. That can be applied to every department and responsibility of government. We should try new things all the time and when things work, apply them across the whole country. I think we would collectively be better off if we took this attitude to all levels of government.
> 
> Now that said, we need to be very careful in reading into those statistics. Who's collecting the data? What's the control? It's not so simple. A drop could be caused by other factors (e.g. safer heroin on the street).


thanks. I think it's wise to check the stats too, why not.

Drug policy of governments past of all stripes) has been a complete utter failure not to mention a cash cow for law enforcement right on up. Harm reduction strategies have long been proven effective, it's time they be taken more seriously at the policy level.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> If more people actually read what was publicly available for them to read then maybe they would be less dependant on receiving the spin from the media and other organizations and could make up their own minds instead of having someone else do it for them.


Do you have any insight, then, into why the Federal and many Provincial privacy commissioners are (as noted above) opposed to the proposed legislation?


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Do you have any insight, then, into why the Federal and many Provincial privacy commissioners are (as noted above) opposed to the proposed legislation?


Well if the author of the story got his facts right (which he certainly didn't elsewhere) so I would be skeptical as to whether or not he did here, the answer is provided in the article:



> Last month, Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, along with every provincial privacy commissioner in the country, sent Public Safety Canada a letter *expressing their concerns* about the lawful access bill. Namely, they didn’t see any need for it—ISPs already hand over whatever information police ask for, without a warrant, when the cops claim there is immediate danger or child endangerment. They called the bill “problematic” and wrote that there was “insufficient justification” for the new powers, suggesting “*less intrusive*” ways for law enforcement to fight crime.


Effectively they have concerns, there is no expression of opposition. Presumably they are not technically up to snuff with what is required to intercept an internet connections vs. a phone line, which is what the old legislation was geared towards. 

Really the only salient point is that the premise of the the argument of the lame ass article is bogus_ "a warrantless online surveillance state."_ It is completely false and if the so called journalist took oh I don't know... say 2 minutes to do their homework they would know that:


> It does not provide the police or CSIS with any new interception powers, nor will it change or expand existing interception authorities in any way. The police and CSIS will continue to require warrants for interception. This legislation will simply help ensure that when warrants are issued, telecommunications companies have the technical ability required to intercept communications for the police and CSIS.


But no the author would rather spin FUD and complete falsehoods just to get a headline and a "story" out.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I watched the ruling being given by Miliken, ne never said "_Let me be clear_: t would seem that Mr. Harper's hypocrisy on the subjects of accountability and transparency in government is _clearly_ evident.
> 
> That is false.


Uh…no doubt. That was my commentary on the quote, which _clearly_ came after the web link. My apologies for any confusion; I had thought the clarity of this was clearly obvious, since I had clearly not used any quotation marks to clarify I was quoting anyone at that point. Perhaps clarity is not always obvious to all parties. Clearly.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> It's all a popularity contest... your point? Do you have one?


If it's good enough for selection then it's good enough (equally valid) for rejection.

My point, tis mine, it belongs..... oh! sorry.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> If it's good enough for selection then it's good enough (equally valid) for rejection.
> 
> My point, tis mine, it belongs..... oh! sorry.


I agree... I was merely originally saying that the "reasons" for the election were not the reasons you stated.... they were relevant in terms of what lead to those "popularity" votes but persay it was directly the actions actions of the opposition that lead to the election, just a simple fact. 

Some people around here seem to have a problem with just simple facts.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Uh…no doubt. That was my commentary on the quote, which _clearly_ came after the web link. My apologies for any confusion; I had thought the clarity of this was clearly obvious, since I had clearly not used any quotation marks to clarify I was quoting anyone at that point. Perhaps clarity is not always obvious to all parties. Clearly.


You clearly italicized, Let me be clear, which is often used for purposes of quotation, so you clearly weren't as clear as you thought you were being. No big whop.... seems it was just a misunderstanding.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You clearly italicized, Let me be clear, which is often used for purposes of quotation, so you clearly weren't as clear as you thought you were being. No big whop.... seems it was just a misunderstanding.


Ah yes. Clearly, I understood italics in this case to be used for _emphasis_ rather than for direct quotations. Perhaps a different color or a different font would have been clearer and clearly less confusing. Let me be clear: I thank you for clarifying this for me.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Ah yes. Clearly, I understood italics in this case to be used for _emphasis_ rather than for direct quotations. Perhaps a different color or a different font would have been clearer and clearly less confusing. Let me be clear: I thank you for clarifying this for me.


Perhaps if the font had been clear, as in transparent, there would have been no chance for misunderstanding at all.


----------



## SINC

OK, I went to the Apple store in Edmonton today, a nearly 14 km drive and saw exactly 10 election signs. Five together on the same spot on each side of a rural intersection in my city's western limit, all for the Tory candidate. But that was it in a 27 km long drive. Talk about an unwanted election.


----------



## groovetube

perhaps mr. Harper needs to accept NOT getting a majority to shove his agenda, and having a minority and being told to work with the other parties. Then perhaps, this election may not have happened.

For some reason, the new conservatives seem to feel slighted by only getting a majority, and have pouted about it ever since.


----------



## Max

To be fair, any party would rather have a majority. You can't blame Harperco's flock for this.


----------



## groovetube

I didn't. I simply pointed out why we're likely having an election. In response to it's only the opposition's fault.

BS.


----------



## i-rui

If the Harper government didn't fall on the contempt charge it certainly would have on the budget.

But Harper could've got the Bloc to support it with a $2.2 billion dollar GST pay off to Quebec. The budget *didn't* have that.

But Harper is *now* promising that $2.2 billion to Quebec for their vote.

It's painfuly obvious that the Harper government wanted this "unwanted election".


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> It's painfuly obvious that the Harper government wanted this "unwanted election".


Apparently your definition of "obvious" isn't in step with reality. The reality by the way, is that it took the combined vote of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc to make it happen. The Conservatives had nothing to do with forcing an unwanted election.


----------



## i-rui

way to not deal with the rest of my post.


----------



## SINC

I just dealt with the part that was wrong.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> I agree... I was merely originally saying that the "reasons" for the election were not the reasons you stated.... they were relevant in terms of what lead to those "popularity" votes but persay it was directly the actions actions of the opposition that lead to the election, just a simple fact.
> 
> Some people around here seem to have a problem with just simple facts.





SINC said:


> OK, I went to the Apple store in Edmonton today, a nearly 14 km drive and saw exactly 10 election signs. Five together on the same spot on each side of a rural intersection in my city's western limit, all for the Tory candidate. But that was it in a 27 km long drive. Talk about an unwanted election.





groovetube said:


> perhaps mr. Harper needs to accept NOT getting a majority to shove his agenda, and having a minority and being told to work with the other parties. Then perhaps, this election may not have happened.
> 
> For some reason, the new conservatives seem to feel slighted by only getting a majority, and have pouted about it ever since.





Max said:


> To be fair, any party would rather have a majority. You can't blame Harperco's flock for this.





groovetube said:


> I didn't. I simply pointed out why we're likely having an election. In response to it's only the opposition's fault.
> 
> BS.





i-rui said:


> If the Harper government didn't fall on the contempt charge it certainly would have on the budget.
> 
> But Harper could've got the Bloc to support it with a $2.2 billion dollar GST pay off to Quebec. The budget *didn't* have that.
> 
> But Harper is *now* promising that $2.2 billion to Quebec for their vote.
> 
> It's painfuly obvious that the Harper government wanted this "unwanted election".





SINC said:


> Apparently your definition of "obvious" isn't in step with reality. The reality by the way, is that it took the combined vote of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc to make it happen. The Conservatives had nothing to do with forcing an unwanted election.





i-rui said:


> way to not deal with the rest of my post.





SINC said:


> I just dealt with the part that was wrong.


With only 2 weeks to May 2nd and the Conservative supporters major issue is an unwanted election. Unwanted by whom? 

Not unwanted by any of the Federal Parties. At least if you look at how fast t all of the got out of the gate.

Not unwanted by the Public Relation companies that made and arranged for national media advertising. Not unwanted by all of the local printing companies making campaign brochures and lawn signs.

The election may now be unwanted by supporters who now feel "their side" may not prevail as was once hoped. 

The only poster in this thread that wasn't interested and hasn't supported the election call is (was) Max.

So of all the "issues" brought forth to date the unwanted election is all we have to debate..."Interesting" to quote Spock.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> I just dealt with the part that was wrong.


ok, let's deal with that part....



SINC said:


> The reality by the way, is that it took the combined vote of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc to make it happen. The Conservatives had nothing to do with forcing an unwanted election.


The "reality" is the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament, and fell on a vote of non-confidence.

to say the Conservatives "had nothing to do with it" fails to hold them responsible for their actions.

You know what, maybe a government shouldn't lie and hide cost estimates from Parliament. Then maybe it wouldn't be found in contempt. A vote of non-confidence is probably going to be the result when a Government is found in contempt. It's actually the responsible thing to do by opposition parties, since that government has proven it can't be trusted.

To blame the result of the vote on the opposition parties is the same as a criminal blaming the judge for being in jail after he robbed a bank. Conservatives need to owe up to their actions.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Apparently your definition of "obvious" isn't in step with reality. The reality by the way, is that it took the combined vote of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc to make it happen. The Conservatives had nothing to do with forcing an unwanted election.


OMG.

Pulease sinc, don't play us for fools, at least. Those conservatives wanted this election just as much as the other ones. It's fine if you like the conservatives, but that's just ridiculous.

Harper saw majority in them numbers, and went along with it happily.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> OMG.
> 
> Pulease sinc, don't play us for fools, at least. Those conservatives wanted this election just as much as the other ones. It's fine if you like the conservatives, but that's just ridiculous.
> 
> Harper saw majority in them numbers, and went along with it happily.


OMG yourself gt. No Conservative voted to down the government. That was a calculated act by the opposition. Truth hurts does it?


----------



## groovetube

Sinc, we're all thinking adults here. No one honest could possibly believe the cons had nothing to do with it, c'mon. That's about as asinine as someone trying to tell us no party in power lies and overspends for god's sake.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Sinc, we're all thinking adults here. No one honest could possibly believe the cons had nothing to do with it, c'mon. That's about as asinine as someone trying to tell us no party in power lies and overspends for god's sake.


OK, so explain how many Conservative votes caused this election? That would make me think, but until then you may have to rethink your theory, after all, that's all it is, your theory.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> OK, so explain how many Conservative votes caused this election? That would make me think, but until then you may have to rethink your theory, after all, that's all it is, your theory.


The Conservative's *ACTIONS* caused the vote, which caused the election.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> If the Harper government didn't fall on the contempt charge it certainly would have on the budget.
> 
> But Harper could've got the Bloc to support it with a $2.2 billion dollar GST pay off to Quebec. The budget *didn't* have that.
> 
> But Harper is *now* promising that $2.2 billion to Quebec for their vote.
> 
> It's painfuly obvious that the Harper government wanted this "unwanted election".


So if Harper courts another party, even the Bloc, for their support on any particular bill, isn't that effectively a temporary coalition? Odd that he finds coalitions so distasteful when that's exactly what he's been doing for the last five years. He's not against coalitions; he's tired of appeasement.


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> He's not against coalitions; he's tired of appeasement.


he's against co-operation.

who knew that in a democracy there may be times where you have to compromise and listen to other people's opinions?


----------



## Dr.G.

i-rui said:


> he's against co-operation.
> 
> who knew that in a democracy there may be times where you have to compromise and listen to other people's opinions?


Compromise worked quite well for Lester Pearson when he was PM in a minority situation. He was able to craft together some of the best Canadian social programs that still survive to this day.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Compromise worked quite well for Lester Pearson when he was PM in a minority situation. He was able to craft together some of the best Canadian social programs that still survive to this day.


Which are the best?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Which are the best?


During Lester Pearson's time as Prime Minister, his minority government introduced universal health care (which is still with us), student loans (still with us), the Canada Pension Plan (still with us), the Order of Canada (still being awarded), and the current Canadian flag, which is still flying proudly from coast to coast to coast.

The "best" would be, in my opinion, universial health care and the CPP.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> The Conservative's *ACTIONS* caused the vote, which caused the election.


nevermind this is a useless circle of pin the tail on the donkey.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> The Conservative's *ACTIONS* caused the vote, which caused the election.


Nope. You don't get it. It was the combined *ACTIONS* of the opposition parties that caused the election. They could have left the government in place, but chose to launch an election that will change nothing at best and give the conservatives a majority at worst, at least for them.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Nope. You don't get it. It was the combined *ACTIONS* of the opposition parties that caused the election. They could have left the government in place, but chose to launch an election that will change nothing at best and give the conservatives a majority at worst, at least for them.


Agreed on that. Even if the Conservatives wanted the election, it still required the combined actions of the others to make it happen.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Nope. You don't get it. It was the combined *ACTIONS* of the opposition parties that caused the election. They could have left the government in place, but chose to launch an election that will change nothing at best and give the conservatives a majority at worst, at least for them.


yes, in the same way it's the combined actions of a judge & jury that sentence a criminal.

(never mind the actual crime).


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Agreed on that. Even if the Conservatives wanted the election, it still required the combined actions of the others to make it happen.


It is selective memory and a rewriting of history to say the Conservatives did not prepare that is to say lay the ground work for this election.

Record public spending $24 Million on a National advertising campaign on the Action Plan, the Conservative Party spending, since the first of the year, on the attack advertisements aimed dead centre on Iggy and destroying his image, even before any talk of an election .

Then a budget designed to fail with the opposition, despite an opportunity of gaining the NDP support on the budget if the Conservatives accepted the NDP proposals to lift Seniors out of poverty. By the way the cost of helping seniors would result in costs that will amount to what will be spent to run this election. 

Go ahead, keep on keeping on with the notion, that the Conservatives never wanted this election because that is what you want to believe.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> yes, in the same way it's the combined actions of a judge & jury that sentence a criminal.
> 
> (never mind the actual crime).


Oddly enough, 40% plus of Canadians last polled intend to vote for the Conservatives again. They don't seem to support your shaky theory there was any crime.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Record public spending $24 Million on a National advertising campaign on the Action Plan, the Conservative Party spending on the attack advertisements aimed dead centre on Iggy and destroying his image.


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Good grief, WHAT image?


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Oddly enough, 40% plus of Canadians last polled intend to vote for the Conservatives again. They don't seem to support your shaky theory there was any crime.


what about the other 60%?

p.s. - it's not a "theory". the Contempt of Parliament charge is on *record*.


----------



## SINC

The other 60% is so widely split between the Libs and the NDP and the separatists, they can't even muster a challenge. The only time they are united is to cause an unwanted election.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> what about the other 60%?
> 
> p.s. - it's not a "theory". the Contempt of Parliament charge is on *record*.


What is on the record is an agreement that their political enemies decided it would benefit them to hold the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. I think it backfired.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> Good grief, WHAT image?


See! Proof positive some people are far more susceptible to Conservative attack Ad's than others


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Oddly enough, 40% plus of Canadians last polled intend to vote for the Conservatives again.


Lending support to the theory that our democracy is seriously out of whack.


----------



## i-rui

so 60% want an "unwanted" election, and the conservatives clearly wanted this "unwanted election". (despite the echo chamber saying otherwise to convince the politically naive)

i guess it wasn't so "unwanted" after all!


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Lending support to the theory that our democracy is seriously out of whack.


Lends support to the idea that you are out of whack with Canadian democracy.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> The other 60% is so widely split between the Libs and the NDP and the separatists, they can't even muster a challenge. The only time they are united is to cause an unwanted election.


Unwanted by Whom? Got any proof! Is this *only an opinion* personally held?


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Lending support to the theory that our democracy is seriously out of whack.


Really CM, think about what you just posted. Democracy being out of whack? tptptptp

When 40% of the people of Canada agree that the Conservatives best serve the country, democracy shines through.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Unwanted by Whom? Got any proof! Is this *only an opinion* personally held?


Nope, have *YOU?*


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Lends support to the idea that you are out of whack with Canadian democracy.


So how does 40% of less than 70% constitute a majority? Oh! Never mind asking the democratically impaired how this stuff works is pointless.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Nope, have *YOU?*


Nothing understandable by those who ignore facts, and only embrace opinion they may agree with.


----------



## hbp

**** Harper Did


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> What is on the record is an agreement that their political enemies decided it would benefit them to hold the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. I think it backfired.


first off, you clearly don't understand what being on record actually means.

secondly, if Harper ends up with a minority, he loses. he's already framed the opposition as a coalition, so he's legitimized any future cooperation between the parties. 

A conservative minority = coalition government = Harper done.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Nothing understandable by those who ignore facts, and only embrace opinion they may agree with.


Nor those who are blinded by outright hate of a man or party.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> first off, you clearly don't understand what being on record actually means.


I clearly do. I thought it was a stunt in this case.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Nor those who are blinded by outright hate of a man or party.


Nope! Just dislike the poorly thought out policy and an apparent lack of math skills within that Party. 

Not a hater just a critic.


----------



## groovetube

I see yet another "sorcerer's apprentice" is at work stirring up the Quebec thing.

I can see this backfiring pretty hard once again but even more so this round. Nice work mr. Harper, just couldn't help himself could he...


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> I see yet another "sorcerer's apprentice" is at work stirring up the Quebec thing.
> 
> I can see this backfiring pretty hard once again but even more so this round. Nice work mr. Harper, just couldn't help himself could he...


+1

He neeeeeeeedds that majority damn it. What's wrong with people. Conservatives are already rattling those long knives and night's coming.

Stevie's carrer is on the line. He was far ahead in the poles, the opposition was weak, everybody hates Iggy right, let's get an election going, what could possibly go wrong, wait, let's raise the issue of sovereigntists, again, what could possibly go wrong.


----------



## groovetube

You have to be thankful that Harper can be counted on to start shooting himself in the foot on cue.

The latest poll shows the Harper brand starting to bleed support in both Quebec, and BC.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Compromise worked quite well for Lester Pearson when he was PM in a minority situation. He was able to craft together some of the best Canadian social programs that still survive to this day.


Well yes for sure but those were very different times and the and the NDP were like minded enough to make it work in a much more amicable way. The fact is that the current Libs and Cons are about as close to hating one another as we have seen in any parliament. This is not only the Cons fault or the Libs fault. The fact is it takes two to tango and neither one of them likes the other as a choice of dance partner.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> During Lester Pearson's time as Prime Minister, his minority government introduced universal health care (which is still with us), student loans (still with us), the Canada Pension Plan (still with us), the Order of Canada (still being awarded), and the current Canadian flag, which is still flying proudly from coast to coast to coast.
> 
> The "best" would be, in my opinion, universial health care and the CPP.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


To be fair universal health care was the brainchild of Tommy Douglas.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> To be fair universal health care was the brainchild of Tommy Douglas.


...and Tommy Douglas did this singlehanded and in a vacuum?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> ...and Tommy Douglas did this singlehanded and in a vacuum?


In a lefty haze at any rate.


----------



## groovetube

these are indeed different times. The idea that parties could work together? Hell no! That's treasonous!!!!

Bad, dirty, filthy coalition. For Harper, clearly, there is only one road. His. And only his. He doesn't give a rats arse if Canadians only gave him a minority, he wants absolute power.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> ...and Tommy Douglas did this singlehanded and in a vacuum?


Nope, I don't think I suggested this, I was merely saying that it isn't Pearson's legacy alone and in fact the credit needs to be shared and in fact more accurately Pearson share's it with Douglas more than the other way around. 

Why do you almost always seem to see things in terms of confrontation?


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Nope, I don't think I suggested this, I was merely saying that it isn't Pearson's legacy alone and in fact the credit needs to be shared and in fact more accurately Pearson share's it with Douglas more than the other way around.
> 
> Why do you almost always seem to see things in terms of confrontation?


Oh! I understood Dr.G.'s post(s) referenced minority governments and the reaching out and cooperation between Parties in the Parliament back in the day that brought forward important and lasting legislation.

I read the post as attempting to diminish that point and the post proposed an individual to be elevated and highlighted.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Oh! I understood Dr.G.'s post(s) referenced minority governments and the reaching out and cooperation between Parties in the Parliament back in the day that brought forward important and lasting legislation.
> 
> I read the post as attempting to diminish that point and the post proposed an individual to be elevated and highlighted.


Nope, just a misunderstanding then, wasn't my intention.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> these are indeed different times. The idea that parties could work together? Hell no! That's treasonous!!!


They work together all of the time, particularly behind the scenes, or else how could any legislation pass?


----------



## arminia

The Tyee – BC Must Not Hand Harper His Majority
Just say no

Is this what we're going to support?

A party in contempt of Parliament?

A party that directly participates in the decimation of our wild salmon, the soul and symbol of British Columbia?

A party quite willing to sacrifice our resources so that the U.S. can have cheaper energy?

What's a Tory majority going to do for you (no need to answer if you're a big corporation) that makes you want to support them?

What difference would it make for you if Ignatieff and his Liberals got in?

In looking at the lot of them, which leader gives a fiddler's fart for British Columbia?

I'm reminded of the old ditty of the preacher and the bear where the preacher, fighting for his life, cries out "Lord. Lord, if you can't help me for goodness sake don't help that bear!"

With that in mind, it may well be that my vote will not stop a Harper quest for majority... but it sure as hell isn't going to help him!


----------



## Macfury

My vote will help Harper, unless Iggy undergoes a deathbed conversion.


----------



## i-rui

Amp Your Vote | Project Democracy / Projet Démocratie

type in your postal code to see how you can vote strategically.


----------



## chasMac

^^

This is so negative - it is not about your party winning, but rather hating Harper.


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> ^^
> 
> This is so negative - it is not about your party winning, but rather hating Harper.


in response to... if you don'tgive me total power the separatists are gonna get you?

c'mon, who started the negativity...


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> in response to... if you don'tgive me total power the separatists are gonna get you?
> 
> c'mon, who started the negativity...


Weren't sites like the one mentioned above, and this one: **** Harper Did up before the PM made that crack about the separatists?


----------



## screature

Historically Canadians don't vote for people or things they vote against them so this is just typical Canadian voting behaviour.


----------



## groovetube

chasMac said:


> Weren't sites like the one mentioned above, and this one: **** Harper Did up before the PM made that crack about the separatists?


sure. Not to say the other parties are blameless, but really, Harper is, a kind of negative sort of guy. Let's face it, all those years of negative personal attacks on liberal leaders etc., what did he expect?

Now they're crying the libs are going negative with their ads. Throw 'em a pity party. They started it.


----------



## chasMac

groovetube said:


> sure. Not to say the other parties are blameless, but really, Harper is, a kind of negative sort of guy. Let's face it, all those years of negative personal attacks on liberal leaders etc., what did he expect?
> 
> Now they're crying the libs are going negative with their ads. Throw 'em a pity party. They started it.


But I believe the concept of strategic voting is not related to attack ads, but something altogether different. Perhaps screature has a point.


----------



## groovetube

true, Canadians do tend to vote against a lot of the time.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Historically Canadians don't vote for people or things they vote against them so this is just typical Canadian voting behaviour.





chasMac said:


> ^^
> 
> This is so negative - it is not about your party winning, but rather hating Harper.


Hating or not hating Harper is irrelevant. Diminishing the number of seats controlled by Harper is the point. Perhaps 60% or more of Canadian voters are happy with a minority government situation and it is in their interest to vote accordingly.


----------



## SINC

From the Calgary Herald . . .


----------



## chasMac

BigDL said:


> Hating or not hating Harper is irrelevant. Diminishing the number of seats controlled by Harper is the point. Perhaps 60% or more of Canadian voters are happy with a minority government situation and it is in their interest to vote accordingly.


I think that Canadians would be most happy with their party of choice in power, and should vote accordingly (Layton has spoken strongly on this as historically he'd have the most to lose).


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> I think that Canadians would be most happy with their party of choice in power, and should vote accordingly (Layton has spoken strongly on this as historically he'd have the most to lose).


I suspect this is true. I have rarely voted strategically. This convoluted thinking about Canadians' confused views of how they should vote seems to be trundled out when people fear a Conservative majority.


----------



## i-rui

Since the right merged into one party the Canadian political landscape has become skewed.

Strategic voting is the intelligent response to this, but still has the benefit of not gutting the different viewpoints that colour the left side of the political spectrum (which would be the net result if the left merged into a single party like the right).

Perhaps if the right had 2 or 3 parties reflecting *that* vast side of the political equation we'd actually have a balanced government that could truly represent Canada instead of one where a minority view point rules the country.

And then "coalition government" wouldn't be a bad word.


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps if this many times Canadians band together to vote in such a way the conservatives don't get a majority, this may, be a sign Canadians do not want the Conservative agenda, but one that is somewhat tempered by other parties as well.

Just a, *cough*, thought.


----------



## groovetube

Ignatieff clears the air: Grits could govern if Tories win minority - The Globe and Mail

Yowza. Ok, at first, I thought, well if I thought Iggy was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this just confirmed it. He just handed Harper, his battering ram for a majority. Perhaps he has.

But on second thought. This is a bit of a play here. This election is turning into quite the poker game. With a clear support from many Canadians saying, they're afraid of a Harper majority, and he doesn't have the numbers to form a government himself with the ndp numbers rising, so he says, hey, vote for the opposition harder to ward of a Harper majority, and I'll give you a liberal led government with the support of the opposition parties. Notice the lack of the word, 'coalition'.

Crafty. But quite risky.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Since the right merged into one party the Canadian political landscape has become skewed.
> 
> Strategic voting is the intelligent response to this, but still has the benefit of not gutting the different viewpoints that colour the left side of the political spectrum (which would be the net result if the left merged into a single party like the right).
> 
> Perhaps if the right had 2 or 3 parties reflecting *that* vast side of the political equation we'd actually have a balanced government that could truly represent Canada instead of one where a minority view point rules the country.
> 
> And then "coalition government" wouldn't be a bad word.



Perhaps if the Liberal left would also shatter into its myriad cliques to form their own splinter parties.


----------



## groovetube

there's 4 already, how many more, should there be?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> there's 4 already, how many more, should there be?


9


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> 9


the right needs to split at least that. Then the 30 odd % can divi amongst themselves.


----------



## wwj

groovetube said:


> true, Canadians do tend to vote against a lot of the time.



Perhaps that’s because we have so little to vote ‘for’? 

As I said way back in this thread, it’s really about “the lesser of five evils.”


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> I suspect this is true. I have rarely voted strategically. This convoluted thinking about Canadians' confused views of how they should vote seems to be trundled out when people fear a Conservative majority.


I don't want any party to have a majority. I don't fully agree with any party 100%. The power to enact legislation without regard to debate at all is just scary.

In fact, I'd rather the party system be scrapped altogether. I'd rather an MP vote according to common sense, not how his boss tells him to.


----------



## groovetube

I totally agree. Majority governments need to be totally scrapped.


----------



## wwj

hayesk said:


> In fact, I'd rather the party system be scrapped altogether. I'd rather an MP vote according to common sense, not how his boss tells him to.


Common sense? Wishful thinking!

These days, common sense is a very uncommon commodity in Canada's House of Commons, which is definitely not a House of Common Sense.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> I'd rather an MP vote according to common sense, not how his boss tells him to.


They can. They usually chicken out at crunch time.


----------



## CubaMark

You may want to rethink that...



> Merriam-Webster Online defines _common sense_ as beliefs or propositions that most people consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common". Thus "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. (Wikipedia)


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> You may want to rethink that...


Common sense indicates the sun and stars revolve around the earth.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Common sense indicates the sun and stars revolve around the earth.


Or that you're entitled to someone else's money simply because you state that you need it.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Or that you're entitled to someone else's money simply because you state that you need it.


Geez why pick on me? I never hit you up for cash! 

It wasn't me, It wasn't me,

It must'a been some otherbuddy cause you know child it wasn't me.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Or that you're entitled to someone else's money simply because you state that you need it.


so that's how the oil companies do it?


----------



## wwj

BigDL said:


> Common sense indicates the sun and stars revolve around the earth.





Macfury said:


> Or that you're entitled to someone else's money simply because you state that you need it.



par·a·noi·a 
n.

1. Characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.


----------



## Macfury

Distaste.


----------



## wwj

Macfury said:


> Distaste.




Obviously


----------



## Macfury

Paranoia would indicate belief in some sort of conspiracy or overarching plan. Neither is it distrust. Distaste is merely the reaction to observing a consistent desire of some human beings to help themselves to the fruits of labour of others, even when they are capable of earning it themselves.


----------



## wwj

Macfury said:


> Paranoia would indicate belief in some sort of conspiracy or overarching plan. Neither is it distrust. Distaste is merely the reaction to observing a consistent desire of some human beings to help themselves to the fruits of labour of others, even when they are capable of earning it themselves.





"...often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason."


----------



## Macfury

wwj said:


> "...often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason."


You're failing at your own definition. The paranoid would think that there was some evil plan afoot--a grand machination. There is none.


----------



## wwj

Macfury said:


> You're failing at your own definition. The paranoid would think that there was some evil plan afoot--a grand machination. There is none.



No grand machinations, just _"a consistent desire of some human beings"_ to pilfer your pockets.


In any case it's late
and the blather can wait
till another day dawns.


----------



## Macfury

wwj said:


> No grand machinations, just _"a consistent desire of some human beings"_ to pilfer your pockets.
> 
> 
> In any case it's late
> and the blather can wait
> till another day dawns.


They're doing it every day. Good night.


----------



## SINC

Iggy: Speaking with forked tongue when he said "no coalition"?

Ignatieff says law allows him chance to form government withhout election if Harper defeated in Commons


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Iggy: Speaking with forked tongue when he said "no coalition"?
> 
> Ignatieff says law allows him chance to form government withhout election if Harper defeated in Commons


This is what I dislike about the parliamentary system of government, but it is the way of this system, and it is not illegal. PM Harper proposed the same thing back in 2004. Sadly, just this system of government makes fixed elections next to impossible to maintain.

Maybe we shall all be surprised comes May 3rd with an NDP minority government ........ the Liberal party will break up into two groups, with one group going to the Conservatives to try to make them more progressive, with the other group going over to the NDP to keep that party progressive.

This would dilute the power of the Bloc to that of a regional party. 

We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Or that you're entitled to someone else's money simply because you state that you need it.


Can you be more specific?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Can you be more specific?


Subsidized daycare.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Maybe we shall all be surprised comes May 3rd with an NDP minority government ........


With such a possibility, I can root for a zombie apocalypse as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> With such a possibility, I can root for a zombie apocalypse as the lesser of two evils.


We shall see, mon ami. We shall see. Still, in this scenario, you shall be treated fairly and with respect ........... far moreso than your "zombie apolcalypse".


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Subsidized daycare.


Anything else?


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> Anything else?


Those "eastern bums", especially in NL, picking the pockets of the folks in ON, so that they can get their welfare/unemployment checks. Wait ........ NL is a have province now, with a balanced budget and a surplus, and ON is now a have not province, getting some federal transfers from the folks here in NL.

Never mind ............... 

Full disclosure -- I do not begrudge someone in need of social assistance this sort of support, nor do I begrudge someone, especially seasonally employed workers, EI.

The many have to help protect the few.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Anything else?


Yes.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yes.


Right on, brother. Start with the CBC, then on to universal health care, EI, apprenticeship grants, student loans, Canada Child Tax Benefit, maternity and parental benefits, Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, Old Age Security Pension, Canada Pension Plan, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and on and on and on we go. 

At some point it just HAS to stop. "Survival of the fittest". Right, mon ami?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Yes.


It's a secret?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Paranoia would indicate belief in some sort of conspiracy or overarching plan. Neither is it distrust. Distaste is merely the reaction to observing a consistent desire of some human beings to help themselves to the fruits of labour of others, even when they are capable of earning it themselves.


...or the other side of the issue are those that enjoy the fruits of society and complain like heck about paying their fair share towards it. The I don't want to pay for______ (fill in the blank) attitude.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Iggy: Speaking with forked tongue when he said "no coalition"?
> 
> Ignatieff says law allows him chance to form government withhout election if Harper defeated in Commons


Oh Good! The conservative supporters have their marching orders. 

They never want to debate the merits of the Conservative Candidates policies. Jets, Jails and Tax Cuts they never defend.

Only can comment on "look how bad the other team performs."


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Only can comment on "look how bad the other team performs."


*Sighs*

I guess it's too much for you to discern the difference, but I did NOT make a comment. I simply asked a question.


----------



## bryanc

I really don't understand what is so bad about a coalition government? Why is Harper able to use this as a boogyman?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I really don't understand what is so bad about a coalition government? Why is Harper able to use this as a boogyman?


Because the Liberals were dumb enough to try to build one around Dion. The sense among the general populace was that Dion had been rejected by voters and they saw it as a deliberate attempt to thwart their voting wishes. 

Never mind constitutional arguments, etc. This is the heart of why the word "coalition" can be used as it is.


----------



## mrjimmy

Gilles Duceppe is priceless!

Vintage Voter - Home


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Gilles Duceppe is priceless!
> 
> Vintage Voter - Home


Yeah I just finished looking at that site... pretty funny I wish they had more pictures of Jack and Gilles... hey now wait a second, did they ever go up a hill together...


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> *Sighs*
> 
> I guess it's too much for you to discern the difference, but I did NOT make a comment. I simply asked a question.


A trick picked up from News Paper Headline no doubt?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Yes.


All those posts and proclamations and all you dislike is subsidized daycare? 

Although I can see your point. All those grimy little street urchins, running around picking your pocket like it's Oliver Twist. Can't blame you a bit. They should all be put in work camps! And their parents? Sterilized and imprisoned. I hear there will be space in the super jails.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> I really don't understand what is so bad about a coalition government? Why is Harper able to use this as a boogyman?


Nothing! It the way the system works. As for the boogyman it appears the western regional party can get some traction with their supporters in that region.


----------



## BigDL

mrjimmy said:


> All those posts and proclamations and all you dislike is subsidized daycare?
> 
> Although I can see your point. All those grimy little street urchins, running around picking your pocket like it's Oliver Twist. Can't blame you a bit. They should all be put in work camps! And their parents? Sterilized and imprisoned. I hear there will be space in the super jails.


I wonder what amount of money that would be for daycare? A penny(or is it less) from the total tax bill of one MF?

Nice!


----------



## Sonal

I don't know, the way I see it, the moment I pay it in taxes, it's not *my* money anymore. It's now government money to be used for government programs, and about the most ownership I have over it anymore is that it's now Canada's money to be spent on stuff for Canada and the people who live here, including me.

It's kind of like, oh, when I was working for Company A, I didn't go out and by shoes thinking "oh, I'm spending Company A's money on shoes" or, "I'm spending the customer's of Company A's money." I'd think "I'm spending my money." After I've spent it, it's no longer my money either. It's my shoes, but it's the shoe stores money.

As I see it, we have an agreement with the Federal government that I pay them taxes, and they provide services. But as anyone one works with committees knows, you can't get 34 million people to perfectly agree on exactly how it all should be spent, and it's not always going to be completely fair and equitable all the time. That's fine. But once I pay them taxes, I no longer have complete ownership of the money. It's not *my* money. It's our collective money, and I am am not always going to directly benefit as an individual in all areas when it's spent on all of us. Such is the nature of living in a collective environment.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I don't know, the way I see it, the moment I pay it in taxes, it's not *my* money anymore...


Yep, but in a democracy you have a right to express your opinion on how you believe the government should be spending that money and how much they should be taking in to spend on programs and services. Then when you like the way a given party says they are or aren't going to spend the money or they are going to take more or less of your money, you vote for them accordingly.

I think most of us get that, maybe some people don't, but it sure isn't rocket science.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I don't know, the way I see it, the moment I pay it in taxes, it's not *my* money anymore. It's now government money to be used for government programs, and about the most ownership I have over it anymore is that it's now Canada's money to be spent on stuff for Canada and the people who live here, including me.
> 
> It's kind of like, oh, when I was working for Company A, I didn't go out and by shoes thinking "oh, I'm spending Company A's money on shoes" or, "I'm spending the customer's of Company A's money." I'd think "I'm spending my money." After I've spent it, it's no longer my money either. It's my shoes, but it's the shoe stores money.
> 
> As I see it, we have an agreement with the Federal government that I pay them taxes, and they provide services. But as anyone one works with committees knows, you can't get 34 million people to perfectly agree on exactly how it all should be spent, and it's not always going to be completely fair and equitable all the time. That's fine. But once I pay them taxes, I no longer have complete ownership of the money. It's not *my* money. It's our collective money, and I am am not always going to directly benefit as an individual in all areas when it's spent on all of us. Such is the nature of living in a collective environment.


My version of your story: I go into a store and want to buy a pair of shoes. Once I buy those shoes, I have no concern about the money. However, before I leave, the store owner says he wants me to give him a dime to buy shoes for some other people. I agree. Encouraged, he says he needs to take another large sum out of my account--he has a bunch of people in the back room who agree with him, and they all have needs too. The want me to pay a few pennies for daycare, tractors, agricultural subsidies, finger painting for adults, government commercials, a car plant in Ottawa, unemployment insurance for a guy who gets fired like clockwork every time he reaches the magic number. Just a few pennies... a few thousand pennies ...a few million pennies.

The system worked fine when people's tax burden required them to work perhaps a month for the government and the other 11 for themselves. If you're comfortable with half your money or more being "the government's money," then I don't begrudge you your contentedness, but I am not content with that.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> It's a secret?


A secret??? I knew it ............. mrj, you are a closet commie. Hiding behind a wall of hounds there lurks the heart of a person ready to see our country crushed under the boot of communism. So, now we know. Your sun has set, comrade, so long as there are free-thinking patriots around to make sure your bleeding-heart compassion and empathy do not spread from coast to coast to coast like the plague. You shall not find us napping. We stand on guard ............ 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Yep, but in a democracy you have a right to express your opinion on how you believe the government should be spending that money and how much they should be taking in to spend on programs and services. Then when you like the way a given party says they are or aren't going to spend the money or they are going to take more or less of your money, you vote for them accordingly.
> 
> I think most of us get that, maybe some people don't, but it sure isn't rocket science.


Yes, and we have an agreement with the Federal government to provide these things, and then we have an ability to change that agreement--but given the logistics of trying to get consensus over the whole country, how we go about changing that agreement is not perfect. I don't think it ever can be.

So yes, I have a say, but it's not so much *my* money anymore as it is *our* money. I have to let go of some of the ownership of it once it's paid out in taxes.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> Gilles Duceppe is priceless!
> 
> Vintage Voter - Home


Wow!!! Who would have guessed?? Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> All those posts and proclamations and all you dislike is subsidized daycare?
> 
> Although I can see your point. All those grimy little street urchins, running around picking your pocket like it's Oliver Twist. Can't blame you a bit. They should all be put in work camps! And their parents? Sterilized and imprisoned. I hear there will be space in the super jails.


Right on, mrj, now you've seen the light. :clap:


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> My version of your story: I go into a store and want to buy a pair of shoes. Once I buy those shoes, I have no concern about the money. However, before I leave, the store owner says he wants me to give him a dime to buy shoes for some other people. I agree. Encouraged, he says he needs to take another large sum out of my account--he has a bunch of people in the back room who agree with him, and they all have needs too. The want me to pay a few pennies for daycare, tractors, agricultural subsidies, finger painting for adults, government commercials, a car plant in Ottawa, unemployment insurance for a guy who gets fired like clockwork every time he reaches the magic number. Just a few pennies... a few thousand pennies ...a few million pennies.


Yeah, but it's not a bunch of people in the back. It's other customers of the shoe store. Some of them pay a lot for shoes and some of them don't may as much for shoes, but you're all paying for shoes to some degree or another and you're all getting something back for it. (Shoes at least.)

The store owner also had to come to an agreement with all of you. How this agreement came about (because there are a lot of you) may have been imperfect, but buying the shoes came with an implicit agreement that you are going to work things out between the owner and all the customers.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> I don't know, the way I see it, the moment I pay it in taxes, it's not *my* money anymore. It's now government money to be used for government programs, and about the most ownership I have over it anymore is that it's now Canada's money to be spent on stuff for Canada and the people who live here, including me.
> 
> It's kind of like, oh, when I was working for Company A, I didn't go out and by shoes thinking "oh, I'm spending Company A's money on shoes" or, "I'm spending the customer's of Company A's money." I'd think "I'm spending my money." After I've spent it, it's no longer my money either. It's my shoes, but it's the shoe stores money.
> 
> As I see it, we have an agreement with the Federal government that I pay them taxes, and they provide services. But as anyone one works with committees knows, you can't get 34 million people to perfectly agree on exactly how it all should be spent, and it's not always going to be completely fair and equitable all the time. That's fine. But once I pay them taxes, I no longer have complete ownership of the money. It's not *my* money. It's our collective money, and I am am not always going to directly benefit as an individual in all areas when it's spent on all of us. Such is the nature of living in a collective environment.


Very good points, Sonal. Many object at to how their tax dollars are spent, but as screature correctly contends, that is when we should exercise our democratic right of free speeh to voice our support or concerns over these expenditures. As well, this is when the right to vote is another way to undermine "taxation without representation".

I really like you comment about the concept of "our collective money".

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

bryanc said:


> I really don't understand what is so bad about a coalition government? Why is Harper able to use this as a boogyman?


As someone said in the G&M today, "that dog won't hunt". The Cons will try to whip it up again, but I don't think anyone except for their supporters are freaked out about this. Iggy said explicitly he would not engage in a formal coalition and unless he's now willing to do a massive flip-flop that would destroy any career he has, I don't think he'll do that.

All that said, polls tell us that it's not a coalition that bothers Canadians who are not part of the Con base, it's a coalition that includes the Bloc. Since the Bloc themselves refuse to be a part of a governing coalition, this is not a possible scenario. That won't stop Harper from attempting to lie his butt off about a possible "coalition with the separatists".


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Yes, and we have an agreement with the Federal government to provide these things, and then we have an ability to change that agreement--but given the logistics of trying to get consensus over the whole country, how we go about changing that agreement is not perfect. I don't think it ever can be.
> 
> So yes, I have a say, but it's not so much *my* money anymore as it is *our* money. I have to let go of some of the ownership of it once it's paid out in taxes.


Well ownership for sure, but you still do have the right to complain just like if you buy a car and it turns out to be a lemon.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> ...or the other side of the issue are those that enjoy the fruits of society and complain like heck about paying their fair share towards it. The I don't want to pay for______ (fill in the blank) attitude.


"To the victor go the spoils", BigDL. If you can make a great deal of money, and I can't, then what right do I have to ask you to help support me??? What responsibility do you have to support those in need with your hard-earned wealth? Are you your brother's/sister's keeper? 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> My version of your story: I go into a store and want to buy a pair of shoes. Once I buy those shoes, I have no concern about the money. However, before I leave, the store owner says he wants me to give him a dime to buy shoes for some other people. I agree. Encouraged, he says he needs to take another large sum out of my account--he has a bunch of people in the back room who agree with him, and they all have needs too. The want me to pay a few pennies for daycare, tractors, agricultural subsidies, finger painting for adults, government commercials, a car plant in Ottawa, unemployment insurance for a guy who gets fired like clockwork every time he reaches the magic number. Just a few pennies... a few thousand pennies ...a few million pennies.
> 
> The system worked fine when people's tax burden required them to work perhaps a month for the government and the other 11 for themselves. If you're comfortable with half your money or more being "the government's money," then I don't begrudge you your contentedness, but I am not content with that.



An interesting analogy, Macfury. Still, you don't have to go into the shoe store at all, that is your choice. You don't have to live in our democratic system, that too is your choice. While you are here, you are free to shop where you want, speak your mind and have the right to be heard, and have the right to vote for those who will be making the decision as to how those pennies are being spent. 

"Death and taxes", mon ami ........... the only absolutes. Paix.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Well ownership for sure, but you still do have the right to complain just like if you buy a car and it turns out to be a lemon.


Oh I agree.

It's just that our system for dealing with and resolving such complaints isn't as personalized as trying to work something out individually with the seller of the car. That's just simple pragmatism in dealing with large, diverse groups.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> My version of your story: I go into a store and want to buy a pair of shoes. Once I buy those shoes, I have no concern about the money. However, before I leave, the store owner says he wants me to give him a dime to buy shoes for some other people. I agree. Encouraged, he says he needs to take another large sum out of my account--he has a bunch of people in the back room who agree with him, and they all have needs too. The want me to pay a few pennies for daycare, tractors, agricultural subsidies, finger painting for adults, government commercials, a car plant in Ottawa, unemployment insurance for a guy who gets fired like clockwork every time he reaches the magic number. Just a few pennies... a few thousand pennies ...a few million pennies.
> 
> The system worked fine when people's tax burden required them to work perhaps a month for the government and the other 11 for themselves. If you're comfortable with half your money or more being "the government's money," then I don't begrudge you your contentedness, but I am not content with that.


Sonal's analogy works. The analogy provided here Fail.

In a country where much is given, much is expected, all that is asked from the individual is the vote, maybe, just maybe, to act as a juror and a little cash.

Some begrudge their side of the deal, wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Yes, and we have an agreement with the Federal government to provide these things, and then we have an ability to change that agreement--but given the logistics of trying to get consensus over the whole country, how we go about changing that agreement is not perfect. I don't think it ever can be.
> 
> So yes, I have a say, but it's not so much *my* money anymore as it is *our* money. I have to let go of some of the ownership of it once it's paid out in taxes.


True, Sonal, and some of it comes back to you, either directly or indirectly, in terms of services, protection, infrastructure ............ and knowing that some of these taxes are going to help those in need, even though you may never meet these people. Paix, mon amie. 

As I said in a previous posting, I really like your concept of "shared ownership" over these tax dollars ............. just as we all share some responsibility to help those truly in need.


----------



## Dr.G.

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As someone said in the G&M today, "that dog won't hunt". The Cons will try to whip it up again, but I don't think anyone except for their supporters are freaked out about this. Iggy said explicitly he would not engage in a formal coalition and unless he's now willing to do a massive flip-flop that would destroy any career he has, I don't think he'll do that.
> 
> All that said, polls tell us that it's not a coalition that bothers Canadians who are not part of the Con base, it's a coalition that includes the Bloc. Since the Bloc themselves refuse to be a part of a governing coalition, this is not a possible scenario. That won't stop Harper from attempting to lie his butt off about a possible "coalition with the separatists".


I asked our local Conservative candidate when he came knocking at my door what his party might do if the only way they could maintain a minority government status was to accept the votes of the Bloc. He was a bit stumped at this question, saying it would never happen. "That's not my question" was my reply.

I see coalitions as essential for a parliamentary system. I don't like this system, but it is the one we have and I am a citizen of this country, so I have rights and responsibilities for this citizenship. So, I shall vote on May 2nd, which is one of the four responsibilities of this citizenship.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> An interesting analogy, Macfury. Still, you don't have to go into the shoe store at all, that is your choice.



I might say the same to those who think Canada's welfare system is too stingy. Don't ask for more money. Go move to where they offer you more. 

What I choose to do is to change the operation of the shoe store until it suits me. If all I achieve is some minor change, I am satisfied.


----------



## i-rui

Election 2011, a dark fiction - The Globe and Mail


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> "To the victor go the spoils", BigDL. If you can make a great deal of money, and I can't, then what right do I have to ask you to help support me??? What responsibility do you have to support those in need with your hard-earned wealth? Are you your brother's/sister's keeper?
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Indeed Dr.G. "Are there no prisons.... Are there no workhouses"


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Oh I agree.
> 
> It's just that our system for dealing with and resolving such complaints isn't as personalized as trying to work something out individually with the seller of the car. That's just simple pragmatism in dealing with large, diverse groups.


Agreed.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Sonal's analogy works. The analogy provided here Fail.
> 
> In a country where much is given, much is expected, all that is asked from the individual is the vote, maybe, just maybe, to act as a juror and a little cash.
> 
> Some begrudge their side of the deal, wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.


Good point, BigDL. You are in fine company with this understanding of what is required to live in a democratic society. I am glad to be able to say that I live in a country with people like yourself. Paix, mon ami.


"To those whom much is given, much is expected." 
— John F. Kennedy 

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Indeed Dr.G. "Are there no prisons.... Are there no workhouses"


‘Are there no prisons?”

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”


----------



## i-rui




----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> ... and a little cash.


This is the kind of head down, butt up, statement that just burns my backside. 

If only it was a "little cash".

It's 42 f-ing percent of my household income, 14% higher than the US. And the more the SOB's get, the more they want. While I deny no reasonable use of *my* money, when I see it pissed away on slopping this or the next or the last trough full of hogs it's no wonder people are just pissed off, angry and tired of the whole system.

If it was just 10%, 15%, maybe 20%, I'd have less issues. Now that it's getting scary close to 1:1, I'm thinking revolution is long overdue...

I'd head up a Bloc constituency in Alberta if they'd drop my taxes 20%.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> 42 f-ing percent


All I can say from that is that you must be doing pretty well. And therefore you can find sympathy between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary.







This is intended at least partially in humour; but if you're that high on the tax scale, I really don't think you have much to complain about.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> All I can say from that is that you must be doing pretty well. And therefore you can find sympathy between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary.


Nice, thx.

Did you even read the articles linked?



> The *average Canadian famil*y (with two or more individuals) will earn $92, 754 this year and pay $39,141 in taxes, representing more than *42%* of their income.


Emphasis mine. 

Using the above numbers, we're somewhere near average. So, because our household income is in the stated neighborhood, I'm supposed to feel good about getting fleeced? How the hell does that figger? 

The average mindset staggers...


----------



## i-rui

then you should probably be against corporate tax cuts so they can shoulder more of the revenue burden.


----------



## MLeh

i-rui said:


> then you should probably be against corporate tax cuts so they can shoulder more of the revenue burden.


Sometimes I feel like the 'tax and spend' people just don't get the concept of 'fiscal prudence'.


----------



## i-rui

MLeh said:


> Sometimes I feel like the 'tax and spend' people just don't get the concept of 'fiscal prudence'.


lol. sometimes i feel that Harper supporters don't.

$1.2 billion on the G20 weekend
$30+ billion on the f-35s
$15 billion+ on mega jails
largest deficit in Canadian history

if you're going to pull the "fiscal prudence" card, at least support a party that exhibits it.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> This is the kind of head down, butt up, statement that just burns my backside.


 Fortunately we have a pre-paid App for that. 



FeXL said:


> If only it was a "little cash".
> 
> It's 42 f-ing percent of my household income, 14% higher than the US. And the more the SOB's get, the more they want. While I deny no reasonable use of *my* money, when I see it pissed away on slopping this or the next or the last trough full of hogs it's no wonder people are just pissed off, angry and tired of the whole system.
> 
> If it was just 10%, 15%, maybe 20%, I'd have less issues. Now that it's getting scary close to 1:1, I'm thinking revolution is long overdue...
> 
> I'd head up a Bloc constituency in Alberta if they'd drop my taxes 20%.


Now what part of your taxes do you feel you are not receiving value for money?

The above mentioned pre-paid medical care is included in your tax bill. How many additional dollars would you be spending on medical insurance? I'm thinking that medical costs were not factored in to the 14% saving you mentioned.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> ...at least support a party that exhibits it.


Oh. And which one would that be?

'Cause you sure as hell ain't talkin' 'bout any political party currently extant in Canada...


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Now what part of your taxes do you feel you are not receiving value for money?


Oh, that's easy: None of them.

Period.


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> Oh. And which one would that be?
> 
> 'Cause you sure as hell ain't talkin' 'bout any political party currently extant in Canada...


i agree. and maybe if the Right got their act together and had a legitimate "fiscally conservative" party that weren't corporate whores and valued individual freedom then they might have a case for my vote.

but if the option is supporting corporate welfare or helping out other people with our tax dollars my support goes for the later. at least that is some measure of good.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, that's easy: None of them.
> 
> Period.


I agree.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> then you should probably be against corporate tax cuts so they can shoulder more of the revenue burden.


Honestly? There are aspects of a simple flat tax, including the elimination of most tax credits, deductions, and exemptions, that appeals-no more loopholes. 

There are many side benefits, as well: not the least of which would be to get rid of a sizable portion of the market currently required to keep our complicated tax system going, ie. downsizing Revenue Canada, etc.

However, that sacred cow will never be slaughtered in this country...


----------



## Lawrence

So...What are we going to talk about when the election is over and we are in a different minority government? (And no Lars, This isn't a troll message)


----------



## Dr.G.

Lawrence said:


> So...What are we going to talk about when the election is over and we are in a different minority government? (And no Lars, This isn't a troll message)


An interesting question. I would say that who is going to be the leader of the various parties, in that I bet my wife that three of the five leaders running now at the head of their party will not be there by Valentine's Day, 2012. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Honestly? There are aspects of a simple flat tax, including the elimination of most tax credits, deductions, and exemptions, that appeals-no more loopholes.
> 
> There are many side benefits, as well: not the least of which would be to get rid of a sizable portion of the market currently required to keep our complicated tax system going, ie. downsizing Revenue Canada, etc.
> 
> However, that sacred cow will never be slaughtered in this country...


Agreed again.


----------



## SINC

Lawrence said:


> So...What are we going to talk about when the election is over and we are in a different minority government?


That won't happen. It will be at the very least, the same.


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> Honestly? There are aspects of a simple flat tax, including the elimination of most tax credits, deductions, and exemptions, that appeals-no more loopholes.
> 
> There are many side benefits, as well: not the least of which would be to get rid of a sizable portion of the market currently required to keep our complicated tax system going, ie. downsizing Revenue Canada, etc.
> 
> However, that sacred cow will never be slaughtered in this country...


No exemptions???  Actually, after I filed my income tax, and received a whopping $417 refund, I played around with Turbo Tax, giving myself a million dollars of income in various ways (e.g., dividends, stock options, capital gains, etc), and actually sought out legal, semi-legal, pseudo-legal and shady deductions. Each way I found resulted in my paying less tax on a million dollars than what I paid as a salaried university professor. 

Still, an implementation of a flat tax rate would result in a reduction in tax rates, which would mean that individuals who earn higher would pay less. This would drastically reduce government revenues. Taking into consideration that most of the revenue generated is from income taxes the loss would be huge. If there is a uniform tax rate for individuals and corporations, the government is likely to lose a huge amount of revenue. If there is no backup revenue source, it's likely to have a catastrophic effect. 

So, it is the classic rock and a hard place, at least for me. I would love to see my taxes go down, but I do not want to see the resulting services reduced as well.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> So, it is the classic rock and a hard place, at least for me. I would love to see my taxes go down, but I do not want to see the resulting services reduced as well.


The flat tax could start at a revenue-neutral position. I don't like the idea that people who pay no tax at all can vote on what I give them. A flat tax puts a little of their skin in the game as well.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The flat tax could start at a revenue-neutral position. I don't like the idea that people who pay no tax at all can vote on what I give them. A flat tax puts a little of their skin in the game as well.


GST isn't a little skin in the game?


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> GST isn't a little skin in the game?


A pittance.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> The flat tax could start at a revenue-neutral position. I don't like the idea that people who pay no tax at all can vote on what I give them. A flat tax puts a little of their skin in the game as well.


What about now? If I made a million dollars but was able to get out of paying any taxes on this money, except for the sales tax I would have to pay with all the "toys" I could buy with this newfound wealth, you are saying I should not be allowed to vote???  :greedy:


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> What about now? If I made a million dollars but was able to get out of paying any taxes on this money, except for the sales tax I would have to pay with all the "toys" I could buy with this newfound wealth, you are saying I should not be allowed to vote???  :greedy:


With a flat tax, you would all pay.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> A pittance.


You asked for a little of their skin... you didn't say how much.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> You asked for a little of their skin... you didn't say how much.


You're right, Sonal. I concede.


----------



## mrjimmy

So much for the separation of Church and State.

Pro-life backers shaped Tory decision to ?defund? Planned Parenthood - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> So much for the separation of Church and State.


"Pro-life" is not a church.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> "Pro-life" is not a church.


Ok Mr. Literal.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Ok Mr. Literal.


"Separation of Church and State" was _your_ point.

But funding or defunding Planned Parenthood is entirely within the purview of elected representatives--this is not a sacred cow, so to speak.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> "Separation of Church and State" was _your_ point.
> 
> But funding or defunding Planned Parenthood is entirely within the purview of elected representatives--this is not a sacred cow, so to speak.


Church, religion, fundamentalist Christians, born-agains, fanatics... etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Church, religion, fundamentalist Christians, born-agains, fanatics... etc. etc. etc.


Why must anyone be any of these to defund Planned Parenthood?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Why must anyone be any of these to defund Planned Parenthood?


From the article:



> OTTAWA—*Pro-life supporters* successfully influenced an as-yet unannounced government decision to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, says a Conservative seeking re-election.
> Brad Trost, incumbent for Saskatoon-Humboldt, *addressed the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association’s annual convention *Saturday and thanked *its members for their help in killing federal funding for the group.*
> In a recording of the speech, obtained by the Liberals and provided to the _Toronto Star_ and _Le Devoir_, Trost *claims a number of parliamentary victories for the pro-life movement*, including a decision to deny funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation


----------



## Max

Say, is the election over yet?

[drums fingers, despairing]


----------



## FeXL

Dr.G. said:


> Still, an implementation of a flat tax rate would result in a reduction in tax rates, which would mean that individuals who earn higher would pay less. This would drastically reduce government revenues. Taking into consideration that most of the revenue generated is from income taxes the loss would be huge. If there is a uniform tax rate for individuals and corporations, the government is likely to lose a huge amount of revenue. If there is no backup revenue source, it's likely to have a catastrophic effect.


I disagree. There are many people in the uppermost tax brackets who currently pay little to no tax, due to various loopholes they are able to implement. Same with many corporations. One need only to look south to find egregious examples of this, but they exist in Canada, as well.

So some business will leave the country. Good. Don't let the door hit you on the a$$ on the way out. You probably weren't paying your fair share in the first place.

Personal, spousal, and child exemptions will still exist, but that's it.

Once _everybody_ starts paying taxes as they should, there will be as much or more revenue coming into gov't coffers with a lot less overhead involved. One of the links below indicates you could do your taxes on a recipe card. How nice would that be?

I take a look at how hard my wife & I work, the hours we put in, the sweat & labour it takes, all for the gov't to take 42%. Where is the incentive to push harder? Why push as hard as we do now, only to have that amount of cash taken away by the end of each & every year? The motivation to continue gets less & less each year.

Have a look here & here.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> From the article:


Does it bother you that the people who don't want to fund it are petitioning their MPs for religious reasons? What if they wanted to feed the hungry--for religious reasons? Would you find that offensive?


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Does it bother you that the people who don't want to fund it are petitioning their MPs for religious reasons? What if they wanted to feed the hungry--for religious reasons? Would you find that offensive?


People can petition all they want. What 'bothers me' as you put it, is that the Government bends to their will.

Also, feeding the hungry is doing good, defunding planned parenthood is not.


----------



## Max

The government is _supposed_ to be bending to the will of people, mrjimmy. All the freakin' time. Trouble begins when you realize maybe you and your people aren't _their_ people. So it goes.


----------



## mrjimmy

Max said:


> The government is _supposed_ to be bending to the will of people, mrjimmy. All the freakin' time. Trouble begins when you realize maybe you and your people aren't _their_ people. So it goes.


I realize that Max. It is only _their will_ I'm speaking of.

A religious based special interest group. The point of the article I posted.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I realize that Max. It is only _their will_ I'm speaking of.
> 
> A religious based special interest group. The point of the article I posted.


Special interest groups everywhere, all making their cases. You were really enthusiastic about this concept earlier in the day. Now you are trying to determine how the government should act, based on whether or not you imagine the group to be good.

Perhaps we should fund a few non-religious anti-abortion groups--just a few pennies from everyone. You won't miss them.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Special interest groups everywhere, all making their cases. You were really enthusiastic about this concept earlier in the day. Now you are trying to determine how the government should act, based on whether or not you imagine the group to be good.
> 
> Perhaps we should fund a few non-religious anti-abortion groups--just a few pennies from everyone. You won't miss them.


Really enthusiastic? I was simply asking you to explain yourself clearly (aka I was bored).

Our Country is full of many diverse peoples with many diverse beliefs and value systems. Keep the narrowly focused fundamentalist dogma out of policies that affect everyone. Is that so difficult to understand?

Love to meet these non-religious anti-abortionists btw.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Really enthusiastic? I was simply asking you to explain yourself clearly (aka I was bored).
> 
> Our Country is full of many diverse peoples with many diverse beliefs and value systems. Keep the narrowly focused fundamentalist dogma out of policies that affect everyone. Is that so difficult to understand?
> 
> Love to meet these non-religious anti-abortionists btw.


Most policies are based on dogma of one sort or another. This is democracy, where your money may go to support ideas you find appalling--or where money may be withdrawn from causes you cherish.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Most policies are based on dogma of one sort or another. This is democracy, where your money may go to support ideas you find appalling--or where money may be withdrawn from causes you cherish.


Lets just hope that the majority of Canadians find pro-lifers having any influence on policy at all to be appalling.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Lets just hope that the majority of Canadians find pro-lifers having any influence on policy at all to be appalling.


Why should pro-lifers be denied their voice? Part of the great parade of democracy. Can't be selective now, can we?


----------



## BigDL

I would imagine it is all connected with support for or against the matter under discussion.

Being selective when one may or may not advocate to prioritize the use of resources under the guise of concern for democracy when normally deploring the results of decisions arrived at by democratic means. 

It's interesting when one maybe opened minded and when is closed minded.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I would imagine it is all connected with support for or against the matter under discussion.
> 
> Being selective when one may or may not advocate to prioritize the use of resources under the guise of concern for democracy when normally deploring the results of decisions arrived at by democratic means.
> 
> It's interesting when one maybe opened minded and when is closed minded.


If enough people support the anti-abortion cause, then you will be on the immoral side, BigDL. This is the risk of using other people's money to push a social agenda.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

If anyone has watched the National tonight in Eastern Canada (still an hour before it airs here) but they are talking about a bit of a CROP poll earthquake in Quebec. You could see they were all taken aback.

Just read elsewhere that someone on Twitter leaked the poll numbers to be released officially tomorrow: CROP poll in Que: NDP 36%, BQ 31%, Con 17%. Libs 13%

If this is even slightly reflective of reality it could be a massive game changer.

At Issue - The National - CBC.ca Player


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If enough people support the anti-abortion cause, then you will be on the immoral side, BigDL. This is the risk of using other people's money to push a social agenda.


that's just the trouble. It's known that an overwhelming majority supports choice. But a small number of people want to control everyone else.

That's why our current model of majority governments, has to be scrapped. Proportional representation. 

But the right wing knows full well they'll never get that total control, ever again. Because Canada historical, has been center, to center left.

A huge problem for the real right wing parties like Harper and co.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If anyone has watched the National tonight in Eastern Canada (still an hour before it airs here) but they are talking about a bit of a CROP poll earthquake in Quebec. You could see they were all taken aback.
> 
> Just read elsewhere that someone on Twitter leaked the poll numbers to be released officially tomorrow: CROP poll in Que: NDP 36%, BQ 31%, Con 17%. Libs 13%
> 
> If this is even slightly reflective of reality it could be a massive game changer.
> 
> At Issue - The National - CBC.ca Player


Not to rain on Layton's parade, but the polls have been absolutely nuts lately. Up 10, down 10, sideways 20. Always fascinating, but what the Hell?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Not to rain on Layton's parade, but the polls have been absolutely nuts lately. Up 10, down 10, sideways 20. Always fascinating, but what the Hell?


I agree, polls are a problem more and more these days. Everyone knows that pollsters don't know how to conduct proper polling anymore because people use call display to avoid answering their phones due to telemarketing and many people often don't even have land lines anymore.

There seems to be a trend for Layton in PQ and elsewhere, but this would be huge if this is really an actual surge. Who knows what it means for the other parties. As Hebert says, it's probably really bad news for Iggy, but given the splits and if some of this NDP surge, if real, starts to move out of Quebec, it could be either good news or bad news for Harper depending on how it all breaks down at the local level.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

There's also an EKOS poll showing a lead in PQ for the NPD: NDP surges to top spot in Quebec,Bloc Québécois campaign flagging | iPolitics



> Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party has surged past the Gilles Duceppe’s faltering Bloc Québécois and is now in first place in Quebec, according to a poll conducted by Ekos Research and iPolitics.
> 
> The poll, conducted earlier this week, found the New Democrats have jumped 10 percentage points since the eve of the leaders debate to 31.1 per cent while the Bloc has dropped like a rock by 7.4 percentage points to 23.7 per cent.
> 
> The Liberals are steady at 20.6 per cent while the Conservatives have dropped slightly to 16.9 per cent.
> 
> While the margin of error is higher at the city level due to the smaller sample size, in Montreal the NDP is at 32.9 per cent while the Bloc is at 29.7 per cent.
> 
> While the The NDP surge is most dramatic in Quebec, it is certainly not contained to there. Nationally, the NDP is now effectively tied with the Liberals at 24.9 per cent to 25.8 per cent. Both continue to lag behind the Conservatives, who were preferred by 34.5 per cent of respondents.


----------



## Dr T

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I agree, polls are a problem more and more these days. ....


At least two or three times recently, I have answered the phone only to discover it is a poll. I doubt that the results of those calls are reflected in the published polls. I do not share private information, such as who I vote for, with a complete stranger over the phone. That is my personal solution to the polls.


----------



## Macfury

Maybe Iggy should step back and listen to Layton dictate HIS terms for a minority government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Dr T said:


> At least two or three times recently, I have answered the phone only to discover it is a poll. I doubt that the results of those calls are reflected in the published polls. I do not share private information, such as who I vote for, with a complete stranger over the phone. That is my personal solution to the polls.


I always wanted to get called for a poll. The only time I did, I was actually running out the door and couldn't answer their questions.

I may have been called recently, but it's hard to know, since we don't answer the phone anymore unless it's a recognized number. Such is the scourge of telemarketing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Maybe Iggy should step back and listen to Layton dictate HIS terms for a minority government.


There's a certain kind of Liberal Party of Canada smugness that still exists, even today after all the years of humiliation, that I wouldn't mind seeing wiped off their faces myself.


----------



## Dr T

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I always wanted to get called for a poll. The only time I did, I was actually running out the door and couldn't answer their questions.
> 
> I may have been called recently, but it's hard to know, since we don't answer the phone anymore unless it's a recognized number. Such is the scourge of telemarketing.


So just tell me your phone number and I will poll you!!


----------



## Dr.G.

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If anyone has watched the National tonight in Eastern Canada (still an hour before it airs here) but they are talking about a bit of a CROP poll earthquake in Quebec. You could see they were all taken aback.
> 
> Just read elsewhere that someone on Twitter leaked the poll numbers to be released officially tomorrow: CROP poll in Que: NDP 36%, BQ 31%, Con 17%. Libs 13%
> 
> If this is even slightly reflective of reality it could be a massive game changer.
> 
> At Issue - The National - CBC.ca Player


Right you are, GA. Now, it has to convert into votes and more seats.

PM Harper is here in NL since last night, but will not comment upon the polls. Because of our current weather, he might be stranded here for another day or so. We shall see if he says anything about this poll.


----------



## jimbotelecom

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If anyone has watched the National tonight in Eastern Canada (still an hour before it airs here) but they are talking about a bit of a CROP poll earthquake in Quebec. You could see they were all taken aback.
> 
> Just read elsewhere that someone on Twitter leaked the poll numbers to be released officially tomorrow: CROP poll in Que: NDP 36%, BQ 31%, Con 17%. Libs 13%
> 
> If this is even slightly reflective of reality it could be a massive game changer.
> 
> At Issue - The National - CBC.ca Player


Apparently this NDP surge in Quebec has legs. screature's riding in Gatineau is indicative of this surge. The Dippers think they have this seat.

I've been absent from this thread for the most part as my time is spent being the campaign manager for our local Green Party candidate. We will not win this riding but we're looking to do better than 10%. There are a couple of polls that we may actually win.The Liberals have an excellent candidate for the first time in over a decade but the CONS will likely take the riding again. I sense a slow shifting away from the CON agenda. 10 days to go.


----------



## SINC

How Iggy painted himself into a corner:

How Ignatieff fell into a Tory trap - The Globe and Mail


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> How Iggy painted himself into a corner:
> 
> How Ignatieff fell into a Tory trap - The Globe and Mail


Yes I read this early this morning. I have attended 4 all candidates meetings this week.
It's a first that the CON is showing up at all of these which is indicative of polling data saying that he's being seriously challenged for the first time in a decade.

The best question from the audience which received the most applause for the night went like this:

From 1939 until 1945 Canadians huddled together and worked to face the war effort. Amazing things were achieved and CD Howe created an efficient civil service. Canadians made a great sacrifice during that period.

Zip ahead to 2011 and Canada now faces complex, social, economic, ecological, and military problems. There is a great amount of subject matter expertise resident in all Canadian political parties. We could take experts from all parties and place them in government ministries to collaborate and solve our complex problems. Given our complex problems that need to be worked on why is the concept of coalition a bad one? 

Out of the crowd of 300 roughly 200 or so applauded long and loud. It was by far the most popular question/observation made this week.

I sense that there is a shift in central Canada and it is moving away from the CON agenda. When put properly - coalition is not a dirty word.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Maybe Iggy should step back and listen to Layton dictate HIS terms for a minority government.


Perhaps as Jack say "I will be Prime Minister."
and Iggy will dictate terms of support for an NDP lead coalition.


Ohhh! That thought has got to hurt as it sinks in 
:clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## BigDL

jimbotelecom said:


> Apparently this NDP surge in Quebec has legs. screature's riding in Gatineau is indicative of this surge. The Dippers think they have this seat.
> 
> I've been absent from this thread for the most part as my time is spent being the campaign manager for our local Green Party candidate. We will not win this riding but we're looking to do better than 10%. There are a couple of polls that we may actually win.The Liberals have an excellent candidate for the first time in over a decade but the CONS will likely take the riding again. I sense a slow shifting away from the CON agenda. 10 days to go.


I should consider besting the 10% threshold as a win.

It will certainly help build resources for the future.

In the next election I would consider coming in ahead of the present (in this election) third place party a win as well. 

Good luck winning support and growing your base and spreading your ideas and ideals.



Tommy Douglas said:


> "You can lock up a man or a mouse but you can not lock an idea."


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> I sense that there is a shift in central Canada and it is moving away from the CON agenda. When put properly - coalition is not a dirty word.


Very true. It is at the heart of a parliamentary form of government in a diverse country. This way, various groups have their say when the groups represent a majority of the voters, albeit with no one group having a majority. It worked for Lester Pearson, and it could work if Jack Layton was PM. We shall see.


----------



## BigDL

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If anyone has watched the National tonight in Eastern Canada (still an hour before it airs here) but they are talking about a bit of a CROP poll earthquake in Quebec. You could see they were all taken aback.
> 
> Just read elsewhere that someone on Twitter leaked the poll numbers to be released officially tomorrow: CROP poll in Que: NDP 36%, BQ 31%, Con 17%. Libs 13%
> 
> If this is even slightly reflective of reality it could be a massive game changer.
> 
> At Issue - The National - CBC.ca Player





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There's also an EKOS poll showing a lead in PQ for the NPD: NDP surges to top spot in Quebec,Bloc Québécois campaign flagging | iPolitics


All well and good but there is only one poll that counts and we shall have the results the morning of May 3rd where I live.

I still hold to my prediction that the results of this election will not be known until the last of the votes in BC and the Yukon are finally counted.

May our times be interesting.


----------



## jimbotelecom

BigDL said:


> I should consider besting the 10% threshold as a win.
> 
> It will certainly help build resources for the future.
> 
> In the next election I would consider coming in ahead of the present (in this election) third place party a win as well.
> 
> Good luck winning support and growing your base and spreading your ideas and ideals.


Thank you for your kind words. The Green Party has surpassed the NDP as #3 in the riding as of 2008. 10% or more will definitely be a win for us. I do hope Elizabeth May carries her BC riding over Lunn the CON. She would be excellent in parliament.


----------



## BigDL

That is surprising. You finished third and have not broken the 10% barrier.

I thought my riding of Fundy Royal was skewed because the Conservatives always win with over 50% of the vote.

The Conservatives were first with 51.63% of the vote;

The NDP were second with 23.73% of the vote;

The Liberals third with 17.32% of the vote;

And the greens with 7.32% of the vote.

Third place placement in all of New Brunswick's Federal ridings always bested the 10% threshold.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> All well and good but there is only one poll that counts and we shall have the results the morning of May 3rd where I live.
> 
> I still hold to my prediction that the results of this election will not be known until the last of the votes in BC and the Yukon are finally counted.
> 
> May our times be interesting.


Very wise, BigDL. I still contend that the trend in this election will be set here in NL, with the "winner" to be decided in Battleground ON and BC. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There's also an EKOS poll showing a lead in PQ for the NPD: NDP surges to top spot in Quebec,Bloc Québécois campaign flagging | iPolitics


Uhmm that's in *QC* GA not PQ.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Uhmm that's in *QC* GA not PQ.


PQ=Province du Quebec, I believe.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Apparently this NDP surge in Quebec has legs. screature's riding in Gatineau is indicative of this surge. The Dippers think they have this seat.
> 
> I've been absent from this thread for the most part as my time is spent being the campaign manager for our local Green Party candidate. We will not win this riding but we're looking to do better than 10%. There are a couple of polls that we may actually win.The Liberals have an excellent candidate for the first time in over a decade but the CONS will likely take the riding again. I sense a slow shifting away from the CON agenda. 10 days to go.


Nah' I'm not in the riding of Gatineau even though I am in "Gatineau" actually Aylmer (now part of Gatineau) my incumbent MP is dough head do nothing Marcel Proulx, a Lib. I would happily vote for the NDP if it could oust him. A Conservative in not going to win this riding any time soon and I sure as hell don't want a BQ MP so maybe I will vote strategically for the NDP this time around.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> PQ=Province du Quebec, I believe.


Hasn't been that for years now.... it is QC now, trust me I live here.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> PQ=Province du Quebec, I believe.


Parti Québécois = PQ. Le mouvement du PQ promeut la souveraineté, le progrès social et la promotion du français au Québec, Canada.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Hasn't been that for years now.... it is QC now, trust me I live here.


Screature, I would have to agree with Macfury on this point, since you just live there and he knows about such matters. So, accept the reality of you being incorrect on where you live.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> Nah' I will vote strategically for the NDP this time around.


Just an open question here, and I'm wondering if Screature is representative of a large portion of the voting public: Are you voting NDP as a protest vote or are you voting NDP because you like their policies? We are seeing a growing support for Mr. Layton and I'm thinking it maybe because we actually are beginning to trust him more than the leaders of the Big Two.....thoughts.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Just an open question here, and I'm wondering if Screature is representative of a large portion of the voting public: Are you voting NDP as a protest vote or are you voting NDP because you like their policies? We are seeing a growing support for Mr. Layton and I'm thinking it maybe because we actually are beginning to trust him more than the leaders of the Big Two.....thoughts.


I am voting for our sitting MP, Jack Harris of the NDP, here in St.John's East. I did so last election, and he won, unseating a Conservative MP. So, I like their policies, I really like Jack Harris, and I like their leader, Jack Layton. So, I am voting for the NDP regardless of what any polls say.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> Are you voting NDP as a protest vote or are you voting NDP because you like their policies?


I have historically voted NDP (or Green) because I like their policies. This time I'll be voting Liberal in an effort to prevent a conservative majority.

As is nicely illustrated in the videos here, our first past the pole system is a very poor way of running a democratic election, and necessitates this sort of strategic voting.


----------



## screature

> Nah' I will vote strategically for the NDP this time around.





Rps said:


> Just an open question here, and I'm wondering if Screature is representative of a large portion of the voting public: Are you voting NDP as a protest vote or are you voting NDP because you like their policies? We are seeing a growing support for Mr. Layton and I'm thinking it maybe because we actually are beginning to trust him more than the leaders of the Big Two.....thoughts.


Hey, don't slice and dice what I said Rps, that's not cool.

I said *maybe*. You cut and pasted what I said in a way I didn't say it.

But to answer you question, no I would be voting strategically to keep a BQ candidate from winning. If the Cons candidate had an ice cubes chance in hell of winning I would vote for her, but she doesn't. I can't stand the Lib incumbent, who I have voted for strategically in the past to keep the BQ out, but if the NDP stand a chance I would vote for her just to oust Marcel Proulx but keep a federalist MP.


----------



## Rps

Sorry Screature, it wasn't my intent to skew the quote and if it came across that way I apologize. But I do find it interesting how many are considering the NDP this time around and I'm thinking it's not just their policy.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Nah' I'm not in the riding of Gatineau even though I am in "Gatineau" actually Aylmer (now part of Gatineau) my incumbent MP is dough head do nothing Marcel Proulx, a Lib. I would happily vote for the NDP if it could oust him. A Conservative in not going to win this riding any time soon and I sure as hell don't want a BQ MP so maybe I will vote strategically for the NDP this time around.


It's Nycole Turmel who is polling well for the Dippers.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Uhmm that's in *QC* GA not PQ.


Oops. I stand corrected.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oops. I stand corrected.


No worries... just setting the record straight as I live in La Belle Provence. 

I have a good friend who is running for the NDP in Montreal so this is fabulous news if it continues to hold... he would be ousting a BQ incumbent so all the better.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

I'd probably vote NDP in most cases, but I have been voting strategically in my riding for the last few elections. The first time I tried it, I was all wrong, thinking the Green Party had a chance and it just split the non-Conservative vote.

I live in Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is now running against Gary Lunn. In the last election I cast my first vote ever for the Liberal Party, when environmentalist Briony Penn ran against Lunn. She came close, but a curious 7,000 votes for the NDP candidate who had withdrawn from the race skewered that.

In this riding, in the last few elections, I get the feeling that the voters who are not Con supporters are very interested in voting for anyone but Lunn. This time around the anti-Lunn vote has converged on Elizabeth May and that's how I'll be voting.

The main problem here is that the Gulf Islands part is only 25% of the riding and is probably the most left-wing area of BC outside of East Vancouver, but we are attached to Saanich, probably the most right-wing part of Vancouver Island. For anyone to beat Lunn it is no easy feat and requires that almost all those who are not Conservative vote strategically for the best positioned candidate to beat him. I'm not holding out a ton of hope that May can do it, but I think she'll at least come close.

I couldn't make the all-candidates meeting on our island last week, but I hear that E May completely obliterated the not very bright Lunn. Reportedly, even a hardcore Con supporter on our island stood up and told Lunn that he would be voting for May based on his performance.

Edit: I meant to add that Sidney, the town in Saanich where Lunn is from, has a nickname of "Calgary-by-the-sea".


----------



## groovetube

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes I read this early this morning. I have attended 4 all candidates meetings this week.
> It's a first that the CON is showing up at all of these which is indicative of polling data saying that he's being seriously challenged for the first time in a decade.
> 
> The best question from the audience which received the most applause for the night went like this:
> 
> From 1939 until 1945 Canadians huddled together and worked to face the war effort. Amazing things were achieved and CD Howe created an efficient civil service. Canadians made a great sacrifice during that period.
> 
> Zip ahead to 2011 and Canada now faces complex, social, economic, ecological, and military problems. There is a great amount of subject matter expertise resident in all Canadian political parties. We could take experts from all parties and place them in government ministries to collaborate and solve our complex problems. Given our complex problems that need to be worked on why is the concept of coalition a bad one?
> 
> Out of the crowd of 300 roughly 200 or so applauded long and loud. It was by far the most popular question/observation made this week.
> 
> I sense that there is a shift in central Canada and it is moving away from the CON agenda. When put properly - coalition is not a dirty word.


I suspect Canadians are beginning to warm up to the idea of a government based on cooperation of the other parties. Layton has been hammering home the idea that he is more than willing to work with any of the parties in the interests of Canadians. Iggy to a much lesser degree, but he has indicated he'd do so as well. The real island here is Harper. He has stood his ground and openly said he isn't willing to cooperate, and he is -only- interested in furthering -his- party's agenda as defined, and is willing to as he already has, cause a failure of parliament by not cooperating as Canadians have mandated him to do so with a minority government.

I disagree Iggy has fallen in any sort of trap, he simply has come out and openly said that the party who wins the most seats will form the next government (small detail many "dirty coalition" shriekers seem to gloss over...) and if that party refuses to work with the other parties as mandated, then he would offer to do what the minority government failed to do.

Now this is a bit of a risk on Iggy's part. If Harper is successful in his fear mongering, Iggy may fail here. But Canadians may be tired of Harper's insistence on total control, and be quite comfortable with voting for the other parties knowing there may not be another election should there e another vote of non confidence, but a government with the support of the other parties representing likely the majority of Canadians.


----------



## Rps

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks it is somewhat ironic that Harper is recanting the views of one of his candidates with respect to Planned Parenthood at a press op held in Conception Bay Newfoundland.......just sayin".


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks it is somewhat ironic that Harper is recanting the views of one of his candidates with respect to Planned Parenthood at a press op held in Conception Bay Newfoundland.......just sayin".


it's just you, Rps.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> it's just you, Rps.





Rps said:


> Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks it is somewhat ironic that Harper is recanting the views of one of his candidates with respect to Planned Parenthood at a press op held in Conception Bay Newfoundland.......just sayin".


+1

When hearing the question, Harper's littles fellas, likely jumped so far into his body cavity that they may stick in there to eventually to become ovaries. 

The last thing Harper wants is, to be called out on, all of the Conservative Candidate's policies being revealed.

He is willing show some but not all of the policies. He doesn't want too much light shone on all of the Conservative policies. Even the Policies the Conservative Candidates are willing to own up to such as jets and jails.

The last thing Harper wants to deal with are his hidden policies. 

Conservative supporters like it that way also, evidently.


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> I suspect Canadians are beginning to warm up to the idea of a government based on cooperation of the other parties.


I agree. So far, I think Canadians overall are really drawn to one particular party's platform or not. Generalizing heavily, I think overall we tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal... no one is really offering that.

So the idea of making the parties work together to find something that resembles that sounds pretty good. Discussion and compromise... very Canadian. 

Besides... contrary to what Iggy said in the English debates, there DOES seem to be a lot of bickering among the parties, and most of it seems to be over procedural and political details rather than actual policies and issues. It's annoying and unproductive. I think we'd all like them to shut up, stop making mountains out of molehills, and just get on with the governing. 

I don't think anyone truly cares if it's a coalition or not a coalition so long as stuff actually gets done.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> No worries... just setting the record straight as I live in La Belle Provence.
> 
> I have a good friend who is running for the NDP in Montreal so this is fabulous news if it continues to hold... he would be ousting a BQ incumbent so all the better.


:clap::clap::clap:

My mother was born and raised in Outremont, which, I believe, has the only member of the NDP in the House from Quebec.


----------



## dona83

Sonal said:


> I think overall we tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal... no one is really offering that.


As a left of centre party, the Liberals should have been moving towards this stance, but they haven't. 

Parliament this year is going to be like High School.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> As a left of centre party, the Liberals should have been moving towards this stance, but they haven't.
> 
> Parliament this year is going to be like High School.


High school??? More like Kindergarten ........... or even Pre-kindergarten. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## dona83

What Harper sweettalked in his interview with Mansbridge earlier this year...



> No, no. Look, Peter, I have spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party, have passionate views. They're all over the map. And you know, what I say to people, as you know, many people I know are pro-life. What I say to people, *if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you've got to change hearts and not laws*. And I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law.


His actions are not coinciding with his words.

Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says - The Globe and Mail



> A Conservative candidate has told constituents on the stump that the government has decided not to fund a family planning group – but his party quickly said no such decision had been made and distanced itself from his comments.
> 
> Brad Trost, who is running for re-election in the semi-suburban, semi-rural riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt, made the remarks during a speech to an evening banquet at a Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association convention last Saturday.
> 
> After thanking those who signed petitions to defund the International Planned Parenthood Federation, a group that provides assistance with birth control and maternal health, he told the audience how his office had spearheaded the campaign and how other MPs had helped him.
> 
> “Let me tell you, and I cannot tell you specifically how we used it but those petitions were very, very useful and they were part of what we used to defund Planned Parenthood, because it has been an absolute disgrace that this organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars,” he said in a recording of the speech released to the media by the Liberal Party.


Of course Harper denies it.

Any and all anti-abortion legislation ‘will be defeated,’ Harper declares - The Globe and Mail



> Stephen Harper is trying to lay to rest, once and for all, any notion that a Conservative government would reopen the abortion debate – after a Saskatchewan MP urged supporters to keep up the pressure to do just that.
> 
> “In our party, as in any broadly based party, there are people with a range of views on this issue,” Mr. Harper said Thursday when asked by reporters how Canadians could trust a Conservative government not to tamper with a woman’s right to an abortion.


Why outlaw abortion when you can simply defund it? Smooth move, Harper...


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> What Harper sweettalked in his interview with Mansbridge earlier this year...
> 
> 
> 
> His actions are not coinciding with his words.


He was here in St.John's this morning, and was pressed on this issue, and said basically the same thing. 

He also basically told us here in NL that with a Conservative majority government, NS and NL would get it's loan guarantee. A Conservative minority government .............. well, we were left to fill in the dots. It was not a threat, just a well planned and well worded notice to vote Conservative ................ or else. 

He has only visited three ridings here in NL, out of seven, the three ridings once held by Conservatives. They really believe that a victory in 2 or 3 of these ridings will cause a blue tide to sweep westward. We shall see.


----------



## i-rui

Harper basically mimics everything the Republican party does south of the border to whip his supporters into a frenzy and divide the country on marginal issues that hold more political clout then the real world consequences.

long census, gun control. abortion.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> High school??? More like Kindergarten ........... or even Pre-kindergarten. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


"Now children... play nice with each other..."


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> "Now children... play nice with each other..."


Miss Sonal, Stevie threw sand in my face ............. :-(
Miss Sonal, Stevie won't let me play with the blocks ........... :-(
Miss Sonal, Iggy won't let me be the king ............... :-(
Miss Sonal, Jack won't let me use his orange crayon ............. :-(
Miss Sonal .......................


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> "Now children... play nice with each other..."


LOL... why do we expect such decorum in Parliament when, if we take ehMac as an example, there is very little decorum here when it comes to politics.... There are a few who are willing to step beyond the partisan lines but for the most part it is just tossing partisan barbs back and forth.... 

Just sayin' if you are going to talk the talk then you should walk the walk and I see very little of it here. Seems to be a case of do as as say and not as I do.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> LOL... why do we expect such decorum in Parliament when, if we take ehMac as an example, there is very little decorum here when it comes to politics.... There are a few who are willing to step beyond the partisan lines but for the most part it is just tossing partisan barbs back and forth....
> 
> Just sayin' if you are going to talk the talk then you should walk the walk and I see very little of it here. Seems to be a case of do as as say and not as I do.


None of us are trying to take on the task of governing the nation....

Honestly though? I spend a lot of time on a US-based board, and politics comes up a lot as a topic. Perhaps that colours my judgment when I say that I've found ehMac, particularly this latest round of election discussions, to be remarkably civil....


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Miss Sonal, Stevie threw sand in my face ............. :-(
> Miss Sonal, Stevie won't let me play with the blocks ........... :-(
> Miss Sonal, Iggy won't let me be the king ............... :-(
> Miss Sonal, Jack won't let me use his orange crayon ............. :-(
> Miss Sonal .......................


Thank you for resetting my biological clock. :lmao:


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> None of us are trying to take on the task of governing the nation....
> 
> Honestly though? I spend a lot of time on a US-based board, and politics comes up a lot as a topic. Perhaps that colours my judgment when I say that I've found ehMac, particularly this latest round of election discussions, to be remarkably civil....


How is this relevant? I could care less what goes on in the US when it comes to their snipping... although some here seem to make quite a hobby of it.... and the political threads here extend WAYYYY beyond the current election.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> How is this relevant?


You were saying that there is very little decorum here when it comes to politics. I disagree, and actually find things quite civil... perhaps because my experience is coloured by my experience with political discussions elsewhere where it gets far, far worse than this.


----------



## Macfury

Personally, I like sniping a little, then watching the sour grapes after the election. Can I be more honest than that?


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> You were saying that there is very little decorum here when it comes to politics. I disagree, and actually find things quite civil... perhaps because my experience is coloured by my experience with political discussions elsewhere where it gets far, far worse than this.



Again it is not relevant. What matters is what happens here and if you are going to decry what goes on in Parliament then also decry the petulant posting that goes on here.

I am not pointing a finger at you personally Sonal but speaking generally. I don't see the decorum that you do, but then again maybe you have a thicker skin than I do. 

I see a lot of generalizations and partisanship on all fronts.... lets not pretend like we are somehow much better.... I think the level of partisanship represented here is typical of those who are politically engaged.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Again it is not relevant what matters is what happens here and if you are going to decry what goes on in Parliament then also decry the petulant posting that goes on here.
> 
> I am not pointing a finger at you personally Sonal but speaking generally. I don't see the decorum that you do, but then again maybe you have a thicker skin than I do.


See, I disagree. I don't think I have to act the way I would like the governing body of my country to act, because I have no intention of ever being part of that governing body--I'm utterly unsuited to it. This is why, despite having significant experience, I don't run to be on the board of my condo... I would be terrible at it, since a condo is essentially a democracy where a rental apartment building is a dictatorship, and I am used to being the dictator. 

But I would like to see better of them than I would of a group of random Canadians on the Internet, because they are the ones who've chosen to run for office.... and if someone is asking me to support them in a job, I would like them to show me that they are qualified to handle it. 

No one here is asking for my support in such a role... therefore, there's nothing much that I'd like to see from them or not. Discussing politics on this site is largely entertainment for me, and as such, is judged on a different standard.

But I know I've developed a much thicker skin over the past few years....


----------



## Rps

I agree with Screature on this point. But I wonder if the demonstration of partisanship is a learned phenomena. I seem to remember actual debating and wit in the house...long before cable news and the broadcasting of house sessions. You had to have something clever to say to get in the newspaper....now it appears that you have about 15 seconds to make an impression so it is like Little Johnny at the back of the class frantically waving his hands to demonstrate he has the answer. To be seen is what counts. Partisanship seems to be displayed rather than discussed. And with that comes the lack of civil behaviour.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> See, I disagree. I don't think I have to act the way I would like the governing body of my country to act, because I have no intention of ever being part of that governing body--I'm utterly unsuited to it. This is why, despite having significant experience, I don't run to be on the board of my condo... I would be terrible at it, since a condo is essentially a democracy where a rental apartment building is a dictatorship, and I am used to being the dictator.
> 
> But I would like to see better of them than I would of a group of random Canadians on the Internet, because they are the ones who've chosen to run for office.... and if someone is asking me to support them in a job, I would like them to show me that they are qualified to handle it.
> 
> No one here is asking for my support in such a role... therefore, there's nothing much that I'd like to see from them or not. Discussing politics on this site is largely entertainment for me, and as such, is judged on a different standard.
> 
> But I know I've developed a much thicker skin over the past few years....


So in fact you should have less invested in the opinions you hold and the manner in which you express them relative to those who do nothing else and for whom it is not "entertainment". Again I am in no way pointing a finger at you but more at others here and myself when it comes to the "intensity" of the discourse. 

Perhaps you have not been involved in those threads but I have seen things here get very personal indeed in terms of "decorum", in fact more personal than is even allowed in Parliament so we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to level of decorum that exists here when it comes to political threads.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Perhaps you have not been involved in those threads but I have seen things here get very personal indeed in terms of "decorum", in fact more personal than is even allowed in Parliament so we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to level of decorum that exists here when it comes to political threads.


I have seen that here. And I have seen much worse elsewhere.

ETA: No one is dragging in anyone spouses, children, genitalia, prior personal events, sex life, or medical diagnoses into this.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> No one is dragging in anyone spouses, children, genitalia, prior personal events, sex life, or medical diagnoses into this.


Indeed. A couple of times I've been asked to tone it down a notch or two here, and I've had to remind myself that this is a much more gentle/polite forum than other places I frequent on the net.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I have seen that here. And I have seen much worse elsewhere.
> 
> ETA: No one is dragging in anyone spouses, children, genitalia, prior personal events, sex life, or medical diagnoses into this.


Well if you frequent places where the participants participate in such activities/postings all I can say is I recommend you stop going to them. I have not and relative to what I see going on in Parliament vs. what goes on here it is not much, if any better.

I don't think comparing ourselves to the worst of what humanity has to offer is much of an endorsement... Let's compare ourselves to the "best" instead and see how we stack up...

And even with that I don't think it is all that relative, we need to look in our own back yard and see how we fair there relatively speaking.

We can almost always do better and almost always do worse when compared to "others"... it is what we choose to do on a daily basis with those that are in our immediate contact that is most important.


----------



## BigDL

Rps said:


> I agree with Screature on this point. But I wonder if the demonstration of partisanship is a learned phenomena. I seem to remember actual debating and wit in the house...long before cable news and the broadcasting of house sessions. You had to have something clever to say to get in the newspaper....now it appears that you have about 15 seconds to make an impression so it is like Little Johnny at the back of the class frantically waving his hands to demonstrate he has the answer. To be seen is what counts. Partisanship seems to be displayed rather than discussed. And with that comes the lack of civil behaviour.


Sometimes the media as well the publics predilections for skewering politicians.

The Mansbridge interview with Iggy. Iggy provided a forthright answer even perhaps a bit of a civics lesson on coalition. The issue of coalition or non-issue of coalition raises its head once again.

Now a more experienced politician would have steered clear of the coalition question by a country mile. A more experienced would have ignored the question and stayed on message track.

No one said well at last here is a politician that answered the questioned that was asked of him or her. Jack Layton answered questions in a forthright manner when first elected leader of the NDP. Today he is more popular because he now answers like a politician than when he answered like a citizen.

Now who's fault is it how the politicians answer questions? 
Politician?;
Media?;
Citizens? or;
is it a combination? and a combination of how many elements?


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Well if you frequent places where the participants participate in such activities/postings all I can say is I recommend you stop going to them. I have not and relative to what I see going on in Parliament vs. what goes on here it is not much, if any better.


What for? It makes me much more relaxed and happy about the civility on this board. 

While I understand that we can always do better, there's still a value is seeing how much worse it can be and appreciating how good things are here... meaning both ehMac and Canada in general.

I mean (getting back on topic a little) our political leaders are sniping and bickering with each other. They aren't killing each other. For all our complaints and concerns about how we can do better, Canada is still a pretty great place to live. Relative to the rest of the world, our problems are small. 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better, but we should realize that for all the issues we have, democracy is not dead here. I don't care how much someone hates Harper, having him as Prime Minister again is highly unlikely to be the end of democracy in Canada.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> What for? It makes me much more relaxed and happy about the civility on this board.
> 
> While I understand that we can always do better, there's still a value is seeing how much worse it can be and appreciating how good things are here... meaning both ehMac and Canada in general.
> 
> I mean (getting back on topic a little) our political leaders are sniping and bickering with each other. They aren't killing each other. For all our complaints and concerns about how we can do better, Canada is still a pretty great place to live. Relative to the rest of the world, our problems are small.
> 
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better, but we should realize that for all the issues we have, democracy is not dead here. I don't care how much someone hates Harper, having him as Prime Minister again is highly unlikely to be the end of democracy in Canada.


Yep there are much, much worse places to live, I learned that a long time ago. I see no reason to go there if I don't have to... I have nothing to learn from the ill will of human beings at this point.

Canada *is* a great place to live and we *do* have it great here relatively speaking, so I see your points as at worst being mute or at best only serving to further reinforce what I am saying or at least trying to say, but maybe not making myself understood.


----------



## arminia

*NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects*

NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube

arminia said:


> NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects - The Globe and Mail


fantastic. When I got to this... 


> and the Tories considerably diminished, not even close to a majority government.


That made my day.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> All well and good but there is only one poll that counts and we shall have the results the morning of May 3rd where I live.
> 
> I still hold to my prediction that the results of this election will not be known until the last of the votes in BC and the Yukon are finally counted.
> 
> May our times be interesting.





arminia said:


> NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects - The Globe and Mail


I reiterate 2nd time today May 2nd is the only poll that counts


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> I reiterate 2nd time today May 2nd is the only poll that counts


well one can hope right? 

My hope, is to see Harper lose some seats as a message, and the NDP to really do well and show the liberals, they just aren't all that.


----------



## dona83

The orange revolution??


----------



## Lawrence

This could be an interesting election for us old time gamers...


"You don't know Jack"


----------



## wwj

screature said:


> Again it is not relevant. What matters is what happens here and if you are going to decry what goes on in Parliament then also decry the petulant posting that goes on here.
> 
> I am not pointing a finger at you personally Sonal but speaking generally. I don't see the decorum that you do, but then again maybe you have a thicker skin than I do.
> 
> I see a lot of generalizations and partisanship on all fronts.... lets not pretend like we are somehow much better.... I think the level of partisanship represented here is typical of those who are politically engaged.


I'd say I share your point of view on this screature. Back in March I posted this: 

_"As I wend my way through the thread, much of it reminds me of Question Period. Bickering back and forth, finger-pointing, accusations, it's this, no it's that. Sounds a lot like the truth-twisters in Ottawa, who can bend anything the way they want."_


Just ehCanajuns doin' our thing.

However, saying something doesn't make it so.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> well one can hope right?
> 
> My hope, is to see Harper lose some seats as a message, and the NDP to really do well and show the liberals, they just aren't all that.


You know the message the NDP restated since before the election call is that they are willing to work with the other leaders and parties to make Parliament work.

Since the debate for sure, Layton has pointed out, time and again, the Conservative's and the Liberal's messages has been which Party has the right to govern.

I was watching a NDP candidate from Nova Scotia on CBC's Power and Politics when asked by Evan Solomon who should Govern in a minority Parliament he argued with the host and insisted it up to Canadians on May 2nd who should govern and let them make that choice. On May 3nd the citizen will be constitutionally on solid ground. 

After listening to the Conservative and Liberal back and forth incriminations as to had the right to govern, the NDP candidate said the two Parties act as if they have a god given right govern.

Perhaps this is the message that is resonating with many voters is co-operation. The citizens are tired of being taken for granted.

In Nova Scotia when the NDP "won" a majority of seats and formed government it wasn't that Nova Scotians became rabid lefties, it was more the voters finally grew tired of the attitude of the "Two Old Parties."

As Noted earlier in this thread, Canadians don't vote Governments in so much as they vote Governments out.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Thank you for resetting my biological clock. :lmao:


Try teaching young children, Sonal. That usually helps ........... :love2:


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I reiterate 2nd time today May 2nd is the only poll that counts


True. Still, it is nice to hear good news for the NDP every now and then. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> The orange revolution??


I call it an "orange wave". Still, I contend that NL will either start a "blue wave" or an "orange wave" across Canada. Of course, if the Liberals maintain their hold on the 6 of 7 NL seats, then it might be the start of a "red wave". 

Still, my money is down on 2 NDP seats here in NL (up from 1 currently held), 2 Conservative seats (up from 0) and the Liberals losing 3 of the 6 seats they currently hold.

We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc

NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects - The Globe and Mail

Yikes!

So is this a reflection of disgust with the Libs and Cons?

I must admit I'm surprised at Quebec - not that they are not in agreement with NDP policies but that they seem to want a national party representing them.

Is this last gasp for all of the current leaders?


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> So is this a reflection of disgust with the Libs and Cons?
> 
> I must admit I'm surprised at Quebec - not that they are not in agreement with NDP policies but that they seem to want a national party representing them.
> 
> Is this last gasp for all of the current leaders?


So disgusted that the Conservatives will win triple the number of seats.  

The same poll shows the conservatives going up. :lmao:

What are you thinking?

The libs and bloc are melting down.


----------



## PenguinBoy

Vandave said:


> The libs and bloc are melting down.


That would appear to be the case.

The Liberals have run another lackluster campaign, so their loss of support isn't a total surprise, but I *am* surprised by the erosion of support for the Bloc in QC.

It will be interesting to see if the NDP surge holds until the election. If anything, the uptick in support may be understated somewhat given their support among the 18-34 age group. How many in that age group even have a landline? Given that polls tend to be conducted by phoning landlines, many younger voters are likely excluded from the polls.

It will also be interesting to see how an uptick in support for the NDP translates into seats. For example, in my riding the NDP could triple their support and not change the outcome of the election - but in many of the swing ridings a few hundred votes make all the difference.


----------



## Vandave

PenguinBoy said:


> That would appear to be the case.
> 
> The Liberals have run another lackluster campaign, so their loss of support isn't a total surprise, but I *am* surprised by the erosion of support for the Bloc in QC.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the NDP surge holds until the election. If anything, the uptick in support may be understated somewhat given their support among the 18-34 age group. How many in that age group even have a landline? Given that polls tend to be conducted by phoning landlines, many younger voters are likely excluded from the polls.
> 
> It will also be interesting to see how an uptick in support for the NDP translates into seats. For example, in my riding the NDP could triple their support and not change the outcome of the election - but in many of the swing ridings a few hundred votes make all the difference.


The country is so polarized that national polls don't really mean much anymore. You almost have to looknriding to riding.


----------



## PenguinBoy

Vandave said:


> The country is so polarized that national polls don't really mean much anymore.


True.



Vandave said:


> You almost have to looknriding to riding.


Here's one riding by riding look:


> Current Prediction:
> Changed: 2011-04-21 09:19:51
> 
> Conservative Party
> Parti Conservateur	114
> 
> Liberal Party
> Parti Liberal	64
> 
> N.D.P.
> N.P.D.	27
> 
> Bloc Quebecois	38
> 
> Too Close	65
> Total	308


source: Canada Federal Election 2011 - Election Prediction Project

65 seats too close to call, it will be interesting to see how those are distributed. Another Tory government is still a safe bet, but a majority is looking less likely - 40 / 65 of the "too close to call" seats will be tough...


----------



## MacDoc

Harper lap puppies do have remarkable rosie glasses Vandave 
How - you get the Cons moving UP from THIS clearly stated in the article I quoted



> The EKOS numbers show remarkable gains for Mr. Layton, with the NDP winning 24 more seats nationally and *the Tories considerably diminished*, not even close to a majority government. *Under the EKOS scenario the Tories would see their seat count reduced from 143 to 134*; the Liberals would gain five more seats, going from 77 to 82. The Bloc Québécois would lose in Quebec – going from 47 to 32 seats.


is a remarkable bit of 1984 spin even for a Con supporter.....


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah I'd say another Con minority with a different mix and certainly Harper's demise, perhaps Iggies - I suspect a big NDP showing might preserve Jack.
Knives may be out in Quebec


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> The country is so polarized that national polls don't really mean much anymore. You almost have to looknriding to riding.


I'm seeing various prognostications and predictions all over the map right now. Many of the models used rely on relatively static voting patterns and just plug in percent changes in polling to come up with numbers. If the NDP surge is real, then the models go out the window and the only way to make any sense of what is going on is really good knowledge of the local situations, riding by riding, as you say.

So right now I wouldn't have any confidence in anyone's prediction of seat totals. This could mean some loss to Harper's seat totals, but it could also mean that in some places the vote splits will favour him, especially in Ontario and he could increase his seat total without increasing Con vote percentages or even with reductions to the percentage. I certainly wouldn't rule out a Tory majority still.

The problem with the polling is that while the percentages may have some validity on a national level, the sample size for provincial totals is usually much smaller and less valid and there is not much polling that is done at the local level where the races are won or lost. I keep hearing that some of the parties do private polling at targeted local ridings, but they seem to keep that under wraps.

The thought of all these Con, Lib and Bloc campaign managers eating Tums by the pound and tightly clenching their nether regions strikes me as very humorous though. beejacon


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Yeah I'd say another Con minority with a different mix and certainly Harper's demise, perhaps Iggies - I suspect a big NDP showing might preserve Jack.
> Knives may be out in Quebec


Harper only goes if the party wants him to go. I don't. 

Winning three minority governments with a factored electorate is an accomplishment. I predicted ten years of minority governments about six years ago. What I got wrong was predicting liberals winning every other one.

The liberals are bleeding away their base level of support. It's a long hard road to recover from that. When you have to bring chretien out to campaign, you know it's bad. Pretty soon they will parade the corpse of Trudeau.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Harper lap puppies do have remarkable rosie glasses Vandave
> How - you get the Cons moving UP from THIS clearly stated in the article I quoted
> 
> 
> 
> is a remarkable bit of 1984 spin even for a Con supporter.....


I was referring to the ipsos poll which has cons at 43 percent. That poll shows the NDP surge.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> Harper only goes if the party wants him to go. I don't.


Harper's hard-right persona hidden under a blue sweater-vest or behind a piano singing Imagine does not fool quite enough Canadians. The Cons would now have won a solid majority under a slightly more centrist leader. I think if he doesn't get the majority, he is toast.


----------



## Vandave

PenguinBoy said:


> True.
> 
> 
> Here's one riding by riding look:
> 
> source: Canada Federal Election 2011 - Election Prediction Project
> 
> 65 seats too close to call, it will be interesting to see how those are distributed. Another Tory government is still a safe bet, but a majority is looking less likely - 40 / 65 of the "too close to call" seats will be tough...


I think this is the only way to really predict the outcome.

But, these guys aren't predicting any riding changes. They are just highlighting ridings that were previously close. Those are most likely to have changes, but it doesn't really capture changes in the last few years.


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Harper's hard-right persona hidden under a blue sweater-vest or behind a piano singing Imagine does not fool quite enough Canadians. The Cons would now have won a solid majority under a slightly more centrist leader. I think if he doesn't get the majority, he is toast.


I am not a party member but I would probably join to support him. It's not just about getting a majority. He has done a lot for the party. Who would have thought harper would be pm just 10 years ago, nevermind three governments? With the Bloc and NDP, a majority is very difficult to achieve. Until Quebec goes Con or Lib, we are most likely stuck with minorities.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Harper's hard-right persona hidden under a blue sweater-vest or behind a piano singing Imagine does not fool quite enough Canadians. The Cons would now have won a solid majority under a slightly more centrist leader. I think if he doesn't get the majority, he is toast.


Right, and if if Layton weren't a socialist, he's be PM right now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> I am not a party member but I would probably join to support him. It's not just about getting a majority. He has done a lot for the party. Who would have thought harper would be pm just 10 years ago, nevermind three governments? With the Bloc and NDP, a majority is very difficult to achieve. Until Quebec goes Con or Lib, we are most likely stuck with minorities.


I think with our electoral system it IS all about getting a majority. A majority government gives the PM almost unassailable power. All the various captains and foot soldiers standing behind Harper are doing so because they thought he could eventually finagle that majority. He still might do this, although it won't likely be a massive one. There are still enough votes in the centre to deliver that, either in Quebec or elsewhere. Those in the centre don't want to see massive changes to the status quo and for many Harper looks like a US-style Republican, which is to the right of that centre. He has tried to disguise himself as a centrist, but to anyone paying attention he is not.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Right, and if if Layton weren't a socialist, he's be PM right now.


Kind of true, but while Harper is on the right side of his party, with still a few Red Tories left who aren't Mike Harris cast-offs or Reform leftovers, Layton is not on the left side of his party. If he could drag the NDP into a New Labour Blairist kind of direction (which would not happen) he'd actually have a good shot at it. But he would be well placed to provide support to Liberal minority, a la Douglas during the Pearson era.

But if the recent polls have some validity, maybe he's headed for Stornoway.


----------



## i-rui

No Majority means Harper's done by the next election. If the Cons end up with LESS seats and a Coalition government takes the reigns then the knives will be out for him much sooner.

Can't happen quick enough IMO.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> He has tried to disguise himself as a centrist, but to anyone paying attention he is not.


All this love for centrism. Blechhh.


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If he could drag the NDP into a New Labour Blairist kind of direction (which would not happen) he'd actually have a good shot at it.


Good luck with that. Look who they just elected in BC. Will he need a sex change to be allowed to run with the affirmative action (bigoted action) policy?

The NDP rejected the third way many years ago. There are too many single interest groups in the party for that to happen. 

Layton seems like a good guy. Congrats if he places second.


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think with our electoral system it IS all about getting a majority. A majority government gives the PM almost unassailable power. All the various captains and foot soldiers standing behind Harper are doing so because they thought he could eventually finagle that majority. He still might do this, although it won't likely be a massive one. There are still enough votes in the centre to deliver that, either in Quebec or elsewhere. Those in the centre don't want to see massive changes to the status quo and for many Harper looks like a US-style Republican, which is to the right of that centre. He has tried to disguise himself as a centrist, but to anyone paying attention he is not.


I don't think so. I have been a donator and soldier but I don't expect a majority. 

I would rather have a minority and stick with principles. 

Harper is nowhere near a Republican. Not even close.


----------



## MacDoc

*The loose cannon*



> *What if every youth actually voted?*
> 
> You wanna scare the hell out of the people that run this country, this time around, do the unexpected — take the 20 minutes out of your day and do what young people all over the world are dying to do: vote
> 
> — Rick Mercer, CBC’s Rick Mercer Report
> 
> There are 3 million eligible voters under the age of 25 in Canada. If patterns hold true, a little more than one in three will cast a vote in the upcoming federal election — further proof that our young are among the least engaged in modern democratic countries.
> 
> But what if every single one of our youth listened to Rick Mercer, who called out the nation’s young, in one of his trademark rants, to exercise a franchise that has for them grown rusty from disillusionment, disengagement and political ignorance.
> 
> *What would Canada look like?*
> 
> One scenario: A Liberal minority and boosts for the Dippers and the Greens (maybe an actual seat) — if, that is, you place stock in small sample polls and expect non-voting youth to vote like voting youth, for which there is no proof.
> 
> Another scenario, one confirming the belief of some disenfranchised youth: Nothing would change. And that would just sting, no?
> 
> What does seem possible is that if youth turned to the degree that their parents and grandparents do — say 65 per cent — they would most likely be difference makers, especially in tight ridings.
> 
> Polling suggests a youth vote favours the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens — and hurts the Conservatives. The youth vote becomes even more powerful when one includes everyone under 30.
> 
> _“You’d have bigger clout,” says pollster Frank Graves, founder of EKOS Research Associates. “You might see 20 seats change hands, even 30.”_


more

What if every youth actually voted? - thestar.com


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> I don't think so. I have been a donator and soldier but I don't expect a majority.
> 
> I would rather have a minority and stick with principles.
> 
> Harper is nowhere near a Republican. Not even close.


funny enough, his policies are remarkably similar to the republicans!

Somewhere between the huge tax cuts to the wealthy, hiked spending on the military, superjails, etc, lurks a republican.


----------



## DEWLine

That _is_ the continuing fear.


----------



## groovetube

unless that's your politic, and you like the republicans. But a party trying to pretend they're more moderate than they are, that speaks volumes.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> unless that's your politic, and you like the republicans. But a party trying to pretend they're more moderate than they are, that speaks volumes.


It's the Canadians who believe Harper is a centrist that worries me.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> It's the Canadians who believe Harper is a centrist that worries me.


Left of Obama--he's a Centrist. Problem is there's really nobody right of Harper who is really fiscally conservative. Canada's so used to having left/centre-left dandies running the place that the term "centrist" has become almost meaningless.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> What if every youth actually voted?


What if every youth did their homework and made their beds?


----------



## Vandave

Why do we allow people like Rick Mercer to live off the public dime? He just shills for the NDP and libs. Shameless.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> funny enough, his policies are remarkably similar to the republicans!
> 
> Somewhere between the huge tax cuts to the wealthy, hiked spending on the military, superjails, etc, lurks a republican.


Get real. He's left of Obama. Even on social issues, they are pretty similar.

Imagine if Harper went on and on about god like Obama does.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> What if every youth did their homework and made their beds?




What are you trying to do, Macfury??? Corrupt our kids???

Actually, that would not be a bad idea ............. along with going out to vote.

Recent polls in two of the ridings in and around St.John's have it as "too close to call", in part because of the youth vote. Rick Mercer, who is from St.John's, was here on the two times PM Harper was here, and his "get out the youth vote" has really caught on. Thus, no one quite knows how they might vote, since it is felt that some may vote like their parents usually vote, and two of these ridings are traditionally Conservative ............ or they will vote for whomever they choose. Thus, the "unknown factor" of the youth vote is at play here, which I see as a very good thing. :clap:

Sadly, I am slowly approaching the age of the "dependable senior vote", people of a certain age who vote more often than any other demographic. 

Still, I shall vote any and every chance I get ........... until I am gone from the "mortal coil". :-(

Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him, Macfury.


----------



## mrjimmy

Vandave said:


> Why do we allow people like Rick Mercer to live off the public dime?


I think that every time I hear Don Cherry.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I think that every time I hear Don Cherry.


I think Don could survive without the CBC--Mercer would be begging for coin in Graffiti Alley.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I think Don could survive without the CBC--Mercer would be begging for coin in Graffiti Alley.


Oh I think he would do fine MF. As long as there are intelligent people in Canada. Without that, Cherry would reign supreme!


----------



## PenguinBoy

Macfury said:


> I think Don could survive without the CBC--Mercer would be begging for coin in Graffiti Alley.


I think both of them would do just fine without the CBC.


----------



## SINC

I think we would all do just fine without the CBC.


----------



## PenguinBoy

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So right now I wouldn't have any confidence in anyone's prediction of seat totals. This could mean some loss to Harper's seat totals, but it could also mean that in some places the vote splits will favour him, especially in Ontario and he could increase his seat total without increasing Con vote percentages or even with reductions to the percentage. I certainly wouldn't rule out a Tory majority still.


Agreed. This election was looking kind of dull, now it is starting to get interesting.


----------



## PenguinBoy

i-rui said:


> No Majority means Harper's done by the next election. If the Cons end up with LESS seats and a Coalition government takes the reigns then the knives will be out for him much sooner.


If the Conservatives win a weak minority and a coalition takes the reigns i expect:

We will be going back to the polls soon. I can't see any of the opposition parties cooperating enough to form a stable coalition.
The coalition experiment will hurt the parties involved come the next election. I know how a Westminster parliament works - it doesn't matter. The public perception of a "coalition of losers" is not good right now.


----------



## Dr.G.

"No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district," Elections Canada says on its website.

"Social media growth has been very high in this campaign," Grace Lake, a spokesperson for Elections Canada, said on Wednesday.

Under the news rules for this election, "results disseminated to an individual's friends through Facebook's email service would not be considered public transmission," Lake said.

Social media face strict election night rules - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

So, if Dr.T. in BC sends me a PM here in ehMacLand wanting to know the result of the NL vote, and I send him the results via a PM, and not in a public thread, that is not a violation of Elections Canada rule, or a way of getting ehMax in trouble since it is his site?

Last election I got a flood of PMs wanting this info from the NL results, especially since the Conservatives lost three ridings that they had held previously.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Get real. He's left of Obama. Even on social issues, they are pretty similar.
> 
> Imagine if Harper went on and on about god like Obama does.


excuse me? "left of Obama? I think someone else needs to get real here. That's simply ridiculous.

Harper's policies are clearly similar to the republicans. To suggest Harper is further left of Obama is really, being less than truthful.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I think we would all do just fine without the CBC.


If Harper gets his majority, I think he should relish in all the things the righteous right want him to do. kill the CBC, allow the abortion debate to "go there", (since he actually can;t do anything about it really), build the superjails, and spend like he has for the last 5 years, he'll never balance the budget without slashing and really pissing off a huge number of Canadians in the process, and the regular Canadians will never see those promises he promised -after- he balances the budget. That way, in 4 years, Canadians will really know what he is truly about, because we all know, that that will be a certain end to any conservative government, for a very, very long time.

If you think the majority of Canadians would be happy to see the CBC killed off, absolutely, giv'er a go. See how that works for them. 

I find it somewhat interesting that the real conservative right, just assumes the rest of Canada, y'know, the majority of Canadians, are somehow just like them. What a rude awakening that'll be when Canadians figure that out.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> excuse me? "left of Obama? I think someone else needs to get real here. That's simply ridiculous.
> 
> Harper's policies are clearly similar to the republicans. To suggest Harper is further left of Obama is really, being less than truthful.


If PM Harper is left of President Obama, and some in the US are calling President Obama a socialist, what does that make PM Harper??? You mean we have a communist as our prime minister????


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> If PM Harper is left of President Obama, and some in the US are calling President Obama a socialist, what does that make PM Harper??? You mean we have a communist as our prime minister????


I'll vote Vandave's post, most out there post of this thread.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> That way, in 4 years, Canadians will really know what he is truly about, because we all know, that that will be a certain end to any conservative government, for a very, very long time.


You mean just like the current demise of the corrupt Liberal government, likely to be the biggest loser in this election? The NDP will be delighted with your prognosis.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> You mean just like the current demise of the corrupt Liberal government, likely to be the biggest loser in this election? The NDP will be delighted with your prognosis.


yup, absolutely. And the NDP -are- delighted with this.

One correction though. You seem to be still considering the liberals as a corrupt liberal "government". They haven't formed a government in over 5 years, nor at this point, does it appear they will anytime soon. They're having trouble running as a party at this point.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I'll vote Vandave's post, most out there post of this thread.


Well, Vandave is a moderate ............ so that must make you an extremist!!! 

Luckily, when PM Harper was here in St.John's the other day, he suggested that we clean things up for Earth Day ............ and to point out the extremists in our midst.

I point to gt as an extremist, spreading rumors and false claims about our great leader. He has obviously not read the chairman's "little blue book" and is NOT following the party line. 

"War is a continuation of politics, and there are at least two types: just (progressive) and unjust wars, which only serve bourgeois interests. While no one likes war, we must remain ready to wage just wars against imperialist agitations."

"Arrogance, lack of achievement after a prosperous period, selfishness, shirking work, and liberalism, are all evils to be avoided in Canada's development. Liberalism is taken to mean that one may avoid conflict or work in order to be more comfortable for the moment, while the problem continues to grow."


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> yup, absolutely. And the NDP -are- delighted with this.
> 
> One correction though. You seem to be still considering the liberals as a corrupt liberal "government". They haven't formed a government in over 5 years, nor at this point, does it appear they will anytime soon. They're having trouble running as a party at this point.


No need for the correction at all. They _were_ a corrupt Liberal government when they met their demise. Get it now?


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> excuse me? "left of Obama? I think someone else needs to get real here. That's simply ridiculous.
> 
> Harper's policies are clearly similar to the republicans. To suggest Harper is further left of Obama is really, being less than truthful.


Put their policies side by side. I did this a couple years ago on ehmac and found them two be two peas in a pod. Of course, the CBC won't tell you that.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No need for the correction at all. They _were_ a corrupt Liberal government when they met their demise. Get it now?


Well you were referring to the current liberal fall in relation to the NDP's rise in fortunes (in the polls anyway). They've been the liberal party, not government for years now.

And yes, thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious, that the liberal government from years past, were brought down to it's knees as a corrupt, out of touch party that needed to be removed from power.

Fast forward to now, the relevant, it seems according to the polls, Canadians just aren't warming up to the liberals still. And it still remains to be seen whether they will to Harper, after 3 tries. Though through vote splitting and the recent rise in NDP support, they may get lucky.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Well, Vandave is a moderate ............ so that must make you an extremist!!!
> 
> Luckily, when PM Harper was here in St.John's the other day, he suggested that we clean things up for Earth Day ............ and to point out the extremists in our midst.
> 
> I point to gt as an extremist, spreading rumors and false claims about our great leader. He has obviously not read the chairman's "little blue book" and is NOT following the party line.
> 
> "War is a continuation of politics, and there are at least two types: just (progressive) and unjust wars, which only serve bourgeois interests. While no one likes war, we must remain ready to wage just wars against imperialist agitations."
> 
> "Arrogance, lack of achievement after a prosperous period, selfishness, shirking work, and liberalism, are all evils to be avoided in Canada's development. Liberalism is taken to mean that one may avoid conflict or work in order to be more comfortable for the moment, while the problem continues to grow."


Now I didn't refer to the person, just the post or idea.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> Now I didn't refer to the person, just the post or idea.


Too late, gt. You have been exposed. OK, boys and girls, I'll bring the feathers ........ someone bring the peanut butter and jam. Let's show gt how we deal with extremists here in ehMacLand. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> Well, Vandave is a moderate ............ so that must make you an extremist!!! : "


That I am. I am a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative. Don't push things down my throat and I will do likewise. The left wing has gone too far in this country by creating a Nanny state. It's unfair to take all my hard earned money and waste it on bureaucrats and hair brained ideas. The bottom 50percent pay no tax. So yes, I do consider those who wish to push this lunacy even further to be extremists.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> If Harper gets his majority, I think he should relish in all the things the righteous right want him to do. kill the CBC, allow the abortion debate to "go there", (since he actually can;t do anything about it really), build the superjails, and spend like he has for the last 5 years, he'll never balance the budget without slashing and really pissing off a huge number of Canadians in the process, and the regular Canadians will never see those promises he promised -after- he balances the budget. That way, in 4 years, Canadians will really know what he is truly about, because we all know, that that will be a certain end to any conservative government, for a very, very long time.
> 
> If you think the majority of Canadians would be happy to see the CBC killed off, absolutely, giv'er a go. See how that works for them.
> 
> I find it somewhat interesting that the real conservative right, just assumes the rest of Canada, y'know, the majority of Canadians, are somehow just like them. What a rude awakening that'll be when Canadians figure that out.


 They all will be...after the re-education camps...well the survivors.


----------



## groovetube

the bottom 50% pay no tax?

It seems to me, Harper is doing absolutely nothing about the middle class shouldering the country's tax burden, save for some fabled promises deferred to after the next election.


----------



## DR Hannon

SINC said:


> No need for the correction at all. They _were_ a corrupt Liberal government when they met their demise. Get it now?


Yes, because no Conservative government (PC) has ever been shown to be corrupt in this country! Really? Do not tell me that the current Conservatives are completely clean either. 

Instead of debating anything meaningful we are now in a cycle of "my mother is better than your mother". When the fact is when it comes to politics they are all whores!


----------



## groovetube

it -is- interesting after hearing about the liberals for so long, to watch conservatives still believing their party isn't corrupt, and a re prudent spenders, when in fact, clearly, they've been the biggest spenders to date.

Sometimes it's just better to pretend


----------



## SINC

DR Hannon said:


> Yes, because no Conservative government (PC) has ever been shown to be corrupt in this country! Really? Do not tell me that the current Conservatives are completely clean either.


I made no such claim in that post. I merely noted that the last Liberal government was corrupt.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> If PM Harper is left of President Obama, and some in the US are calling President Obama a socialist, what does that make PM Harper??? You mean we have a communist as our prime minister????


Both are crony capitalists with socialist public policies.


----------



## Max

The general tenor of these discussions is most - ahem - bracing. I think it must be reflective of how sick Canadians are of federal elections.

At the same time it's shaping up to be a truly interesting election, so that tempers things somewhat for me. I'll be glad when it's over... all the extra noise added into the signal just becomes tiresome.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> They all will be...after the re-education camps...well the survivors.


Careful with what you say, BigDL ............... Room 101 awaits you and your kind. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> The general tenor of these discussions is most - ahem - bracing. I think it must be reflective of how sick Canadians are of federal elections.
> 
> At the same time it's shaping up to be a truly interesting election, so that tempers things somewhat for me. I'll be glad when it's over... all the extra noise added into the signal just becomes tiresome.


The tenor is no different than it's always been. Such are political discussions. It's a hell of a lot worse in other paces. I'd say it's relatively sane in general.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> The general tenor of these discussions is most - ahem - bracing. I think it must be reflective of how sick Canadians are of federal elections.
> 
> At the same time it's shaping up to be a truly interesting election, so that tempers things somewhat for me. *I'll be glad when it's over... all the extra noise added into the signal just becomes tiresome*.


Indeed I have posted the same sentiment a couple of times now. I don't know how the Americans can do it with the duration of their campaigns....


----------



## Max

True enough. A fair amount of bluster and stand-offishness at times but no one is demanding a duel at dawn so I suppose I should be content with that.


----------



## Rps

I think the recent polls are interesting, but I also agree with BigDL on this, the only one that counts is May 2nd.

The key to this election is the number 12. To me it is illogical to think that the Cons will keep all their seats and pick up 12, I know there are many where I live who almost certainly would like to dump one CabMin. I'm thinking that Helena might make the number actually 13. So if the NDP pick up from the Bloc it is now open to who the minority government might be headed by ... I'm actually beginning to think not Harper. So the question is: is it possible for an NDP minority? Not sure if they have the horses but they seem to be sapping from the Cons, Libs and Bloc almost equally....very interesting don't you think.


----------



## kps

I think the surge in polls of the NDP is the direct result of Canadians rejecting the current leadership of the Liberal Party...nothing more.

Most Canadians are supportive of Harper's handling of the economy and I think that is the major election issue. I also think that both, the NDP and Cons, will make inroads in Ontario.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> I think the recent polls are interesting, but I also agree with BigDL on this, the only one that counts is May 2nd.
> 
> The key to this election is the number 12. To me it is illogical to think that the Cons will keep all their seats and pick up 12, I know there are many where I live who almost certainly would like to dump one CabMin. I'm thinking that Helena might make the number actually 13. So if the NDP pick up from the Bloc it is now open to who the minority government might be headed by ... I'm actually beginning to think not Harper. So the question is: is it possible for an NDP minority? Not sure if they have the horses but they seem to be sapping from the Cons, Libs and Bloc almost equally....very interesting don't you think.


Good points, Rp. As I have said before, watch NL, ON and BC. NL will start a trend, and Battleground ON and BC shall determine a majority/minority status for one of the three main national parties. Quebec is also becoming a most interesting political arena. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> I think the surge in polls of the NDP is the direct result of Canadians rejecting the current leadership of the Liberal Party...nothing more.
> 
> Most Canadians are supportive of Harper's handling of the economy and I think that is the major election issue. I also think that both, the NDP and Cons, will make inroads in Ontario.


It also seems a rejection of the other parties as well, certainly the bloc. Some who may have considered swinging from the liberals to the CPC are seeing another choice, the NDP.

otherwise we'd be seeing a dramatic rise in cpc numbers. we aren't.


----------



## Rps

KPS, your thoughts on Harper's handling of the economy is an interesting thought...I wonder if it is almost hegemonic ... after all did he actually do anything to take credit for our current state....that issue really remains to be seen and may come down to one's ideological beliefs. For me, doing nothing, in a governmental sense, may seem like doing something, but how can a leader take credit for doing nothing....Vote for me I did nothing....not sure I agree that ALL of our so called economic success was a direct result of the Harper government.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Careful with what you say, BigDL ............... Room 101 awaits you and your kind. Paix, mon ami.


Yes we know we're the first of the disappeared, I shall save a soft place for the intellectuals who are soon to follow.


----------



## kps

Not really my thoughts, RPS, I was reiterating what many polls indicated, which was approval of Harper's handling of the economy. Our strong dollar is also an indiction that the rest of the financial worlds would agree. Whether it's all smoke and mirrors, that I do not know.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Yes we know we're the first of the disappeared, I shall save a soft place for the intellectuals who are soon to follow.


Well, in that case, I am going to bury my four university degrees and play dumb.

I shall have my little copy of Chairman Stephen's Little Blue Book in hand, but since I can't read, I shall have to listen to it as a pod cast on my iPod Nano. 

See you then and there, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Yes we know we're the first of the disappeared, I shall save a soft place for the intellectuals who are soon to follow.


Why would the proles go first?


----------



## Vandave

kps said:


> I think the surge in polls of the NDP is the direct result of Canadians rejecting the current leadership of the Liberal Party...nothing more.


Maybe, but this could also be a long term slide and erosion of their natural support levels. The Liberal Party just really seems to be out of touch. I don't know what they stand for. They still have some old guard MPs in their ranks who should be turfed. It goes beyond just their leadership. The last three elections are the worst for Liberals in the history of the country. Their problems are deeper than just Iggy.



kps said:


> Most Canadians are supportive of Harper's handling of the economy and I think that is the major election issue. I also think that both, the NDP and Cons, will make inroads in Ontario.


I have some belief in the idea of a group conscience and group decision making. We don't think or support parties in a vacuum. It's possible that the NDP rise is group conscience shift in reaction to a possible Conservative majority. The group conscience would prefer an NDP opposition over the Liberals as the NDP are more likely to be a stronger social voice. Quebec may very well be that bell-weather with voters shifting from Bloc to NDP, possibly in response to a potential Conservative majority.

Or maybe this is just airy fairy hippy thinking on my part.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Why would the proles go first?


Actually, it should be the intellectuals and free-thinkers who should go first, since they are the ones who might foster tendencies towards protests and independent thought. Of course, the Thought Police would soon identify them and their expressed thoughts, especially if they were using iPhones that could be tracked. iPads might become the new telescreens, and serve as new tracking devices as well. 

Yes, if the past is any indication, rounding up the intellectuals and free-thinkers who still utilize "Oldspeak" and speak of things like freedom, liberty and justice, are the first get rounded up and taken off to ............... 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## kps

Vandave, your point about some fearing a Con majority is valid and that is also a factor in the NDP surge. It has been said that the NDP is the conscience of Canadians, but most of us dread the thought of them ever being in power. A NDP opposition would certainly make for an interesting parliament.


----------



## Max

You _alway_s slay the intellectual dragons first. Get rid of them and the proles can be manipulated at will. Really, to be on the safe side you must get rid of the teachers, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, students - and let's not forget all the independent thinkers - you know, that nasty 'question authority' bunch who are forever rabble-rousing. In their place you hire good new obedient goons and they become the teachers, the stewards, the shepherds of the flock. No further credentials necessary! Just a demonstration of fervent adoration of and obedience to 'the dear leaders' and you're good to go! Instant _New Society._


----------



## CubaMark

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

Apple commercial spoofs are soooooo last decade.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Apple commercial spoofs are soooooo last decade.


Saying something is soooooo last decade is soooooo last decade.


----------



## Macfury

Yes. Including that phrase is a sly comment on the aged nature of the spoof format, buried within the critique itself. I see it was not lost on you.


----------



## Max

The new turn this thread has taken is so clever I feel it shall soon turn me inside out.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> The NDP rejected the third way many years ago. There are too many single interest groups in the party for that to happen.
> 
> Layton seems like a good guy. Congrats if he places second.


I wasn't suggesting that I would be in favour of a Blairist direction for the NDP, I think the so-called third wave is just a way of turning social democrats into value-free power mongers, as we saw with Tony Blair.



Macfury said:


> All this love for centrism. Blechhh.


I don't love centrism either, but it's a fact of political life in Canada. He who owns the centre wins. 

Even though Harper tries to pretend he's a centrist and some fall for it, the fact that he batted passionately for the hard-right team up until 2006 makes those who are paying attention doubt his new-found conversion to centrism. 

@ both Vandave and MF -- Harper to the left of Obama? That's the funniest line I've heard for days. Don't make me pull out my "If Obama and Harper had a child" photoshop mash-up again. 

But interestingly, Obama is in a position in the US where he comes from a left-of-centre background, but the political centre there is to the right of Canada's. So he is like Harper in that he has to pretend to be near the political centre there to gain power. Those on the right who call him a Marxist are exaggerating, but I think that he is probably closer to a Canadian NDPer, but has to wear the clothes of a US centrist. So in their stated positions on paper they may look to be in similar camps, but the reality of who they are is far different. Those on the right have good reason to be suspicious of Obama, he's not what he says he is.

Man this thread really motors along. I'm going to have to get up at 4 am to keep up with you Easterners.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Why would the proles go first?





Dr.G. said:


> Actually, it should be the intellectuals and free-thinkers who should go first, since they are the ones who might foster tendencies towards protests and independent thought. Of course, the Thought Police would soon identify them and their expressed thoughts, especially if they were using iPhones that could be tracked. iPads might become the new telescreens, and serve as new tracking devices as well.
> 
> Yes, if the past is any indication, rounding up the intellectuals and free-thinkers who still utilize "Oldspeak" and speak of things like freedom, liberty and justice, are the first get rounded up and taken off to ...............
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


As an agitator for free trade unions and a socialist I am thinking I should be in an earlier cull than "then they came for me." 

The order is not really the issue though.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> As an agitator for free trade unions and a socialist I am thinking I should be in an earlier cull than "then they came for me."
> 
> The order is not really the issue though.


Socialists are the friends of dictators the whole world over--you get a pass.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> As an agitator for free trade unions and a socialist I am thinking I should be in an earlier cull than "then they came for me."
> 
> The order is not really the issue though.


True. Well, mon frere, we shall stand arm-in-arm when they come for us. They may silence our physical bodies, but not our thoughts and ideas. Those thoughts and ideas shall live on, since even they can't silence the truth. 

As Woodie Guthrie once said, "So long, it's been good to know you." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## i-rui

Where They Stand


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Socialists are the friends of dictators the whole world over--you get a pass.


Harper may seem a smiling & benevolent friend of yours, you're welcome to your choice.

I shall not be lulled by such reassurance into being a prole.


----------



## Dr T

Dr.G. said:


> ... watch NL, ON and BC. NL will start a trend, and Battleground ON and BC shall determine a majority/minority status for one of the three main national parties. ...


Here on SaltSpring Island, it seems that most voters go to the advance polls, which happen to fall this weekend. So we may actually start a trend here, but of course nobody will know til the votes are counted at the end of the day (Pacific Standard Time) on May 2. 

(I can just imagine the trend-setting, if the Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, happened to be first past the post in this riding, and that was announced to the country before voting started in NL even.)


----------



## Dr.G.

Dr T said:


> Here on SaltSpring Island, it seems that most voters go to the advance polls, which happen to fall this weekend. So we may actually start a trend here, but of course nobody will know til the votes are counted at the end of the day (Pacific Standard Time) on May 2.
> 
> (I can just imagine the trend-setting, if the Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, happened to be first past the post in this riding, and that was announced to the country before voting started in NL even.)


No announcements are allowed until the night of the 2nd of May when polls close here in NL. We are still 4 1/2 hours before you, Dr.T. I think that the trend shall be started here, a twist might happen in Quebec, and then it is a fight to the finish in ON and then BC. Interesting to see that BC actually matters this election. I always hated it when there was a declared winner based on the ON results. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

Well, I went out and voted in the advance poll today .... looks like a large turn out, not a good sign for the incumbents historically. Was talking to a guy who had a hot dog push card....he was exercising his franchise too.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Well, I went out and voted in the advance poll today .... *looks like a large turn out, not a good sign for the incumbents historically*. Was talking to a guy who had a hot dog push card....he was exercising his franchise too.


I'm not sure why you are saying that... I know from some friends who are working on Con campaigns that they are encouraging people to get out to the advanced polls and this is where Cons are the incumbent. Why do say "historically" a large advance poll turn out does not bode well for the incumbent? I have never heard that before.


----------



## Rps

Screature, I've worked many elections and it is always a bad sign when the advance is crowded...never known an election where there hasn't been a big shift when the advancers roll out...these are the ones who want to make their voices heard I think....only time will tell.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, I've worked many elections and it is always a bad sign when the advance is crowded...never known an election where there hasn't been a big shift when the advancers roll out...these are the ones who want to make their voices heard I think....only time will tell.


Hmmm, Ok.... funny though that the Con organizers are pushing to get people to the advance polls.


----------



## Rps

Screature with the way things are going in this election, and remember all parties think they will hold on to the majority of their existing seats, the Cons are going after an increase of 13. But, there seems to be a mixed emotion in this one. People don't like Harper or Iggy, Mr. Layton seems to be the most likeable, and Giles appears to have his hands full. so all organisations are out arm twisting to ensure their sheets capture the potential voters.


----------



## Macfury

Lots of advance voting in the Democrat rout of 2010.


----------



## groovetube

Do ya think maybe there'll be a real backlash against our socialist government?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Do ya think maybe there'll be a real backlash against our socialist government?


No.


----------



## steviewhy

Well I was wavering between Harper & Layton but finally made a decision and went to the advance poll and voted for The NDP. Go Jack go!


----------



## groovetube

I've heard what long lines there were for the advance polls, a good sign in any event, if voters are really interested in this election and votes.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I've heard what long lines there were for the advance polls, a good sign in any event, if voters are really interested in this election and votes.


I am tempted to go to our advance poll at noon, when it opens today. Should be interesting to see what, if any, lines there might be since there are two ridings in and around St.John's that are hotly contested amongst the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives. We shall see.


----------



## Sonal

Voted in the advance as well.... long lines, though from what I was overhearing it sounds like there was a bit of an organizational mishap at the polling station, so it's hard to say what caused the lines.

Have been thinking about why in past elections, the NDP's rise in popularity has not translated into ridings, and I think it's simply that fears of vote-splitting leading to a Conservative candidate leads people to hold their nose and vote Liberal... somehow, I'm not getting that sense this time around. Maybe it's because for the first time in my life I didn't vote Liberal.


----------



## Vandave

steviewhy said:


> Well I was wavering between Harper & Layton but finally made a decision and went to the advance poll and voted for The NDP. Go Jack go!


I'll sign you up early for reeducation camp.


----------



## adagio

This rise in NDP popularity has me wondering, if elected, will Bob Rae cross the floor to the NDP which is where he rightfully belongs anyway.


----------



## Sonal

adagio said:


> This rise in NDP popularity has me wondering, if elected, will Bob Rae cross the floor to the NDP which is where he rightfully belongs anyway.


Hard to say... if Iggy doesn't do well this election--and it doesn't look like he will--then Rae's likely the next choice for Liberal leadership... so does he cross the floor back to his roots, or does he hang on and try to take over Liberal party?

Or... does he take over the Liberal party and try to Unite the Left/Centre casting himself as leader?


----------



## BigDL

*Conservative Majority? I think not!*

Harper and the Conservatives are getting desperate. This morning when asked Harper said the "Conservatives have been running this attack ad since January" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PYTd52pT28

Too funny! Somebody is lying.

CBC Story on Conservative's attack on Layton


----------



## Sonal

BigDL said:


> Harper and the Conservatives are getting desperate. This morning when asked Harper said the "Conservatives have been running this attack ad since January"
> 
> Too funny! Somebody is lying.


It's pretty funny when the Conservatives have to run attack ads against the NDP.

I don't think it will work here though. Layton has reputation of good credibility with voters. I mean, if he were truly power-hungry, why would he head up the NDP for so many years? He could have, I don't know, crossed the floor to the Liberal party or something...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

I just love it when all the conventional wisdom spouting pundits are confounded. It was great to see the look on the faces of the CBC "At Issue" panel when Mansbridge hit them with the bombshell of that Quebec poll showing the NDP taking first place there.

Now the campaign managers for the Bloc, Cons and Libs must be freaking right out at the thought that the voters might upset their various applecarts.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Harper and the Conservatives are getting desperate. This morning when asked Harper said the "Conservatives have been running this attack ad since January"
> 
> 
> 
> CBC Story on Conservative's attack on Layton


I guess you haven't been keeping up....

Projection shows Tories would win 201 seats for strong majority


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I just love it when all the conventional wisdom spouting pundits are confounded. It was great to see the look on the faces of the CBC "At Issue" panel when Mansbridge hit them with the bombshell of that Quebec poll showing the NDP taking first place there.
> 
> Now the campaign managers for the Bloc, Cons and Libs must be freaking right out at the thought that the voters might upset their various applecarts.


I would be very happy if the NDP decimated the Liberals and and the Bloc in this election....

With the swelling tide and the fact that the Con candidate doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell of winning in my riding my wife and I *are* voting (probably tonight) for the NDP candidate. Helping to prevent the BQ from winning the seat and tossing the do nothing Lib Marcel Proulx out on his fat ass... if I can participate in that outcome I would be very happy indeed!

Also as I have mentioned before I have a very good friend running for the NDP in Montreal who is a terrific fellow. If he can oust the BQ incumbent I would be very, very, very happy indeed.

Additionally, if there is not a Con majority I would love to see Ignatieff have to go with hat in hand to see Layton and negotiate the terms of the agreement as to who would be PM in a coalition..... I would just love to see him and the Libs have to eat humble pie.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> I guess you haven't been keeping up....
> 
> Projection shows Tories would win 201 seats for strong majority


While I don't rule out a Con majority happening given the current instability in the polling and the apparent surge of the NDP, I doubt that this widely reported prognostication has much validity. Seat projections are now out the window, they are based on plugging in old vote totals and then adding on current polling. With an abrupt shift in polls like this the models are toast. This one was based on the highly unlikely Ipsos poll giving the Cons 43%. It's an outlier.

If the Cons can manage a majority, I think it's more likely to be a slim one.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> I guess you haven't been keeping up....
> 
> Projection shows Tories would win 201 seats for strong majority


The conventional wisdom if a campaign goes negative it is because the Party is not reaching voters.

With the infinite possibilities of splits of popular vote in many close contests in a variety of ridings indeed the Conservatives may get their much coveted majority, however at this point I don't think anyone, can say with any certainty, what the seat outcomes of the election will be.

I think that we shall have to wait for the vote count, of close races on the West Coast to ascertain the final seat counts of each of the Parties.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> While I don't rule out a Con majority happening given the current instability in the polling and the apparent surge of the NDP, I doubt that this widely reported prognostication has much validity. Seat projections are now out the window, they are based on plugging in old vote totals and then adding on current polling. With an abrupt shift in polls like this the models are toast. This one was based on the highly unlikely Ipsos poll giving the Cons 43%. It's an outlier.
> 
> If the Cons can manage a majority, I think it's more likely to be a slim one.





BigDL said:


> *The conventional wisdom if a campaign goes negative it is because the Party is not reaching voters.*
> 
> With the infinite possibilities of splits of popular vote in many close contests in a variety of ridings indeed the Conservatives may get their much coveted majority, however at this point I don't think anyone, can say with any certainty, what the seat outcomes of the election will be.
> 
> I think that we shall have to wait for the vote count, of close races on the West Coast to ascertain the final seat counts of each of the Parties.


My only real point is this is a constantly shifting target and we shall have to wait and see, this election is turning out to be more interesting than I think anyone thought at the outset. 

BigDL seemed to be definitive in his post about the non-possibility of a Con majority with very little actual data to back it up other than a YouTube video, so I was posting to scoff at his post as it appeared to be based on nothing at all really. BigDL, campaigns go negative becuase it has been shown statistically to be effective... that is it that is all.

I have said it before and I will say it again polls are virtually meaningless... The only polls that count are on election day, advance polls and special ballets, other than that the rest is just speculation and sure we can have "fun" discussing those possibilities but it is no more meaningful than predicting who will win the Stanley Cup.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I guess you haven't been keeping up....
> 
> Projection shows Tories would win 201 seats for strong majority


awesome. If we see more of this stuff, it should have the, er, 'desired effect'. 

When I got to the bloc sinking to 4 seats, I almost spit out my coffee laughing.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> awesome. If we see more of this stuff, it should have the, er, 'desired effect'.
> 
> When I got to the bloc sinking to 4 seats, I almost spit out my coffee laughing.


Intriguing... so you are suggesting that Ipsos Reid seat projection has a hidden agenda and as pollsters they have a "desired effect"....?

What is also intriguing is that the Bloc sinking to 4 seats is laughable to you... for me as a Quebec it is all too real and if anywhere near real it would be a huge improvement.... I guess the only seat projections that mean anything to you and the nation are relevant to Ontario and what is in your own backyard.

I dare say that if the IR seat projections favoured your interests you would be all over it with: :clap: :lmao: :love2:  ....


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Intriguing... so you are suggesting that Ipsos Reid seat projection has a hidden agenda and as pollsters they have a "desired effect"....?
> 
> What is also intriguing is that the Bloc sinking to 4 seats is laughable to you... for me as a Quebec it is all too real and if anywhere near real it would be a huge improvement.... I guess the only seat projections that mean anything to you and the nation are relevant to Ontario and what is in your own backyard.
> 
> I dare say that if the IR seat projections favoured your interests you would be all over it with: :clap: :lmao: :love2:  ....


I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that there was a conspiracy at all! Stand down!

I merely suggested these sort of headlines have up until now spooked the electorate almost everytime. And yes, despite what opinion I may have, I find the idea in reality, of the bloc dropping to 4 seats rather laughable at this point. With both the liberals and conservatives really trailing in Quebec especially. Are you suggesting the NDP will sweep Quebec?

And no, if someone told me the liberals were suddenly showing they were poised to form a minority government I'd still laugh. So there's no need to get huffy and start pointing the partisan finger already.


----------



## Max

Please... not enough emoticons in this thread, can hardly follow it... we need more.

________________________________________

I believe these polls are often stacked - the outcomes pertain to the way questions are framed. Polls during the fever pitch of the last week of an election are meant to stir the electorate and sway undecided voters. They are a distracting sideshow.

My sense is that it's all over the map right now. Big wild card out there.

As for Quebec, even if the NDP surge is real, I believe separatist fantasies simply go dormant for a time, only to return when whatever political currents fan those flames again. I don't see the 'improvement,' as Screature puts it, lasting too terribly long. If the demographics change up sufficiently over the next couple of decades, perhaps... maybe the old guard will die off and the kids will be alright with Quebec being but another province in Canada. Maybe. But in the meantime the independent streak is alive and well in Quebec.

Alberta is not unlike Quebec in this manner. Both have their historical difficulties with the gang in Ottawa. Both have strong cultures with deep historical ties. One has particular vision of Canada, one has a particular vision of a nation called "Quebec." Some of the doctrine sounds eerily similar, for that matter.


----------



## Sonal

Max said:


> If the demographics change up sufficiently over the next couple of decades, perhaps... maybe the old guard will die off and the kids will be alright with Quebec being but another province in Canada.


I have been quietly wondering to myself if this is part of what's happening with the reputed NDP surge in Quebec... the BQ and the NDP are fairly similar politically except for the whole federalist/separatist issue. I have been wondering if there's a bit of the younger voters turning to the older generation and saying "Yeah dad, seperatisme, whatever." *eyeroll*

But I really don't know enough of about Quebec culture to say.


----------



## Max

I've been wondering the same thing. I've been spending a fair bit of time in Montreal over the past few years, but that hasn't given me a deep sense of what's going on politically. If I spoke French comprehensively it would help. I am just guessing that the separatist cause is getting old and hoary and that a fellow like Duceppe isn't exactly a young lion ready to lead the charge for an independent Quebec.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> I have been quietly wondering to myself if this is part of what's happening with the reputed NDP surge in Quebec... the BQ and the NDP are fairly similar politically except for the whole federalist/separatist issue.  I have been wondering if there's a bit of the younger voters turning to the older generation and saying "Yeah dad, seperatisme, whatever." *eyeroll*
> 
> But I really don't know enough of about Quebec culture to say.


I think that this is a fairly accurate speculation, Sonal.


----------



## Dr.G.

I just got back from voting in the advance poll with my wife. Our riding is held by Jack Harris, the lone NDP MP for NL, along with 6 Liberals. The district has pockets of support, with my district being a strong NDP section of the riding. The district just next to mine is a pocket of Conservative support. There was a long line at my district table to vote early ............ and no one at the other district table that usually goes Conservative.

I know that this is totally unscientific, but the Elections Canada person at my table said that voting has been brisk to heavy since yesterday at his table. With Jack Harris receiving 77% of the vote from my district last election, this is a good sign for his reelection. 

Still, it is in the other two St.John's ridings that have a three-way battle going on. PM Harper has been to this part of NL twice ............... the same PM Harper who told the Globe and Mail just before the last federal election "I don't need Newfoundland and Labrador to form a government." Guess he has changed his tune. We shall see if those other two ridings return to being Conservative held ridings, which they have been since NL joined Confederation in 1949 .............. or if one of them goes for the NDP for the first time ever. 

Thus, this could be, as I keep contending, the start of a blue or an orange surge westward. We shall see.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that there was a conspiracy at all! Stand down!
> 
> I merely suggested these sort of headlines have up until now spooked the electorate almost everytime. And yes, despite what opinion I may have, I find the idea in reality, of the bloc dropping to 4 seats rather laughable at this point. With both the liberals and conservatives really trailing in Quebec especially. Are you suggesting the NDP will sweep Quebec?
> 
> And no, if someone told me the liberals were suddenly showing they were poised to form a minority government I'd still laugh. So there's no need to get huffy and start pointing the partisan finger already.


What is the "*desired *effect" that you were referring to... please explain.... desired implies an intention.... please explain...


----------



## groovetube

well I make no secret of the fact I don't want a majority government, not by Harper, and certainly not by any other party for that matter. So to me, that would be the 'desired' effect.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> I just got back from voting in the advance poll with my wife. Our riding is held by Jack Harris, the lone NDP MP for NL, along with 6 Liberals. The district has pockets of support, with my district being a strong NDP section of the riding. The district just next to mine is a pocket of Conservative support. There was a long line at my district table to vote early ............ and no one at the other district table that usually goes Conservative.
> 
> I know that this is totally unscientific, but the Elections Canada person at my table said that voting has been brisk to heavy since yesterday at his table. With Jack Harris receiving 77% of the vote from my district last election, this is a good sign for his reelection.
> 
> Still, it is in the other two St.John's ridings that have a three-way battle going on. PM Harper has been to this part of NL twice ............... the same PM Harper who told the Globe and Mail just before the last federal election "I don't need Newfoundland and Labrador to form a government." Guess he has changed his tune. We shall see if those other two ridings return to being Conservative held ridings, which they have been since NL joined Confederation in 1949 .............. or if one of them goes for the NDP for the first time ever.
> 
> Thus, this could be, as I keep contending, the start of a blue or an orange surge westward. We shall see.


Our times may indeed be interesting. Anticipation building! May 2nd is not far off, for some here myself included, we may have to resort to how many (9) more sleeps until the big day.


----------



## Sitting Bull

I make no bones where I stand, I would like to see a majority conservative government.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Please... not enough emoticons in this thread, can hardly follow it... we need more.
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> I believe these polls are often stacked - the outcomes pertain to the way questions are framed. Polls during the fever pitch of the last week of an election are meant to stir the electorate and sway undecided voters. They are a distracting sideshow.
> 
> My sense is that it's all over the map right now. Big wild card out there.
> 
> As for Quebec, even if the NDP surge is real, I believe separatist fantasies simply go dormant for a time, only to return when whatever political currents fan those flames again. I don't see the 'improvement,' as Screature puts it, lasting too terribly long. If the demographics change up sufficiently over the next couple of decades, perhaps... maybe the old guard will die off and the kids will be alright with Quebec being but another province in Canada. Maybe. But in the meantime the independent streak is alive and well in Quebec.
> 
> Alberta is not unlike Quebec in this manner. Both have their historical difficulties with the gang in Ottawa. Both have strong cultures with deep historical ties. One has particular vision of Canada, one has a particular vision of a nation called "Quebec." Some of the doctrine sounds eerily similar, for that matter.


Please Max spare me with your anti emoticon sentiment... you don't see their place, others do... they exist for a reason if you don't choose to use them, fine others do and have used them plenty... it doesn't mean you are superior becuase of your choice not to use them as you seem to imply over and over and over again again... I think we get it... you don't like emoticons or their use... we get it by now.

As far as your theoretical take on what a shift away from the BQ and what it may or may not mean for the separatist movement in Quebec, until you have chosen to live here and have to engage with the politics of language every day as I have for the lat 35 plus years please again spare me....

For you as a resident of Ontario it is only so much theory. Live through referendums at a personal and real level as a resident of the minority of Quebec and maybe your opinion will have some resonance with me and your perspective will cease to be theoretical unemotional so please again spare me with your theories.


----------



## Max

Screature, may I assume you are done your lecture? I hope you feel better now. Why you didn't use emoticons is beyond me, but I thank you for the gesture.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Screature, may I assume you are done your lecture? I hope you feel better now. Why you didn't use emoticons is beyond me, but I thank you for the gesture.


Nice condescension Max... duly noted. Do you feel even more superior now?

Hope you feel all puffed and proud.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> As far as your theoretical take on what a shift away from the BQ and what it may or may not mean for the separatist movement in Quebec, until you have chosen to live here and have to engage with the politics of language every day as I have for the lat 35 plus years please again spare me....


screature - why do you choose to live there? Just curious.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> well I make no secret of the fact I don't want a majority government, not by Harper, and certainly not by any other party for that matter. So to me, that would be the 'desired' effect.


Your implication was that IR had a desired effect... if it was only your own personal "desired effect" then fine, I stand down.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Our times may indeed be interesting. Anticipation building! May 2nd is not far off, for some here myself included, we may have to resort to how many (9) more sleeps until the big day.


You sound like a child just before Christmas, BigDL. Well, may Santa be good to you in your riding. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> screature - why do you choose to live there? Just curious.


I *love* Quebec. The geography, the people (generally), the Joie de vivre, buying beer and wine at a corner store, the "having to get along" on a daily basis has made me a better person... but at the same time can provide a constant source of frustration when you run into the"wrong" people. Quebec within Canada is a paradigm for the rest of the world and I want to be apart of that from the inside.

The separatists often say they want to be a "normal" country. To that I say why? Why not be part of a country than can co-exist within a dominant culture and still have all the benefits of the majority. Set a different paradigm where we don't need to draw lines along linguistic or cultural boundaries and still exist as one nation with different peoples.

To me separatism is an anachronistic and regressive concept, and I choose to live here in part to remain a dissident voice to that concept.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I *love* Quebec. The geography, the people (generally), the Joie de vivre, buying beer and wine at a corner store, the "having to get along" on a daily basis has made me a better person... but at the same time can provide a constant source of frustration when you run into the"wrong" people. Quebec within Canada is a paradigm for the rest of the world and I want to be apart of that from the inside.
> 
> The separatists often say they want to be a "normal" country. To that I say why? Why not be part of a country than can co-exist within a dominant culture and still have all the benefits of the majority. Set a different paradigm where we don't need to draw lines along linguistic or cultural boundaries and still exist as one nation with different peoples.
> 
> To me separatism is an anachronistic and regressive concept, and I choose to live here in part to remain a dissident voice to that concept.


My mother was born and raised in Montreal before she came to America. I have to admit that Montreal is my favorite Canadian city and is up there with New York City and San Francisco for my three favorite North American cities. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> You sound like a child just before Christmas, BigDL. Well, may Santa be good to you in your riding. Paix, mon ami.


Sadly Santa nor Divine Intervention likely will not make a difference.

The outcome of this election in my riding of Fundy Royal is a foregone conclusion.



Wikipedia said:


> The riding has been one of the most supportive of the Conservatives in the country, returning a member of that party or its predecessors in every election, except for 1993 when Liberal Paul Zed won.


 Fundy Royal linky here


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature, excellent answer. I always found it was the constant media focus on nationalism(s) that wore me down. They exacerbate the situation and fan the flames. 

Everyday dealings with people are just fine, even great. There is the odd idiot but I find them present everywhere. 

It is very difficult to change perspectives when the curriculum in school concentrates on la survivance. Quebecois who get exposed to other regions of Canada and North America generally develop more tolerance.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Sadly Santa nor Divine Intervention likely will not make a difference.
> 
> The outcome of this election in my riding of Fundy Royal is a foregone conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundy Royal linky here


It is NEVER a "foregone conclusion" in any riding unless there is only one person running, or the men with brown shirts are standing next to the ballot boxes and checking your ballot before you file your vote.

So, have faith and believe in your choice in this election. Paix, mon ami.

"Imagine there's no Harper
It's easy if you try
No new jets to purchase
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...


Imagine there's no coalition
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no separation too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...


You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...


You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one."

With apologies to John Lennon.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Dr.G. said:


> It is NEVER a "foregone conclusion" in any riding unless there is only one person running, or the men with brown shirts are standing next to the ballot boxes and checking your ballot before you file your vote.
> 
> So, have faith and believe in your choice in this election. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> "Imagine there's no Harper
> It's easy if you try
> No new jets to purchase
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people
> Living for today...
> 
> 
> Imagine there's no coalition
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no separation too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace...
> 
> 
> You may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people
> Sharing all the world...
> 
> 
> You may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will live as one."
> 
> With apologies to John Lennon.


John Lennon would blow you a kiss!


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> John Lennon would blow you a kiss!


Well, may he rest in peace knowing that his words, thoughts and deeds live on. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Rps

Screature, to be honest I would move to Quebec tomorrow except for one small thing.....November to May....other than that it's a wonderful place.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Rps said:


> Screature, to be honest I would move to Quebec tomorrow except for one small thing.....November to May....other than that it's a wonderful place.


I guess your not a habs fan then?


----------



## Max

jimbotelecom said:


> Quebecois who get exposed to other regions of Canada and North America generally develop more tolerance.


True enough. The same can be said for those in English Canada who are exposed on a regular and personal basis to Quebecois ideas and culture... if it's in your backyard you get a better understanding and the old _us vs. them_ conflict tends to lose at least a bit of its lustre.

Screature: it's all well and good to claim that your decades in Quebec gives you special insight but I hope you aren't trying to say that you're an expert on the place. You are no more an expert on Quebec than I am one on the COTU.

Nor do you have to come from a particular place in order to hold a valid opinion. Otherwise a place like Ehmac wouldn't be permitted to exist.

People all over Canada love their particular corner of it and it's that very passion which makes it difficult for us as a people to surmount our regionalist perspectives and tensions. All the more reason to at least attempt to do so. Which is why we see our political leaders scurrying all over the country in these remaining days of the latest race, attempting to show that they care and that the people's vote will not be wasted.

I think there's a certain aspect of Quebec separatism that Westerners can well understand and appreciate: the emphasis on self-determination and self-reliance. It's that very sentiment (and the corresponding antipathy for strong federalism) which ensures that the separatist issue will continue to dog the nation for some time. I won't predict when it'll fade away but I'm hoping the youth of today and tomorrow work toward burying that tendency once and for all. As the good Doc says, "we shall see."


----------



## jimbotelecom

^^^^^

This is so true. I'm personally attracted to "the other", and always have been. I grew up in Quiet Revolution Quebec, educated by young and idealistic McGill graduates who nurtured a "question authority" perspective that I've always held.
This wonderful country of ours is diverse and multi-faceted unlike any other country I've experienced. I'm quite sure that most people here would agree.


----------



## Dr.G.

I missed the glory days of the early Trudeau years in Quebec and Canada, not coming to Canada until 1977. I read of him and how his views drove President Nixon to distraction. Those would have been great times growing up in Quebec in particular, or the rest of Canada in general.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> My mother was born and raised in Montreal before she came to America. I have to admit that *Montreal is my favorite Canadian city* and is up there with New York City and San Francisco for my three favorite North American cities.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Mine too. I love Montreal. We have more friends there, despite not living there, than any other city in the country. My wife and I see our friends in Montreal more regularly in Montreal than we see our friend in Ottawa despite the obvious personal effort on our part to see them.... Montreal is a unique city unlike any other city in NA.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> ...*Screature: it's all well and good to claim that your decades in Quebec gives you special insight but I hope you aren't trying to say that you're an expert on the place. You are no more an expert on Quebec than I am one on the COTU.*
> 
> *Nor do you have to come from a particular place in order to hold a valid opinion. *Otherwise a place like Ehmac wouldn't be permitted to exist.


As there are many meanings to COTU I am not sure which one you are referring to...

I speak from my experience in having lived here as a LIVED and actual experience as opposed to one that people read about... I have been beaten up by French kids on my way from playing street hockey just for being "Anglais", I have been refused service at the Sears in Hull for speaking "Anglais", I receive uni-lingual correspondence all the time from the province despite the fact the fact they know I am anglophone, etc., etc.

I am not an "expert" on the place per-say but I have years and years of lived experience that you don't and as such relative to you in your theoretical cocoon of Ontario, yes I am an expert or do you want to try and claim that your theoretical postulations on the French /English divide are more relevant than mine when it comes to living in Quebec.

We all have opinions but I personally value more those who have experience that is relative to the situation at hand than those who come form "book readin".

And I believe that to a certain extent you do have to come from a certain place or at least have to have had certain relevant experience to have a valid opinion, at least to the extent in terms of specifics... generalities are all very well and good and any one can speak of such matters, but see how your opinion changes when the reality of your experience changes... again it is all theoretical until it is experience.

"I hear and I forget,
I see and I remember,
But when I begin to to think, act and experience,
then I understand."

Mr. Pitt my grade 8 Guidance teacher.....


----------



## Max

screature said:


> And I believe that to a certain extent you do have to come from a certain place or at least have to have had certain relevant experience to have a valid opinion, at least to the extent in terms of specifics... generalities are all very well and good and any one can speak of such matters, but see how your opinion changes when the reality of your experience changes... again it is all theoretical until it is experience.


We're going to continue to differ on that one. You can have a valid opinion that carries great weight and still not come from the particular part of the world that you happen to be discussing. Geography and location does not grant exclusivity of insight. And just as book smarts have nothing to do with wisdom, nor necessarily does experience. Some people just seem to commit the same mistakes, over and over again, not learning.

Specifics are fine but the devil is in the details and specifics can trip you up just as easily as generalizations. 

Generally speaking, of course.
__________________________________

COTU is a jocular name for Toronto - Centre Of The Universe. That's the COTU I'm riffing on.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> *We're going to continue to differ on that one.* You can have a valid opinion that carries great weight and still not come from the particular part of the world that you happen to be discussing.* Geography and location does not grant exclusivity of insight*. And just as book smarts have nothing to do with wisdom, nor necessarily does experience. Some people just seem to commit the same mistakes, over and over again, not learning.
> 
> Specifics are fine but the devil is in the details and specifics can trip you up just as easily as generalizations.
> 
> Generally speaking, of course.
> __________________________________
> 
> COTU is a jocular name for Toronto - Centre Of The Universe. That's the COTU I'm riffing on.



So we shall...

"I hear and I forget,
I see and I remember,
But when I begin to to think, act and *experience*,
then I understand."

Peace.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> We're going to continue to differ on that one. You can have a valid opinion that carries great weight and still not come from the particular part of the world that you happen to be discussing. Geography and location does not grant exclusivity of insight. And just as book smarts have nothing to do with wisdom, nor necessarily does experience. Some people just seem to commit the same mistakes, over and over again, not learning.
> 
> Specifics are fine but the devil is in the details and specifics can trip you up just as easily as generalizations.
> 
> Generally speaking, of course.
> __________________________________
> 
> COTU is a jocular name for Toronto - Centre Of The Universe. That's the COTU I'm riffing on.


Quite often I get a chance to drive from sea to shining sea, and get to know a lot of people across this great country.

One amusing time I had, we were touring with a band from Texas, and they being from Texas had some real separatist opinions let's say, and were delighted to find great applause to their asserting they were separatists too being from Texas throughout Quebec, however, even though Ontario seemed somewhat lukewarm, we had to explain why they were not so popular once we hit saskatoon.


----------



## jimbotelecom

My experience with les autres in Montreal was nothing but positive. I played hockey with a mix of French speakers and English kids from different backgrounds, Jewish, Greeks and Armenians. I never really experienced outright hostility to being an Anglo until I had left Quebec. My command of the French language is good enough that I understand everything in a conversation. My spoken French is not perfect but I can get my point across quite well. My ancestors landed in Montreal in the late 1700's, I have a pretty good knowledge of CDN history, it's rare that a souche quebecois will challenge me. I rarely engage in political discussion in Quebec. I would much prefer to talk about...take your pick....Borduas, Luc Plamondon, Michel Trembley, food, biere, etc.

It's odd, but not uncommon, screature that your incident in Sears ended in confrontation. I have experienced more than a few occasions where I speak French to the server in a store who will then respond to me in French yet we are both Anglo mother tongued. 

I've been in Ottawa just over a decade now and I'm very comfortable with the region on both sides of the river. One thing I have observed is that the many an Ottawa born Anglo has deep seeded resentment for everything that goes on in Hull/Gatineau. This is a generalization of course because there are many Ottawan's who are comfortable in both cultures. I guess the same hostility exists on the Gatineau side towards Ottawan's but I've never encountered it.


----------



## Dr T

groovetube said:


> I've heard what long lines there were for the advance polls, a good sign in any event, if voters are really interested in this election and votes.


We went to the advance poll today, but the line-up was so long, that the polling staff estimated a wait time of one hour, so we decided to vote on May 2.

I wonder if the outcome will match the signs we saw on the way. Here is my count of signs on private property (not ones put up by the campaigns at intersections etc):

Green Party: 8 
For sale: 3 
NDP: 2 
Others: none


----------



## FeXL

Dr.G. said:


> Those would have been great times growing up in Quebec in particular, or the rest of Canada in general.
> 
> Paix, mes amis.


On this, my friend, we will have to steadfastly disagree...


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> On this, my friend, we will have to steadfastly disagree...


Well, you never experienced how American constitutional democracy was severly compromised by Pres. Nixon. Read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. I met PM Trudeau once when he was here in St.John's for only about 15 seconds, but he was, in my opinion, one of Canada's finest prime ministers.

Still, we are lucky to both now live in a country where we can agree to disagree. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Mine too. I love Montreal. We have more friends there, despite not living there, than any other city in the country. My wife and I see our friends in Montreal more regularly in Montreal than we see our friend in Ottawa despite the obvious personal effort on our part to see them.... Montreal is a unique city unlike any other city in NA.


Very true, screature. It is so vital a city that I would love to spend more time there than I have in the past. C'est la vie. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Dr T said:


> We went to the advance poll today, but the line-up was so long, that the polling staff estimated a wait time of one hour, so we decided to vote on May 2.
> 
> I wonder if the outcome will match the signs we saw on the way. Here is my count of signs on private property (not ones put up by the campaigns at intersections etc):
> 
> Green Party: 8
> For sale: 3
> NDP: 2
> Others: none


Kudos, Dr.T. Our wait time was only about 10 minutes. Still, it is well worth the wait to be able to say "I voted". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Well, you never experienced how American constitutional democracy was severly compromised by Pres. Nixon. Read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. I met PM Trudeau once when he was here in St.John's for only about 15 seconds, but he was, in my opinion, one of Canada's finest prime ministers.
> 
> Still, we are lucky to both now live in a country where we can agree to disagree. Paix, mon ami.


we take this for granted far too easily.

I'm glad since after laser eye a couple weeks ago, my close vision has begun to return, I want to make sure I can see the ballot 

Regardless of the outcome, at least one can speak freely enough without being persecuted.


----------



## jimbotelecom

I must say these Ignatieff quotes on the NDP: amateur hour, science fiction, etc. reflect poorly on the Liberals. I'm sure the intent of the insults is to instil fear, doubt, and uncertainty in an effort to win over soft Liberals, but to me these will have the opposite effect. We may be witnessing the implosion of the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## Max

I think you're right, Jimbotelecom. Yep, this will accelerate the inevitable deposition of Iggy from the Liberal leadership, and a general re-org of the party and what it ostensibly stands for.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, screature. It is so vital a city that I would love to spend more time there than I have in the past. C'est la vie.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Interesting, I can see President Obama in the role of the president in the Lewis novel. Their folksy speeches are often identical.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> I must say these Ignatieff quotes on the NDP: amateur hour, science fiction, etc. reflect poorly on the Liberals. I'm sure the intent of the insults is to instil fear, doubt, and uncertainty in an effort to win over soft Liberals, but to me these will have the opposite effect. We may be witnessing the implosion of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Ignatieff is surprisingly inept for someone who wants this office so badly. His political capital seemed to be all used up after his rise within the ranks of the party.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Ignatieff is surprisingly inept for someone who wants this office so badly. His political capital seemed to be all used up after his rise within the ranks of the party.


Certainly "politically" inept. Although I don't think he's the guy guiding strategy. He's relying on a team of Liberal Bay streeters that also guided Paul Martin into oblivion. Time will tell how bad this becomes for the Liberals.


----------



## Rps

jimbotelecom said:


> We may be witnessing the implosion of the Liberal Party of Canada.


I think that has already happened. One of my criticisms of the Liberals is their lack of grooming for their leadership. Maybe it was the era, but in the Trudeau years they seemed to have many in waiting. Not so after the Paul Martin era. In this regard I weep for the future. After this election I think the party will have little tolerance for Iggy's leadership...unless it is a minority result and Iggy is a very very close second. Not sure that will happen. For that matter, who's in line for the Cons? Most certainly if Harper does not win a majority his leadership will be under review as well...maybe what we are actually seeing is the implosion of the Cons as well.


----------



## Max

No, I think the Cons are more organized and disciplined - and their war chest is brimming with cash. Those individuals who are waiting in the wings to replace Harper are playing a very stealthy game by necessity. And as long as Harper can maintain control, no one will dare raise their head above the fray. He would have to have suffered a string of humiliating defeats before he could be taken down. The man is at the top of his game... yes, it could all change rather rapidly but at this point it's Iggy who is in the precarious position.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Rps said:


> I think that has already happened. One of my criticisms of the Liberals is their lack of grooming for their leadership. Maybe it was the era, but in the Trudeau years they seemed to have many in waiting. Not so after the Paul Martin era. In this regard I weep for the future. After this election I think the party will have little tolerance for Iggy's leadership...unless it is a minority result and Iggy is a very very close second. Not sure that will happen. For that matter, who's in line for the Cons? Most certainly if Harper does not win a majority his leadership will be under review as well...maybe what we are actually seeing is the implosion of the Cons as well.


Have to agree with you re. the Liberals. Martin and his club were not up to the task. I can never see that wing of the party cutting a deal with the country's Left contingent. 

I think the CONS have no outright transition plan but a leadership race would likely involve Jim Prentice, Peter McKay, Tony Clement and John Baird. The good thing there is the CONS will finally get rid of the social conservative noose that Harper and his Reform people represent.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> Certainly "politically" inept. Although I don't think he's the guy guiding strategy. He's relying on a team of Liberal Bay streeters that also guided Paul Martin into oblivion. Time will tell how bad this becomes for the Liberals.


Hard to say what the strategy is, lurching back and forth from left to right, spending and saving, coalition and no-coalition.

With Iggy in free-fall it would be interesting to see how this is playing out in the Conservative boardroom. Clearly the Conservatives are targeting Layton at this point, but I imagine they don't want to decimate him--just soften him up to the point where Ignatieff remains in a reasonable third place. There must be a vote-splitting sweet spot they're aiming for.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Hard to say what the strategy is, lurching back and forth from left to right, spending and saving, coalition and no-coalition.
> 
> With Iggy in free-fall it would be interesting to see how this is playing out in the Conservative boardroom. Clearly the Conservatives are targeting Layton at this point, but I imagine they don't want to decimate him--just soften him up to the point where Ignatieff remains in a reasonable third place. There must be a vote-splitting sweet spot they're aiming for.


Sure the vote splitting could give Steve the majority he so desperately wants. The polls I see are all over the map on seat projections so I'm not sure the CONS can control an outcome. They must be worried about losing seats in BC, but I think in Ontario the legacy of the 90's dipper govt we had will see a lot of CONS coming right up the middle. Again, time will tell.


----------



## BigDL

jimbotelecom said:


> Certainly "politically" inept. Although I don't think he's the guy guiding strategy. He's relying on a team of Liberal Bay streeters that also guided Paul Martin into oblivion. Time will tell how bad this becomes for the Liberals.


I wonder after this election what fate will befall Iggy. I also wonder if the Liberals in either of the camps, Chretien and Martin, will finally reunite or will cause the Party to further splinter and finally to fall apart. Will right of centre Liberals find a new home or stay on to splinter the right? Will the left of centre liberals be forced to find the new home?


----------



## DEWLine

jimbotelecom said:


> I think the CONS have no outright transition plan but a leadership race would likely involve Jim Prentice, Peter McKay, Tony Clement and John Baird. The good thing there is the CONS will finally get rid of the social conservative noose that Harper and his Reform people represent.


Would those four be allowed to politically _survive_ Harper's defeat? Really?


----------



## BigDL

jimbotelecom said:


> Have to agree with you re. the Liberals. Martin and his club were not up to the task. I can never see that wing of the party cutting a deal with the country's Left contingent.
> 
> I think the CONS have no outright transition plan but a leadership race would likely involve Jim Prentice, Peter McKay, Tony Clement and John Baird. The good thing there is the CONS will finally get rid of the social conservative noose that Harper and his Reform people represent.





DEWLine said:


> Would those four be allowed to politically _survive_ Harper's defeat? Really?


In my opinion anyone thinking of taking a run at Harper is already said they're off the Harper train when it left the station for this election.

I believe there are Progressives and Social conservatives that let the Harper train wreck leave the station.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I believe there are Progressives and Social conservatives that let the Harper train wreck leave the station.


Sure! A train wreck of successive Prime Ministerships. I think Ignatieff would sell his soul for such a train wreck.


----------



## DEWLine

Who's operating on a silent "Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake" basis, then?


----------



## screature

DEWLine said:


> *Would those four be allowed to politically survive Harper's defeat? Really*?





BigDL said:


> In my opinion anyone thinking of taking a run at Harper is already said they're off the Harper train when it left the station for this election.
> 
> I believe there are Progressives and Social conservatives that let the Harper train wreck leave the station.


Sure why not....? Jim Prentice is currently a private citizen and I think he took the private sector job just so he could have a fresh run at the leadership. Peter MacKay I think will run for sure... not sure about Baird I don't think he is liked well enough within the party to make a realistic run at the leadership. Same for Tony Clement he carries too much baggage from his days in the Ontario Government. I also think Lawrence Cannon could be a possible leadership candidate.

Not to mention who might put their name forward for the private sector.


----------



## Rps

Hi Screature, not sure about Cannon. Would make sense since he is the Cons Quebec Lt, but I'm wondering if he has some baggage that might hinder him. I know the Libs would probably call on him if he were Liberal.

Baird would be my choice. His not being liked within would probably be considered a benefit. MacKay and Clement might be seen as tag-alongs, so I'm not sure if the party would want them if they are going to have a "clean-sweep" of the Harper house...if indeed anyone has ever had a clean sweep. But I'm sure someone will pop their head up ...... Say if Bob Rae looses his seat for the Lib maybe he can cross the floor ( so to speak ) he is practised at it. Maybe Helena will take a run.......................once Harper is gone of course.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Harper appears to be campaigning almost exclusively in NDP ridings lately or ridings where the Con candidate is threatened by strong NDP competition. It seems to me that outside of the 905 belt and parts of Toronto, the Libs have ceased to be a factor.

Granted that area represents a lot of seats, but this might also mean that the Liberals are reduced to a rump in that area with a few random seats elsewhere.

The NDP surge, confirmed by where the Cons are putting their attention now puts the lie to the old myth that a vote for the NDP splits the vote on the left and helps the Cons. This hasn't been remotely true in BC or other parts of Canada for a very long time, where the main competitor to the Cons has been the NDP. Quite likely much of Ontario now. 

I would now like to propose that a vote for a Liberal in most of Canada is a vote that helps Stephen Harper. Don't split the anti-Harper vote.


----------



## Sonal

I for one would like to see Jack Layton as Leader of the Opposition in a minority Conservative government... especially if it comes with the added bonus of the BQ and the Ignatieff-led Liberals decimated, and with Elizabeth May finally getting her seat.

Not sure that it will happen, but who knows with this election? 

Go, Jack, go!


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Hi Screature, not sure about Cannon. Would make sense since he is the Cons Quebec Lt, *but I'm wondering if he has some baggage that might hinder him*. I know the Libs would probably call on him if he were Liberal.
> 
> Baird would be my choice. His not being liked within would probably be considered a benefit. MacKay and Clement might be seen as tag-alongs, so I'm not sure if the party would want them if they are going to have a "clean-sweep" of the Harper house...if indeed anyone has ever had a clean sweep. But I'm sure someone will pop their head up ...... Say if Bob Rae looses his seat for the Lib maybe he can cross the floor ( so to speak ) he is practised at it. Maybe Helena will take a run.......................once Harper is gone of course.


Regarding Cannon, any specific baggage that you are referring to?

Baird is right out as far as I am concerned too tied to Ontario... not even sure he will win a seat this time around.

I see no hope for Clement at all he has *far* too much baggage IMO.

MacKay I see as I good possibility. He is young charismatic, smart and tends to be a bridge builder. The current CPC wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for him... His Achilles heal is that he is from the east coast... when was the last time there was an east cost PM?

It doesn't mean that he couldn't win the leadership but on the national front his regional electoral base is probably too small to win even a plurality nationally. Remember MacKay was one of the few Cons to survive the PC decimation after Mulroney... He is a survivor.


----------



## Rps

You're right Screature, I forgot about MacKay ...... here's a long shot for you, and one I would consider if I ran the Cons: Catherine Clark.........


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> I for one would like to see Jack Layton as Leader of the Opposition in a minority Conservative government... especially if it comes with the added bonus of the BQ and the Ignatieff-led Liberals decimated, and with Elizabeth May finally getting her seat.
> 
> Not sure that it will happen, but who knows with this election?
> 
> Go, Jack, go!


Same here ........... or Jack Layton as Canadian Prime Minister. His is the only party that has not had a chance to show what they might do in this situation. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Same here ........... or Jack Layton as Canadian Prime Minister. His is the only party that has not had a chance to show what they might do in this situation. We shall see.


His good intentions are enough warning for me, Dr. G.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> You're right Screature, I forgot about MacKay ...... here's a long shot for you, and one I would consider if I ran the Cons: Catherine Clark.........


I think a far more likely "Catherine" candidate from the private sector could be Catherine Swift. She is well known and respected among the Conservative Party (and business in general) and their constituency and she has fantastic credentials. One of the most important things, given the current climate, is that she has *no* national or provincial political baggage. 

I don't know that she has any political aspirations beyond the position which she currently holds. Also, I don't know what her French is like but I would hope being the CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business she would be passably bilingual and she could always improve.

I, for one, would be very interested if she were in the running for the head of the CPC...


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> His good intentions are enough warning for me, Dr. G.


Well, it would be good if he had a chance to show what the NDP might do with a minority/majority government. Then you could blast him on his policies that were carried out or not. 

Who do you feel you would like to see as PM here in Canada? Or, which party best represents your views? Just curious, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Same here ........... or Jack Layton as Canadian Prime Minister. His is the only party that has not had a chance to show what they might do in this situation. We shall see.


I'm still not sold on Layton as PM yet... or rather, I'm not sure if the rest of his party is ready for it since a number of NDP'ers running are token candidates who are not expecting to win. 

Still, if he gets in at Leader of the Opp, then I have a hunch the rest of his party is going to have to get serious in a hurry.

But as you say, we shall see.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> I'm still not sold on Layton as PM yet... or rather, I'm not sure if the rest of his party is ready for it since a number of NDP'ers running are token candidates who are not expecting to win.
> 
> Still, if he gets in at Leader of the Opp, then I have a hunch the rest of his party is going to have to get serious in a hurry.
> 
> But as you say, we shall see.


A valid point, Sonal. I don't see the NDP getting a majority government anytime soon. Still, I feel that they could do well in a minority government situation. Layton could get support from various parties, even the Conservatives, on an issue by issue basis, and bring about strong social legislation, much like Lester Pearson did when he was PM.

Someday ..............


----------



## dona83

The NDP is too left for my liking, but Jack Layton the only one I trust right now, he has integrity, something our government has been lacking in the past decade. I would probably just want him to run one or two terms in a minority government, enough time for the Liberals to get their act together.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Who do you feel you would like to see as PM here in Canada? Or, which party best represents your views? Just curious, mon ami.


Libertarians represent my views about 85%
Conservatives about 30%
Liberals about 10%
Green 5%
Bloc 3%
NDP 1%


----------



## Ottawaman

Macfury said:


> Libertarians represent my views about 85%
> Conservatives about 30%
> Liberals about 10%
> Green 5%
> Bloc 3%
> NDP 1%


That equals about 134 percent of your views.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> The NDP is too left for my liking, but Jack Layton the only one I trust right now, he has integrity, something our government has been lacking in the past decade. I would probably just want him to run one or two terms in a minority government, enough time for the Liberals to get their act together.


Well, if he was PM in a minority situation, it would be logical for many if not most of the Liberals to vote with them on various issues.

I, for one, would love to see a parliamentary system that has free votes, where you vote your conscience or the wishes of your district, but not strictly along party lines. I guess this would only be achieved if Canada was a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## arminia

*Things to be freaked out about today*

theProvince.com - Video Centre


----------



## Macfury

arminia said:


> theProvince.com - Video Centre


I won't watch a commercial to see an editorial cartoon.


----------



## Sonal

Very amusing. (Well, I thought so anyway.)

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper


----------



## arminia

Macfury said:


> I won't watch a commercial to see an editorial cartoon.


I really didn't need to know that.


----------



## Dr T

*How do the parties rate?*



Macfury said:


> Libertarians represent my views about 85%
> Conservatives about 30%
> Liberals about 10%
> Green 5%
> Bloc 3%
> NDP 1%


As someone pointed out, that adds up to 134%. There is indeed overlap in party platforms, so I am surprised that the % you report is not higher. 

I have always said that if a politician or party represents my views 40% of the time, they can have my vote. So I found Macfury's report of interest.

That said, I cannot figure out any simple way to calculate such percentages. So here's what I did: I took 10 issues that matter to me at the federal level (and stopped at the first 10 for simplicity, even though I thought of several more issues as I was doing the calculations), and then checked to see where the 4 parties outside Quebec stand. I do not know enough about the Bloc to rate that Party. I also added "libertarian", even though my only knowledge of that stance comes from sharing an apartment in the US for 6 months with a libertarian.

Here is how they stack up, out of 10-


Green 4
Liberal 3
NDP 2
"libertarian" 2
Harper Conservatives 0


----------



## Macfury

Anyone catch the Liberal ads targeting: "Harper and Layton: Two career politicians. Two sides of the same coin." The Libs need to fire their campaign director NOW! Ignatieff, on the other hand made great pains to tell the press what a great ad it was.


----------



## dona83

I forgot when Ignatieff has lost my support but this election is clearly a Harper vs. Layton battle now.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> Anyone catch the Liberal ads targeting: "Harper and Layton: Two career politicians. Two sides of the same coin." The Libs need to fire their campaign director NOW! Ignatieff, on the other hand made great pains to tell the press what a great ad it was.


Only heard the radio ads where the same ad contradicts itself when it states that Layton lacks experience after calling him a "career" politician.. LOL So what experience does Iggy have?


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> Only heard the radio ads where the same ad contradicts itself when it states that Layton lacks experience after calling him a "career" politician.. LOL So what experience does Iggy have?


They must be running out of money and are trying to get two ads for the price of one. Feeble stuff.


----------



## Max

They are just that desperate. Rushing ads to air, hoping no one notices the built-in inconsistencies.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Libertarians represent my views about 85%
> Conservatives about 30%
> Liberals about 10%
> Green 5%
> Bloc 3%
> NDP 1%


Interesting, Macfury. So, are you active in the Libertarian Party of Canada? They have no candidates here in NL.

Libertarian Party of Canada - Welcome


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> I forgot when Ignatieff has lost my support but this election is clearly a Harper vs. Layton battle now.


"All we are saying, is give peace a chance ............"
All we are saying, is give Jack a chance. 


With apoligies to the Beatles.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, Macfury. So, are you active in the Libertarian Party of Canada? They have no candidates here in NL.
> 
> Libertarian Party of Canada - Welcome


I have been in the past on the provincial level. Hopeless lack of election savvy.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I have been in the past on the provincial level. Hopeless lack of election savvy.


Thanks for the info, Macfury. Just curious if they have a provincial wing as well as a national wing.


----------



## groovetube

there is real layton mania happening. Where the cons will benefit, is if voters second guess and fall back to iggy if they are afraid of a harper majority, but that may not happen. It is quite possible, that iggy will see catastrophic results, and voters will vote hard on the ndp and deny harper his majority. It can really go either way. Should be quite a nail biter night.


----------



## Macfury

Betcha that Bob "V.I." Rae is sorry he jumped ship now.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> Betcha that Bob "V.I." Rae is sorry he jumped ship now.


Perhaps not...I'm hearing the death knell for Iggy as leader after this election. Rae may replace him and that should be interesting for Ontarians.


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> Perhaps not...I'm hearing the death knell for Iggy as leader after this election. Rae may replace him and that should be interesting for Ontarians.


It would be akin to post traumatic stress disorder for most Ontarians.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> Perhaps not...I'm hearing the death knell for Iggy as leader after this election. Rae may replace him and that should be interesting for Ontarians.


after Harper crashes and burns for ontario, they'll run to rae with open arms.

And so the cycle continues.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> after Harper crashes and burns for ontario, they'll run to rae with open arms.
> 
> And so the cycle continues.


You will, groove, but it's not catching.


----------



## groovetube

I thought even you would catch that one.

swoosh.


----------



## Macfury

round and round she goes, eh groove?


----------



## fjnmusic

kps said:


> Perhaps not...I'm hearing the death knell for Iggy as leader after this election. Rae may replace him and that should be interesting for Ontarians.


Seems like if federal politics were like Hogwarts, Iggy is the current Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> round and round she goes, eh groove?


?

I made a pot shot at rae (et al) and, what?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ?
> 
> I made a pot shot at rae (et al) and, what?


Are you the one who slashed his tires?


----------



## groovetube

he had his tires slashed?

I guess he's a true liberal now then.


----------



## Macfury

Yeah:

Two dozen vehicles vandalized, Bob Rae's tires slashed - CityNews


----------



## FeXL

*The unsustainable cost of going green (NDP)*

I jes' luvs The Daily Bayonet. 

(quote from the National Post)



> The federal New Democrats say they might not be able to pay for $3.6 billion worth of green spending initiatives that were promised in their platform for the first year of a new mandate if elected to form a government. The party quietly explained in a statement over the weekend that it would be forced to delay the promises, in government, if it is unable to launch a market-based system forcing polluters to pay for greenhouse gas emissions by buying credits from those that reduce emissions.


Summary:



> In other words, they need a year or more raking in revenues from businesses in a cap and trade scheme before they can spend it all on ‘green spending initiatives’. That sound you hear is the promise of jobs and economic growth disappearing down the plughole.


Lemme see if I can get the snark here:

"'Bout right..."

That'll do.


----------



## dona83

Real classy, Conservative supporters. Maybe I should've thought twice putting an NDP lawn sign at my home in what's been a Conservative riding for the past decade.


----------



## screature

dona83 said:


> Real classy, Conservative supporters. Maybe I should've thought twice putting an NDP lawn sign at my home in what's been a Conservative riding for the past decade.


That's presumptuous, it could just as easily be NDP supporters, hoping people like you would immediately assume it was Con supporters....

Cripes you do realize how prejudiced your statement is don't you?


----------



## Vandave

screature said:


> That's presumptuous, it could just as easily be NDP supporters, hoping people like you would immediately assume it was Con supporters....
> 
> Cripes you do realize how prejudiced your statement is don't you?


The Liberals are the ones most desperate.


----------



## screature

Vandave said:


> The Liberals are the ones most desperate.


Yep, could be Liberals doing it to themselves hoping for bad anti-Con press.


----------



## dona83

Who are the conspiracy theorists now?


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Yep, could be Liberals doing it to themselves hoping for bad anti-Con press.


It could be anyone. _All_ parties contain a healthy dose of rabid partisans, gobsmacked that at how anyone could think differently from them.


----------



## Vandave

Jilted lover of Mr. Rae?


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Jilted lover of Mr. Rae?


That would be pretty shocking that it would be Rae doing the jilting.


----------



## Max

screature said:


> Yep, could be Liberals doing it to themselves hoping for bad anti-Con press.


That's about as responsible an allegation as the one you were slamming.

______________________________________________________________________________

In any case, what a horrid development. Any time you see anonymous types 'branding' doors or cars, you have to wonder what kind of mindset they're working with. It just reeks of fascism and cowardice.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> It just reeks of fascism and cowardice.


Cowardice perhaps, of any stripe... but fascism?


----------



## Max

I'm thinking of extremes, admittedly, but my thoughts ran to yellow armbands and doorways marked with a slash or two of paint... you know, a way of marking undesirables.


----------



## CubaMark

*F-35s to cost more than forecast: DND*



> The Department of National Defence says it's been told the unit price of the F-35 stealth fighter will be higher than the $75 million it planned for, but the military insisted late Monday it can still deliver the program on budget.


Can anyone explain that to me? The planes will cost more, but the program will still come in "on budget". That's some magic I could really use with my home budget, let me tell ya...

(CBC)


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> That's about as responsible an allegation as the one you were slamming.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> In any case, what a horrid development. Any time you see anonymous types 'branding' doors or cars, you have to wonder what kind of mindset they're working with. It just reeks of fascism and cowardice.


+1.

Not sure who would slash tires or cut their own brake lines. How absurd is that.


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> +1.
> 
> Not sure who would slash tires or cut their own brake lines. How absurd is that.


I dunno... I almost did the other night. Although, I think I might be a special case.:yikes:


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> It could be anyone. _All_ parties contain a healthy dose of rabid partisans, gobsmacked that at how anyone could think differently from them.


Exactly my point, glad we can agree.


----------



## screature

dona83 said:


> Who are the conspiracy theorists now?


No conspiracy theory just a *possibility*, I never suggested the Libs did it to themselves merely expressed it is a possibility which there is no way to disprove unless the culprits are found.

At least I wasn't making prejudiced assumptions like you were. So I see your  and raise you    .


----------



## arminia

*Unmuzzle scientists, federal leaders urged*

Unmuzzle scientists, federal leaders urged - Technology & Science - CBC News
In the last few years we've seen -- under the Harper government, at least -- a real concerted effort to keep controls on what the evidence is saying,' says Kathryn O'Hara, president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association. (Canadian Science Writers' Association)


----------



## screature

Max said:


> That's about as responsible an allegation as the one you were slamming.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> In any case, what a horrid development. Any time you see anonymous types 'branding' doors or cars, you have to wonder what kind of mindset they're working with. It just reeks of fascism and cowardice.


No *allegation* whatsoever.... take a closer look!


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> +1.
> 
> Not sure who would slash tires or cut their own brake lines. How absurd is that.


 Who said anything about doing it to themselves... a *possibility* of over zealous *supporters* with twisted ideas about how to go about discrediting their opposition... like intentional misdirections have never happened before in the history of politics....


----------



## screature

Max said:


> I'm thinking of extremes, admittedly, but my thoughts ran to yellow armbands and doorways marked with a slash or two of paint... *you know, a way of marking undesirables.*


Uhhmmm... I think they have already done that to themselves if they have lawn signs etc., they have already publicly "marked" themselves, so your point is rather (edit) moot and has very little to do with the mind set of the culprits IMO.

People who do this kind of s**t exist on all sides and all sides have been subject to vandalism of one form or another. The problem here arose when a member tried to prejudicedly portray it as a one sided affair.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Uhhmmm... I think they have already done that to themselves if they have lawn signs etc. The marking was already done, so your point is rather mute and has very little to do with the mind set of the culprits IMO.


screature, I apologize in advance for this but it's a pet peeve....

The expression is "*moot* point" or "your point is *moot*".


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> screature, I apologize in advance for this but it's a pet peeve....
> 
> The expression is "*moot* point" or "your point is *moot*".


Yes my bad.... sorry, too busy typing not looking at what I was typing... Ohh to be a touch typist... Fixed.


----------



## Max

screature said:


> Uhhmmm... I think they have already done that to themselves if they have lawn signs etc., they have already publicly "marked" themselves, so your point is rather (edit) moot and has very little to do with the mind set of the culprits IMO.


The difference ought to be obvious; you put up a lawn sign willingly, voluntarily. This little bit of nasty, expensive vandalism smacks of denunciation. A car or truck on its own doesn't necessarily reveal an individual's party orientation. .. this is a desperate form of loosely targeted rage.

Perhaps you wouldn't be so mild about it were it your own wheels that were keyed.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> The difference ought to be obvious; you put up a lawn sign willingly, voluntarily. This little bit of nasty, expensive vandalism smacks of denunciation. *A car or truck on its own doesn't necessarily reveal an individual's party orientation*. .. this is a desperate form of loosely targeted rage.
> 
> Perhaps you wouldn't be so mild about it were it your own wheels that were keyed.


What it smacks of is rabid partisanship and hooliganism... I am in no way "mild" about it... where...? show me...? If I was mild about it I would not take exception to a prejudicial expression of guilt toward a given group of people without evidence or proof.



> Similar acts of vandalism happened in the midtown riding of St. Paul’s late Thursday. In both areas, *vehicles parked at homes with Liberal lawn signs were targeted*.


It is a serious matter and that is why NO ONE should be arbitrarily attributed with guilt let alone a whole group of people as was done in dona83's post.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Who said anything about doing it to themselves... a *possibility* of over zealous *supporters* with twisted ideas about how to go about discrediting their opposition... like intentional misdirections have never happened before in the history of politics....


this gives me a chuckle. First, a spirited denial, followed by a clarification of what was suggested.

the, 'possibility', of said supporters of the liberals.

Max was right.


----------



## bryanc

*What happened to transparency and accountability?*



arminia said:


> Unmuzzle scientists, federal leaders urged - Technology & Science - CBC News


Nice find. Definitely worth a read.

I really do wonder how the Harper supporters can give the Con's a pass on the issue of "transparency and accountability." This was one of the biggest drums Harper beat on during his initial campaign, and yet he has lead one of the most opaque and uncommunicative administrations in Canadian history. If he really believes his policies are in the best interests of Canada, let us see the data!


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> the, 'possibility', of said supporters of the liberals.


Guilty until proven innocent. It's possible the Liberals are child-molesting _atheists_!


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> this gives me a chuckle. First, a spirited denial, followed by a clarification of what was suggested.
> 
> the, 'possibility', of said supporters of the liberals.
> 
> Max was right.


Think what you want despite the stated facts as you always do gt... your posts are pretty much just so much noise to me.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...let us see the data!


Are you equally as outspoken on climate data or just for political hay? beejacon


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *Guilty until proven innocent.* It's possible the Liberals are child-molesting _atheists_!


This is exactly what dona83 was suggesting or have you been following along... hmmm....


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Are you equally as outspoken on climate data or just for political hay?


Absolutely. Unfortunately, I lack the expertise to interpret the climate data, and therefore trust the consensus of 98% of the people who have that expertise, rather than the objections of the 2% who remain skeptical.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> This is exactly what dona83 was suggesting or have you been following along... hmmm....


This is my point. It's equally invalid and inappropriate to make such accusations, even if they are only by implication, of anyone.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Think what you want despite the stated facts as you always do gt... your posts are pretty much just so much noise to me.


you are the one who suggested liberal supporters slashed their own tires and cut brake lines.

This isn't noise? c'mon. That's absurd.

I don't know that any actual campaigning conservatives would have done this. But this sort of thing goes far below any sort of sign foolery.


----------



## dona83

I apologize for stating what I said as an outright accusation rather than a mere possibility.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> 98%/2%


<snort>


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> you are the one who suggested liberal supporters slashed their own tires and cut brake lines.
> 
> This isn't noise? c'mon. That's absurd.
> 
> I don't know that any actual campaigning conservatives would have done this. But this sort of thing goes far below any sort of sign foolery.


...and how stupid do you have to be to get caught doing this:
Joe Volpe turfs campaign worker caught trashing Green pamphlets - The Globe and Mail

LOL, at least if they were NDP or Con pamphlets...but Green...the party that has practically zero chance of sending someone to Parliament?


----------



## Max

Yeah, more insanity. _Trash the Greens! They're getting too powerful!_


----------



## Sonal

Max said:


> Yeah, more insanity. _Trash the Greens! They're getting too powerful!_


And they didn't even recycle the Greens! Or even compost them!


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> you are the one who suggested liberal supporters slashed their own tires and *cut brake lines*.
> 
> This isn't noise? c'mon. That's absurd.
> 
> I don't know that any actual campaigning conservatives would have done this. But this sort of thing goes far below any sort of sign foolery.


Who the hell said anything about or reported on cut brake lines??? You just plain making s**t up now??? Actually why I am surprised... you have done it before... surplus law anyone?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Who the hell said anything about or reported on cut brake lines??? You just plain making s**t up now??? Actually why I am surprised... you have done it before... surplus law anyone?


in the past Liberal supporters in toronto have had their brake lines cut. Not sure about this round of vandalism, but there has been precedence set from the last election.


----------



## chasMac

Our MP (Con.) came a-knockin this evening. Asked if we had any objections to a lawn sign declaring our support for her - I obliged. A quick scan up and down our street sees a veritable sea of blue. I'd say no wonder the cons are taking AB for granted - but then again, she is the only local candidate who's made an effort.


----------



## KC4

Interesting chasMac, still don't see many around here myself...except for a smattering of Greens, typically placed in the park and public areas, not on private property.


----------



## chasMac

Nice that she made the effort - but really, considering the number of pet. eng. in our neighbourhood, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Dr T

*Green Party Leader still has a chance*



chasMac said:


> Our MP (Con.) came a-knockin this evening. ..... A quick scan up and down our street sees a veritable sea of blue. .....


It does differ in different parts of the country, doesn't it, Chas? The number of NDP signs in my end of this Island doubled this week -but the new ones were all on the same farm, so I don't think it counts so much.

Maybe the Green Party still has an outside chance here?


----------



## Dr.G.

Advance poll voting was up all over Canada, lead by NL with a 67% increase in such voting over the last federal election. My district, St.John's East, lead the way here in NL with a 90% increase in voting. Hopefully, this trend will continue all across the nation. Regardless of the candidate for whom one votes, the key factor is that each of us votes for someone. 

It shall be interesting to see the increase, if any, in the total number of people voting when compared to the past few elections. We shall see.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Who the hell said anything about or reported on cut brake lines??? You just plain making s**t up now??? Actually why I am surprised... you have done it before... surplus law anyone?


ah yes. The surplus law. I recall you not getting the subtle distiction between, using surplus -during the fiscal year-, and what you have to do when the fiscal year _ends._

As far as making s$%^& up, c'mon, wake up for god's sake and read a newspaper.

http://www.thestar.com/article/512033, clearly referring to the incidents that also happened in the last election.

jeez. Is it time for you to go in to drama yet and declare you're 'done with me yet'?

Has anyone lost an arm yet? Are people being challenged to a dual? How many paces before we shoot!

Dear god. Where's my coffee.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> ah yes. The surplus law. I recall you not getting the subtle distiction between, using surplus -during the fiscal year-, and what you have to do when the fiscal year _ends._
> 
> As far as making s$%^& up, c'mon, wake up for god's sake and read a newspaper.
> 
> Car vandals aim at Liberal supporters - thestar.com, clearly referring to the incidents that also happened in the last election.
> 
> jeez. Is it time for you to go in to drama yet and declare you're 'done with me yet'?
> 
> Has anyone lost an arm yet? Are people being challenged to a dual? How many paces before we shoot!
> 
> Dear god. Where's my coffee.


Oh yes always a deflection and a defence for your failings, there is no law period and there were no brake lines cut in this campaign period. 

Lol read a newspaper... from 2008. :lmao:


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> in the past Liberal supporters in toronto have had their brake lines cut. Not sure about this round of vandalism, but there has been precedence set from the last election.


No precedence... it was an incident at a given point in time.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Advance poll voting was up all over Canada, lead by NL with a 67% increase in such voting over the last federal election. My district, St.John's East, lead the way here in NL with a 90% increase in voting. Hopefully, this trend will continue all across the nation. Regardless of the candidate for whom one votes, the key factor is that each of us votes for someone.
> 
> It shall be interesting to see the increase, if any, in the total number of people voting when compared to the past few elections. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mes amis.


Indeed if the advance polls are an indication of what may come to pass on May 2 it will be a very good thing indeed. We voted on Monday... first time since I was in my 20's I voted NDP, killing two birds with one stone (hopefully) keeping the BQ from winning the seat and ousting the do nothing Marcel Proulx. Obviously I would have preferred to have voted for the Con candidate but in this riding it amounts to throwing my vote away.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Indeed if the advance polls are an indication of what may come to pass on May 2 it will be a very good thing indeed. We voted on Monday... first time since I was in my 20's I voted NDP, killing two birds with one stone (hopefully) keeping the BQ from winning the seat and ousting the do nothing Marcel Proulx. Obviously I would have preferred to have voted for the Con candidate but in this riding it amounts to throwing my vote away.


Ouch! That was a painful sacrifice!

Hopefully this will kill the Trudeau legacy forever.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Indeed if the advance polls are an indication of what may come to pass on May 2 it will be a very good thing indeed. We voted on Monday... first time since I was in my 20's I voted NDP, killing two birds with one stone (hopefully) keeping the BQ from winning the seat and ousting the do nothing Marcel Proulx. Obviously I would have preferred to have voted for the Con candidate but in this riding it amounts to throwing my vote away.


Good for you, screature. I too voted NDP, as I did in the last election, which helped our current MP, Jack Harris, win this seat from a Conservative. 

I still contend that NL will start the trend for the NDP or the Conservatives, the majority/miniority will be gained or lost in ON and BC, with the official opposition being determined in Quebec. We shall see.

I said to my wife this morning "Just wait, it will be 109 seats for the Conservatives AND 109 seats for the NDP. The Conservatives will go and ask for support from the Bloc and the NDP will ask for support from the Liberals." 

I also hope that Elizabeth May gets her seat in the House out in BC.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Oh yes always a deflection and a defence for your failings, there is no law period and there were no brake lines cut in this campaign period.
> 
> Lol read a newspaper... from 2008. :lmao:


Western Standard -- It depends what the meaning of "prudent" is

Specifically:


> The Financial Administration Act wisely requires the government to use every last penny of the surplus at the close of the fiscal years to apply it all to the debt," says John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "There's no debate, it's the law."


I don't know if C48 passed to circumvent this in 2005.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Dr.G. said:


> I also hope that Elizabeth May gets her seat in the House out in BC.


:clap::clap::clap:

Cross our fingers. Polling data on Ms. May's riding is looking good. The country needs Elizabeth in parliament - BIG TIME!


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> Cross our fingers. Polling data on Ms. May's riding is looking good. The country needs Elizabeth in parliament - BIG TIME!


True. She may be able to limit abortion funding after all.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> True. She may be able to limit abortion funding after all.


I thought she recanted on that one.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> I thought she recanted on that one.


Perhaps. I don't follow the ramblings of Ms May that closely. Who knows what the wind thinks?


----------



## Macfury

Ignatieff has got to be the most helpless pol I've seen in quite some time. His campaign is a trainwreck, yet they appear to be stepping on the accelerator instead of slowing down. Maybe the problem is that he's on a train to begin with--harder to make turns.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Maybe the problem is that he's on a train to begin with--harder to make turns.


That's not a bug. That's a feature!

The really good news is it's headed back stateside!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> That's not a bug. That's a feature!
> 
> The really good news is it's headed back stateside!


He didn't even get a chance to raise the GST or tax what we exhale. Regardless, what tales he will have to tell to the boys at Harvard!


----------



## jimbotelecom

Doubt it. I bet you he'll set up shop at UofT.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Western Standard -- It depends what the meaning of "prudent" is
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 
> I don't know if C48 passed to circumvent this in 2005.


Sigh....










BALANCE SHEETS AND BUDGET SURPLUSES:
AN ANALYSIS, 1997-1998 – 2003-2004


BALANCE SHEETS AND BUDGET SURPLUSES:
AN ANALYSIS, 1997-1998 — 2003-2004

Prepared by:
Marc-André Pigeon
Economics Division
*16 September 2005 * 
(notice the date is after the misinformation spread in the article you reference.)



> Between 1997-1998 and 2003-2004, the federal government generated a cumulative budgetary surplus of $61.4 billion. *Media reports and even some government statements have, over the years, suggested that these surpluses were used to “automatically” pay down the debt.(1) This is inaccurate.* There is no law or convention that says the government must use its budgetary surpluses to repay debt, *a point emphasized by the Auditor General in her 2002 review of the federal government’s financial statements:*
> 
> *The surplus for the year does NOT automatically pay down the debt. There is neither any law nor accounting rule that requires this. *This year’s surplus was applied to several areas, only one of which was the reduction of debt. Part of the surplus was used, for example, to support increases in financial assets such as loans, investments and advances.


Got it? I doubt it.


----------



## groovetube

You are hiding behind a small distinction.

There is no law requiring the government, during the fiscal year to use the surplus to repay the debt.So no, it doesn't automatically pay down the debt. But it seems, it must do so at the end of the fiscal year. Which is what I have said, multiple times.

Or, you could email John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to set him straight, if you wish.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You are hiding behind a small distinction.
> 
> There is no law requiring the government, during the fiscal year to use the surplus to repay the debt.So no, it doesn't automatically pay down the debt. But it seems, it must do so at the end of the fiscal year. Which is what I have said, multiple times.
> 
> Or, you could email John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to set him straight, if you wish.


No, no small distinction at all and finally at least you admit that there is no law contrary to you multiple times clamouring on about it is federal law to use a surplus to pay down the debt.

I think I will stick with the Library of Parliament and the word of the Auditor General thank you very much. Cripes you are so behind the times and ignorant of the facts that you do not even know that John Williamson is not the Director of the CTF anymore, it is Derek Fildebrandt.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Doubt it. I bet you he'll set up shop at UofT.


Only if *they* want him.


----------



## groovetube

he was when the liberals were in power.

And your information does not reference the fact that it is, (or was unsure if it still is) required to use surplus _at the end of the fiscal year_ towards the debt.

No amount of throwing around names and swipes will change this I'm afraid. I'd like to confirm this fact, which has been cited by several sources.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> he was when the liberals were in power.
> 
> And your information does not reference the fact that it is, (or was unsure if it still is) required to use surplus _at the end of the fiscal year_ towards the debt.
> 
> No amount of throwing around names and swipes will change this I'm afraid. I'd like to confirm this fact, which has been cited by several sources.


No name, calling I said you were ignorant as in lacking knowledge which you clearly are regarding the matter at hand.


----------



## groovetube

well there's no need.

You gave a link which merely confirmed what I already knew, the government can re-allocate the surplus during it's fiscal year. But it doesn't say anything at all about what happens, at the end of the fiscal year. My reference, specifically addresses that. I can't say it's 100%, but it's a pretty credible source. That's about all I can say.

Now it seems, there's two pieces of information, and you seem to be huffing and puffing calling me ignorant. Well that's intelligent.


----------



## groovetube

and in other news, Sun Media honcho calls out ex-Harper operative on bogus Ignatieff Iraq photo - The Globe and Mail

Man. this is messy.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> well there's no need.
> 
> You gave a link which merely confirmed what I already knew, the government can re-allocate the surplus during it's fiscal year. But it doesn't say anything at all about what happens, at the end of the fiscal year. My reference, specifically addresses that. I can't say it's 100%, but it's a pretty credible source. That's about all I can say.
> 
> Now it seems, there's two pieces of information, and you seem to be huffing and puffing calling me ignorant. Well that's intelligent.


No huffing and puffing, just following your lead...



groovetube said:


> for the last time, surpluses ARE NOT profit. It is federal LAW, that surpluses be applied to the federal debt.
> 
> Period.


My you have become sensitive of late considering what you have historically dished out when it comes to trash talking others, forgive me while I get used to a kinder, gentler gt.


----------



## Rps

FeXL said:


> That's not a bug. That's a feature!
> 
> The really good news is it's headed back stateside!


And thus the reason for the Liberal de-rail......maybe the Liberals should have consulted with Obama on this issue....... it's one that won't go away as many of my friends all seem to have the opinion that Iggy is a temp and will go state-side once he is dumped by the party..... this is a barrier that their spin doctors haven't fixed and it could be the reason the LIbs are doing so poorly.....no one believes their leader is a "keener" or a "stayer".


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> No huffing and puffing, just following your lead...
> 
> 
> 
> My you have become sensitive of late considering what you have historically dished out when it comes to trash talking others, forgive me while I get used to a kinder, gentler gt.


I sorry, but I don't see any trash talking there, or calling anyone ignorant.

Now further, I'd like to confirm, if only for my own information that it is indeed correct that surpluses must be used to the federal debt at the end of the fiscal year.


----------



## FeXL

Rps said:


> And thus the reason for the Liberal de-rail......maybe the Liberals should have consulted with Obama on this issue....... it's one that won't go away as many of my friends all seem to have the opinion that Iggy is a temp and will go state-side once he is dumped by the party..... this is a barrier that their spin doctors haven't fixed and it could be the reason the LIbs are doing so poorly.....no one believes their leader is a "keener" or a "stayer".


Just trying to figger which would be less humiliating for him...

1) Staying in Canada as a never was or
2) Returning to the States as a has been.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Just trying to figger which would be less humiliating for him...
> 
> 1) Staying in Canada as a never was or
> 2) Returning to the States as a has been.


:lmao::clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

We all know that polls are inaccurate, but there appears to be a definite trend showing in recent national polls. Conservatives down somewhat and NDP leap-frogging the Liberals. Only one of the recent polls shows the Libs ahead of the NDP. A couple of the polls show the NDP heading close in numbers to the Conservatives.

In Quebec polls show the NDP taking a strong lead over the BQ and all the other parties being also-rans.

Yet I keep hearing in the media how people think voting for the NDP will split the vote, allowing the Cons to win. It seems that from what appears to be happening it would be voting for the Liberals that will allow the Cons to come up the middle.

Anyone thinking of going the "Anyone But Conservative" route with their vote, should be looking at what's happening here very carefully.

Of course, coming up with seat projections from this is nothing but voodoo. 

Date / Pollster / Conservative / *NDP* / LIberal
Apr 26 / Nanos / 37.8% / *27.8%* / 22.9%
Apr 26 / Angus R / 35% / *30%* / 22%
Apr 25 / EKOS / 33.9% / *27.9%* / 24%
Apr 24 / EKOS / 33.7% / *28%* / 23.7% 
Apr 24 / Nanos / 39.2% / *23.6%* / 25.6%
Apr 21 / Envi / 39% / *25%* / 22%
Apr 20 / Ipsos / 43% / *24%* / 21%
Apr 16 / Angus R / 36% / *25%* / 25%


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Advance poll voting was up all over Canada, lead by NL with a 67% increase in such voting over the last federal election. My district, St.John's East, lead the way here in NL with a 90% increase in voting. Hopefully, this trend will continue all across the nation. Regardless of the candidate for whom one votes, the key factor is that each of us votes for someone.
> 
> It shall be interesting to see the increase, if any, in the total number of people voting when compared to the past few elections. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mes amis.


High voter turn out does not bode well for our glorious leader. Low voter turn out does favour Conservatives especially when Harper has a solid base that he can mobilize into action with Glorious Leader's rhetoric. 

Bad news Conservatives' have a low ceiling with no where to grow. Harper has intentionally alienated voters, on the assumption that a motivated base and a low voter turn out, would be his salvation on election day. Motivated Conservatives vote while the rest of the population is turned off or at worst just apathetic. "You gotta love it when a plan comes together."


----------



## Sonal

BigDL said:


> High voter turn out does not bode well for our glorious leader. Low voter turn out does favour Conservatives especially when Harper has a solid base that he can mobilize into action with Glorious Leader's rhetoric.
> 
> Bad news Conservatives' have a low ceiling with no where to grow. Harper has intentionally alienated voters, on the assumption that a motivated base and a low voter turn out, would be his salvation on election day. Motivated Conservatives vote while the rest of the population is turned off or at worst just apathetic. "You gotta love it when a plan comes together."


Evidently he was counting on continued election antipathy...

What seems to be coming out of this election is that Canadians seem to be sick of angry, bickering leaders who attack each other of the same bad characteristics that they possess themselves, make a large stink over what many (myself included) see as parliamentary procedural issues, and are overall more of the same old, same old.

It's not the elections people are sick of. It's the leaders.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I sorry, but I don't see any trash talking there, or calling anyone ignorant.
> 
> Now further, I'd like to confirm, if only for my own information that it is indeed correct that surpluses must be used to the federal debt at the end of the fiscal year.


Well you can choose to get all up in knots if you want over the word ignorant. In fact that word has legitimate use beside the pejorative confrontation that you ascribe to it, in fact to say someone is ignorant can simply mean, as I intended, that you are lacking in knowledge or information. If it will make you feel better I retract the use of the word ignorant and will simply say you are lacking in information and knowledge.


----------



## groovetube

At any time, we could get back to the actual issue instead of this nonsense.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> At any time, we could get back to the actual issue instead of this nonsense.


Fine with me. Interesting that Layton is using the phrase "When I am prime minister ............" and Ignatieff is starting to sound like a coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs as they approach the playoffs.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Fine with me. Interesting that Layton is using the phrase "When I am prime minister ............" and Ignatieff is starting to sound like a coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs as they approach the playoffs.


well if Harper loses confidence of the house if he has a minority, this is a distinct possibility.

It seems a growing number of Canadians think this is a good idea.


----------



## dona83

Trying to lighten up the mood around here...


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> well if Harper loses confidence of the house if he has a minority, this is a distinct possibility.
> 
> It seems a growing number of Canadians think this is a good idea.


Well, I voted for the NDP and the sitting NDP MP is favored to win again in this election. I have spoken online to a friend who is horrified at the thought of Layton as PM. He said he moved all of his money and assets from Montreal to the GTA once the PQ formed the government in Quebec. He now fears his money, holdings and assets will again be at risk if Layton comes to power. He is fairly wealthy and uses various legal loop-holes to avoid paying much tax, and fears that these loop-holes might be closed, thus forcing him to pay much more tax.

Amazingly, he is not voting in this election since he is headed off for the Carribean tomorrow for a few weeks, and did not vote in the advance voting.


----------



## groovetube

dona83 said:


> Trying to lighten up the mood around here...


seems the latest conservative thing with Ignatieff and the picture of the army guys for Iraq was another 'look-a-like' er, funny.

Oh, _lighten_ the mood.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> At any time, we could get back to the actual issue instead of this nonsense.


I concur....


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> Well, I have spoken online to a friend who is horrified at the thought of Layton as PM. He said he moved all of his money and assets from Montreal to the GTA once the PQ formed the government in Quebec. He now fears his money, holdings and assets will again be at risk if Layton comes to power. He is fairly wealthy and uses various legal loop-holes to avoid paying much tax, and fears that these loop-holes might be closed, thus forcing him to pay much more tax.
> :


I was living in Ottawa when the PQ first won in that province .... I worked for the TD and we were picking up all sorts of accounts from the Bank of Montreal .... dumb I know but that's how some people thought at that time.

One has to look at the Provincial base to see how the NDP would run a government, save for Ontario's experience with Bob Rae, I'm thinking that the NDP appears to have competent people running financial portfolios. Layton will have some work to do in this regard to convince the wealthy that voting for him is not the same as giving Jack the Ripper an Avon route....but it will come I'm sure.


----------



## Dr.G.

I think that he should be given a chance to be PM if his party wins the most seats. Everyone predicts what he will do and what will happen to the country if the NDP is elected, but we can't be sure until he actually has a chance to govern. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube

wow, I saw this a little while ago.

All I can say is, way to go Jack.


----------



## bryanc

Dr.G. said:


> Everyone predicts what [the NDP] will do and what will happen to the country if the NDP is elected, but we can't be sure until he actually has a chance to govern.


Strangely, these predictions are nearly universally dire. Given the largely favourable outcomes experienced in NS, SK and BC under NDP governments (including the balanced budgets), I think the NDP are unfairly maligned.



> We shall see.


I hope you're right. I'd love to see an NDP government with Jack Layton as prime minister. But, I still don't think it's likely.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Strangely, these predictions are nearly universally dire. Given the largely favourable outcomes experienced in NS, SK and BC under NDP governments (including the balanced budgets), I think the NDP are unfairly maligned.


BC? That's just nuts!


----------



## groovetube

it's almost lunacy, to watch as the right go completely ballistic ( once again) on it's spending and high deficits, then tries to say the NDP will be worse.

You can't make this stuff up.

I heard tonight that the NDP was 31%, and the cons 34%. wow....


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it's almost lunacy, to watch as the right go completely ballistic ( once again) on it's spending and high deficits, then tries to say the NDP will be worse.
> 
> You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> I heard tonight that the NDP was 31%, and the cons 34%. wow....


Spending will definitely be worse--if they balance the budget it will be by taxing people to pay for it. So they will be worse.


----------



## groovetube

so YOU say...


----------



## groovetube

man. this picture just says, don't vote liberal.


----------



## Macfury

I gotta agree with you, groove--they look like they're holding each other up. There will be books written about this campaign.


----------



## groovetube

honestly, I had hoped iggy would prove to be a decent liberal leader. But, I'm not sure what I was thinking. He's as bad as they say, not the lyin cons, but the rest.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> honestly, I had hoped iggy would prove to be a decent liberal leader. But, I'm not sure what I was thinking. He's as bad as they say, not the lyin cons, but the rest.


Iggy blames the Conservative attack ads for his falling fortunes, so no reason to pull those.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> man. this picture just says, don't vote liberal.


Iggy is the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, like many before him. The Liberals would be wise to join the NDP.


----------



## chas_m

To both Dr. G *and* SINC: Something to remember is that a party in opposition -- and this applies equally to ALL parties in opposition -- often change quite dramatically when they become the ruling party. You can say and do a lot in opposition that is untenable when you are actually running the government.


----------



## Dr.G.

chas_m said:


> To both Dr. G *and* SINC: Something to remember is that a party in opposition -- and this applies equally to ALL parties in opposition -- often change quite dramatically when they become the ruling party. You can say and do a lot in opposition that is untenable when you are actually running the government.


True, chas_m. However, the NDP has never formed a national government, so until they do, one cannot say with any certainty how they would run the government. Some folks can forecast all sorts of doom and gloom with an NDP minority/majority, but until they have had this chance to govern, it is all speculation.

The only way to make sure that the NDP never has this opportunity to govern is to take away the votes of all people like myself ......... or to just not allow the NDP to run any candidates. That way, we shall never face the possibility of an NDP government. Problem is, how does one silence an idea. It might not be an idea that everyone supports, but it is still an idea that deserves its moment in the sun. We shall see on Tuesday morning.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Crunched my own numbers, looked at my own tea leaves, and here is my predicition for the results from Monday's election -- 

Conservatives 115
NDP 109
Liberals 65
Bloc 18
Green 1

We shall see. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Ottawaman




----------



## Dr.G.

Ottawaman said:


>


Amen, O-man. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jimbotelecom

I have been a subscriber to the Globe and Mail since university days in the 80's. I read this morning's endorsement of Steve, and then I re-read it 5 times. I kept coming to the same conclusion: the piece is shallow, insufficient, and ultimately wrong.

I used to be a NY Times subscriber but when they backed the invasion of Iraq I cancelled delivery. Later today I will be calling the Globe to do the same.

I wish them good luck in the future.


----------



## Ottawaman

Bell owns CTVGlobeMedia, which includes the Globe & Mail. Just saying.


----------



## whatiwant

jimbotelecom said:


> I have been a subscriber to the Globe and Mail since university days in the 80's. I read this morning's endorsement of Steve, and then I re-read it 5 times. I kept coming to the same conclusion: the piece is shallow, insufficient, and ultimately wrong.
> 
> I used to be a NY Times subscriber but when they backed the invasion of Iraq I cancelled delivery. Later today I will be calling the Globe to do the same.
> 
> I wish them good luck in the future.


Gotta love how they minimize the severity of the "strikes". Pure BS.


----------



## groovetube

damn liberal media!!


----------



## jimbotelecom

Ottawaman said:


> Bell owns CTVGlobeMedia, which includes the Globe & Mail. Just saying.


No the Thompson's own the Globe. Bell reacquired CTV excluding the Globe last year. I don't think it was Thompson pressure on the editorial that resulted in this sham. I'm paid up to May 7 at which time I will no longer receive home delivery. I was in the que for about 8 minutes which I find long. I suspect I'm not the only person cancelling. I was asked why I am cancelling, to which I replied: "Due to today's endorsement which I find unacceptable....it's the way the piece was written". Depending on how many people cancel I'm sure it will put a bigger dent in their dwindling revenues. I'm not happy about this at all.


----------



## MacGuiver

jimbotelecom said:


> I have been a subscriber to the Globe and Mail since university days in the 80's. I read this morning's endorsement of Steve, and then I re-read it 5 times. I kept coming to the same conclusion: the piece is shallow, insufficient, and ultimately wrong.
> 
> I used to be a NY Times subscriber but when they backed the invasion of Iraq I cancelled delivery. Later today I will be calling the Globe to do the same.
> 
> I wish them good luck in the future.


They endorsed the Cons in the G&M? They must be ice skating in Hell today.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## gmark2000

jimbotelecom said:


> I used to be a NY Times subscriber but when they backed the invasion of Iraq I cancelled delivery. Later today I will be calling the Globe to do the same.
> 
> I wish them good luck in the future.


Thin skin?


----------



## jimbotelecom

gmark2000 said:


> Thin skin?


Not at all. They have every right to endorse Steve. The way the piece is written is unacceptable to me. I therefore exercised my right and will no longer financially support the paper.


----------



## CubaMark

(Bruce Mackinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury

Smilin' Jack is already making exports cheaper--the current NDP polls are causing the dollar to fall relative to other currencies.


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce Mackinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


Laugh if you will, but it could happen. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Laugh if you will, but it could happen. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


Why would it happen?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Why would it happen?


Because we don't want a commie pinko radical red in 24 Sussex Drive, Macfury. Get with the program, comrade, or move over and watch the blue tide wash away all the ills of Canada .......... and keep us from the disaster of an NDP/Bloc coalition.

"Better dead than red". 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> "Better dead than red".


What about orange?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Because we don't want a commie pinko radical red in 24 Sussex Drive, Macfury. Get with the program, comrade, or move over and watch the blue tide wash away all the ills of Canada .......... and keep us from the disaster of an NDP/Bloc coalition.
> 
> "Better dead than red".
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


I thought the PM didn't need to be a Canadian citizen. Jack-o's birth certificate wouldn't identify his allegiance to the State.


----------



## Max

What an election. Jack-o, Harpo... and Count Iggula in the dust.


----------



## dona83

The Libertarians are running in my riding as well, what an odd platform.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> .. and Count Iggula in the dust.


That's a new one on me! Won't he rise from the dead if you stick a page from the red book in his mouth?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I thought the PM didn't need to be a Canadian citizen. Jack-o's birth certificate wouldn't identify his allegiance to the State.


Well, the Conservatives are indirectly questioning Ignatieff's citizenship/loyalty/reason for returning to Canada. So, if Layton gets too close to 24 Sussex Drive, something needs to be done to stop him and save Canada. Where is Lord Conrad Black when we need him to be our own Donald Trump????

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> What about orange?




No difference. The end result is all the same -- a country in ruins, wealthy people lining up to go to the US, companies fleeing for cheaper areas, massive unemployment, soaring taxes, chaos in the streets, everyone on welfare, money given to people who don't deserve it which will be taken from the few of us hard working Canadians left to do the work of ten.

So, Layton spells doom and gloom and disaster for Canada. Only PM Harper (aka Captain Canada) will rise to save the day, and lead us forward away from the abyss and into the sunlight of a glorious New Harper Government.

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Well, the Conservatives are indirectly questioning Ignatieff's citizenship/loyalty/reason for returning to Canada. So, if Layton gets too close to 24 Sussex Drive, something needs to be done to stop him and save Canada. Where is Lord Conrad Black when we need him to be our own Donald Trump????
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Iggy came back to Canada to be PM--everybody knows that. He will leave if he fails.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Iggy came back to Canada to be PM--everybody knows that. He will leave if he fails.


Well, then how do you propose stopping Layton from turning Canada into a totalitarian Communist state? If not PM Harper, who shall save us from this fate????


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Iggy came back to Canada to be PM--everybody knows that. He will leave if he fails.


Well, if Ignatieff wins, before he takes office, PM Harper might go to the GG and try to dust off the Padlock Act. The Quebec government introduced an Act to Protect the Province Against Communist Propaganda (Padlock Act) in 1937. The Padlock Act was inspired by an amendment to the Criminal Code that was introduced following the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919. Section 98 of the Criminal Code had empowered the federal government to deport non-citizens and charge individuals with criminal conspiracy for threatening social order or promoting revolution. 

So, pseudo-PM Ignatieff could be deported ............ but what if Layton wins????? I can't see how you can be so serene about this possible scenario. If he becomes PM, first go the Libertarians, then the intellectuals, then the rest of us "right thinking individuals". 

"The world is in a crisis more dangerous and evil than the most grave and destructive of diseases. Nowhere else but in Quebec is there a law protecting people against the vile cocaine of communism." Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis, a vociferous anti-communist crusader. Sadly, he is no longer with us. :-(

So, my friend, how will we save ourselves?????


----------



## Macfury

If Layton wins, he will do what all socialists do--institute the policies of trickle-up misery.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Well, if Ignatieff wins, before he takes office, PM Harper might go to the GG and try to dust off the Padlock Act. The Quebec government introduced an Act to Protect the Province Against Communist Propaganda (Padlock Act) in 1937. The Padlock Act was inspired by an amendment to the Criminal Code that was introduced following the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919. Section 98 of the Criminal Code had empowered the federal government to deport non-citizens and charge individuals with criminal conspiracy for threatening social order or promoting revolution.
> 
> So, pseudo-PM Ignatieff could be deported ............ but what if Layton wins????? I can't see how you can be so serene about this possible scenario. If he becomes PM, first go the Libertarians, then the intellectuals, then the rest of us "right thinking individuals".
> 
> "The world is in a crisis more dangerous and evil than the most grave and destructive of diseases. Nowhere else but in Quebec is there a law protecting people against the vile cocaine of communism." Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis, a vociferous anti-communist crusader. Sadly, he is no longer with us. :-(
> 
> So, my friend, how will we save ourselves?????


You can send him back to his municipal politics roots. Sure, MacFury and I will have to contend with him in Toronto, but the rest of Canada (such as it is outside the centre of the universe) will be saved.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> You can send him back to his municipal politics roots. Sure, MacFury and I will have to contend with him in Toronto, but the rest of Canada (such as it is outside the centre of the universe) will be saved.


Now, that sounds like a plan, Sonal. Good for you. Salvation is at hand. :clap::clap::clap:

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> If Layton wins, he will do what all socialists do--institute the policies of trickle-up misery.


Exactly!!!! Now, how do you propose to stop him and save the country???


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Exactly!!!! Now, how do you propose to stop him and save the country???


The polls are just a bubble. He will be stopped by the good sense of the Canadian electorate, although the NDP will be riding higher on Ignatieff's campaign failure.


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> honestly, I had hoped iggy would prove to be a decent liberal leader. But, I'm not sure what I was thinking. He's as bad as they say, not the lyin cons, but the rest.


So the question then becomes: Is his name Michael Ivehadenough or Michael Notgoodenough?

I think the Libs would be fools to dump him, for one thing keeping him no matter what the election outcome would dispel the "temp-job" view many Canadians appear to have of him. But more importantly, getting rid of him would reinforce the view of Canadians that the Liberals are bankrupt in leadership candidate......so it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## Ottawaman

I'm curious to see what vote splitting and FPTP do to the NDP's seat count.


----------



## Macfury

Max, I just saw my first reference to "Count Iggy." A columnist referring to "Count Iggy giving his horrible imitation of ‘just plain folks.’"


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> If Layton wins, he will do what all socialists do--institute the policies of trickle-up misery.


+1
I am willing to endure trickle-up misery as the tax cutting trickle down prosperity sure hasn't shown a positive result since Reagan started that non-sense in the last century.

Just in the naming of the programs gives a person comfort knowing it's good for the masses and bad for the 1%ers. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Sonal

Rps said:


> I think the Libs would be fools to dump him, for one thing keeping him no matter what the election outcome would dispel the "temp-job" view many Canadians appear to have of him. But more importantly, getting rid of him would reinforce the view of Canadians that the Liberals are bankrupt in leadership candidate......so it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.


RP, I think at this point, keeping him wouldn't actually improve the Canadian view that the Liberals are bankrupt in leadership candidates.

Most people I know around here are life-long Liberal voters--I don't know a single one who likes Iggy. My parents used to be members of the Liberal party, and as a small child I remember my mother taking me door-to-door to campaign for our Liberal MP--neither of them like Iggy. This is the first election of my life where I did not vote Liberal and it's because I don't like Iggy. I have no idea who came up with the cockamamie idea to bring in Iggy, but it seems that the overall best-case impression of Iggy has gone from "I don't know him but we'll see" to "My god, he sucks, who's lousy idea was this?"

Keeping Ignatieff would be the worst move the Liberal party could make right now. The only positive I see in that is that it may decimate the party even further and force them to regroup and rebuild in a major way.


----------



## Sonal

Ottawaman said:


> I'm curious to see what vote splitting and FPTP do to the NDP's seat count.


Absolutely. This will be an interesting election.


----------



## Rps

Sonal, while I don't like Iggy either, I still think this is an interesting time for the Liberals ... really all the parties are in a state of flux, so in a way, it doesn't matter who is the leader for a party the knives are out for them all, except for Layton, and that is because he has been fairly consistent in his message.... I think Iggy could have a third life here if he worked on a consistent programme...after all it will be a minority government which would probably fall within 2 years... so he must continue to campaign after May 2nd .... if he fails to see this he certainly lacks political vision.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Sonal, while I don't like Iggy either, I still think this is an interesting time for the Liberals ... really all the parties are in a state of flux, so in a way, it doesn't matter who is the leader for a party the knives are out for them all, except for Layton, and that is because he has been fairly consistent in his message.... I think Iggy could have a third life here if he worked on a consistent programme...after all it will be a minority government which would probably fall within 2 years... so he must continue to campaign after May 2nd .... if he fails to see this he certainly lacks political vision.


That's an outlier in my estimation, rps. Iggy was handed an opportunity to improve the party's fortunes on a silver platter. He only needed to follow the media feeding frenzy on perceived Conservative weaknesses. Instead, he started on the defensive and has remained there for the length of the campaign.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> The polls are just a bubble. He will be stopped by the good sense of the Canadian electorate, although the NDP will be riding higher on Ignatieff's campaign failure.


We shall see. If the Liberals and Bloc sink any further, we shall have an NDP majority government. XX)


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> So the question then becomes: Is his name Michael Ivehadenough or Michael Notgoodenough?
> 
> I think the Libs would be fools to dump him, for one thing keeping him no matter what the election outcome would dispel the "temp-job" view many Canadians appear to have of him. But more importantly, getting rid of him would reinforce the view of Canadians that the Liberals are bankrupt in leadership candidate......so it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.


I agree, Rp. I liked Ignatieff initially, but he has been a disappointment, at least for me.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> +1
> I am willing to endure trickle-up misery as the tax cutting trickle down prosperity sure hasn't shown a positive result since Reagan started that non-sense in the last century.
> 
> Just in the naming of the programs gives a person comfort knowing it's good for the masses and bad for the 1%ers. :clap::clap::clap:


It's bad for the middle class. The 1%ers don't have enough money in total to do much of anything. "The NDP: converting citizens into clients, since the last century."


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Absolutely. This will be an interesting election.


Very true. I stand by my forecast, first posted at 8AM this morning --

Crunched my own numbers, looked at my own tea leaves, and here is my predicition for the results from Monday's election -- 

Conservatives 115
NDP 109
Liberals 65
Bloc 18
Green 1

We shall see. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> It's bad for the middle class. The 1%ers don't have enough money in total to do much of anything. "The NDP: converting citizens into clients, since the last century."


Whereas trickle down prosperity stopped at the 1%ers trickle-up misery only hurts after the middle class into the upper middle class.

Interesting use of the business model as the Conservatives say Gubbamint gotta run like a business.


----------



## dona83

Dr.G. said:


> I agree, Rp. I liked Ignatieff initially, but he has been a disappointment, at least for me.


Better he be a disappointment before the election than after... ahem Obama ahem.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> It's bad for the middle class. The 1%ers don't have enough money in total to do much of anything. "The NDP: converting citizens into clients, since the last century."


Well, it's not a case of their not having "enough money", it's just not money that can be taxed under the current tax loopholes and tax avoidance schemes.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> Better he be a disappointment before the election than after... ahem Obama ahem.


I voted for Obama and will do so again. No disappointment with him or with what he has done so far. 

Voted for my local incumbant NDP MP here in St. John's East as well, and no disappointment with what might come of this vote.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Whereas trickle down prosperity stopped at the 1%ers trickle-up misery only hurts after the middle class into the upper middle class.
> 
> Interesting use of the business model as the Conservatives say Gubbamint gotta run like a business.


"The business of Canada is business."

(with apologies to Calvin Coolidge)


----------



## Sonal

Rps said:


> Sonal, while I don't like Iggy either, I still think this is an interesting time for the Liberals ... really all the parties are in a state of flux, so in a way, it doesn't matter who is the leader for a party the knives are out for them all, except for Layton, and that is because he has been fairly consistent in his message.... I think Iggy could have a third life here if he worked on a consistent programme...after all it will be a minority government which would probably fall within 2 years... so he must continue to campaign after May 2nd .... if he fails to see this he certainly lacks political vision.


I don't know that all parties are in a state of flux. 

The NDP surge, IMO, isn't so much a vote for the NDP as it is a vote for Layton. People like Jack. They want to vote for him. If Layton were head of the Liberal party he'd have dominated a long time ago, except that switching parties would damage his much-admired credibility. 

Likewise, people aren't turning away from the Liberal Party so much as they are turning from Iggy. 

But the Liberal party has been a mess for a long time. I don't know if new leadership will fix it so much as a whole new party. Nevertheless, as MacFury points out, Iggy was handed an opportunity of a lifetime and bungled it badly. There was no reason to force this election when he did, and no reason to blow it. Liberal party voters will not forgive such incompetence.

Harper may have a fight on his hands if he doesn't get a majority, but he's wily... he didn't call this election, so how can he be blamed for not achieving a better result? I don't think he's going anywhere yet.


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Very true. I stand by my forecast, first posted at 8AM this morning --
> 
> Crunched my own numbers, looked at my own tea leaves, and here is my predicition for the results from Monday's election --
> 
> Conservatives 115
> NDP 109
> Liberals 65
> Bloc 18
> Green 1
> 
> We shall see. Paix, mes amis.


A bold prediction, Dr G. I look forward to discussing it with you on Tuesday, as I do not think you will be awake when the polls close in BC.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> A bold prediction, Dr G. I look forward to discussing it with you on Tuesday, as I do not think you will be awake when the polls close in BC.


Don't count me out, Sonal. I may stay awake just to see what the BC results are on Tuesday morning (at least Tuesday here in NL). 

I still contend that the results from NL will indicate a trend. We currently have 6 Liberals and one NDP MP. An additional NDP candidate winning is possible in St.John's South-Mount Pearl, or two Conservatives winning in St.John's South-Mount Pearl and Avalon. That would indicate the start of the trend.

The cookie jar gets dumped out in Quebec where anything might happen.

Then, it is on to Battleground Ontario ............... and then to Battleground BC. That is where the Conservatives shall make or break their chance for a majority government. We shall see.

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> [Harper] didn't call this election, so how can he be blamed for not achieving a better result?


That's like saying someone driving 40 over the limit didn't call for a speeding ticket.

The conservatives forced this election, and I can't blame them... they were up in the poles, the Liberals were nearly bankrupt and in disarray, and who worries about the NDP or the Greens?

I just hope it blows up in their faces. I thought the best I could hope for was another Conservative minority with a Liberal opposition, but I'm getting more optimistic. I'd love to see the NDP as the official opposition.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> That's like saying someone driving 40 over the limit didn't call for a speeding ticket.
> 
> The conservatives forced this election, and I can't blame them... they were up in the poles, the Liberals were nearly bankrupt and in disarray, and who worries about the NDP or the Greens?
> 
> I just hope it blows up in their faces. I thought the best I could hope for was another Conservative minority with a Liberal opposition, but I'm getting more optimistic. I'd love to see the NDP as the official opposition.


Amen, Brother bryanc. Of course, we could wish for an NDP minority government .................. or even an NDP majority government. :clap:

We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, Brother bryanc. Of course, we could wish for an NDP minority government .................. or even an NDP majority government. :clap:
> 
> We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


One good thing about an NDP government would be along the lines of what Bob Rae did in Ontario... exposing their weaknesses so we know exactly what kind of damage their policies can do. 

The benefit of making a bad choice is the learning it provides.

At any rate this is shaping up to be at least interesting if nothing else... only a few more days to go and then we call all start speculating on what the election's outcome will mean.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> One good thing about an NDP government would be along the lines of what Bob Rae did in Ontario... exposing their weaknesses so we know exactly what kind of damage their policies can do.
> 
> The benefit of making a bad choice is the learning it provides.
> 
> At any rate this is shaping up to be at least interesting if nothing else... only a few more days to go and then we call all start speculating on what the election's outcome will mean.


Or, we could see what they might do well in a minority/majority situation. Some are so ready to write them off and to say this is what will happen if they ever get into a position of power ............. even though they have never had the chance to show anyone what they might be able to do well. 

So, the benefit of making a choice is to see what someone will be able to do if you choose this person/party to govern. Then, and only then, can you say what they did correctly/incorrectly. Anything else is speculation.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## FeXL

screature said:


> ... only a few more days to go and then we call all start speculating on what the election's outcome will mean.


On the contrary, lemme speculate right now.

It won't matter a git who wins, loses, opposes, whatever: It ain't gonna be good for the taxpayer...


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Or, we could see what they might do well in a minority/majority situation. Some are so ready to write them off and to say this is what will happen if they ever get into a position of power ............. even though they have never had the chance to show anyone what they might be able to do well.
> 
> So, the benefit of making a choice is to see what someone will be able to do if you choose this person/party to govern. Then, and only then, can you say what they did correctly/incorrectly. Anything else is speculation.


If they achieve their promises, they will be failures to me. Their promises are anathema to me.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> If they achieve their promises, they will be failures to me. Their promises are anathema to me.


Well, they have to be in power first to prove or disprove your opinions of them. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Or, we could see what they might do well in a minority/majority situation. Some are so ready to write them off and to say this is what will happen if they ever get into a position of power ............. even though they have never had the chance to show anyone what they might be able to do well.
> 
> *So, the benefit of making a choice is to see what someone will be able to do if you choose this person/party to govern. Then, and only then, can you say what they did correctly/incorrectly. Anything else is speculation.*
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


True enough... it is always the case... we never know what we will get until we get it and then decide if the choice was a good one or a bad one... Peace to you my friend.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Tue enough... it is always the case... we never know what we will get until we get it and then decide if the choice was a good one or a bad one... Peace to you my friend.


Correct, mon ami. I am not saying that an NDP government would be perfect, nor would it be totally imperfect to most (not sure about Macfury), but it would be able to say "Here we are ............ judge us on what we do or don't do." Then, they would have to run on their record. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Well, they have to be in power first to prove or disprove your opinions of them. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


I am rarely eager to see a party elected who will only succeed for me by failing to achieve every one of their promises.


----------



## screature

:lmao: Good one... made me laugh.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I am rarely eager to see a party elected who will only succeed for me by failing to achieve every one of their promises.


Given the historical record of Canadian political parties fulfilling their promises, I'm surprised you aren't voting _for_ the NDP.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> One good thing about an NDP government would be along the lines of what Bob Rae did in Ontario... exposing their weaknesses so we know exactly what kind of damage their policies can do.
> 
> The benefit of making a bad choice is the learning it provides.
> 
> At any rate this is shaping up to be at least interesting if nothing else... only a few more days to go and then we call all start speculating on what the election's outcome will mean.


Isn't this sort of what is happening -now- with the conservatives? Truthfully, they've had 5 years, and if they were so great and Canadians loved their policies, we'd see clear majority numbers mere days before the election.

Now I say this without knowing how the ndp will actually perform, but I can see big wealthy interests being worried that they may need to start paying their fair share.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ...their fair share.


Love the scientific terminology here. We're already seeing the effects of the polls in a declining Canadian dollar. Many companies will indeed move out should Jack-o reign supreme.


----------



## groovetube

they've already moved out even with a government after scaring the voters with we gotta give them boat loads o'cash or they're gonna bail! crap.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> they've already moved out even with a government after scaring the voters with we gotta give them boat loads o'cash or they're gonna bail! crap.


Huh?


----------



## groovetube

love the feigned surprise.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> love the feigned surprise.


No surprise. The sentence is not clear enough to divine its intent.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I am rarely eager to see a party elected who will only succeed for me by failing to achieve every one of their promises.


With this line of thinking, we should have the system they have in Cuba, China, or even North Korea. One party, and no problem of watching an alternate party put forth any sort of promises. 

For someone who prides himself on the rights of the individual, you seem to be taking away the individual rights and freedom of all people who want to vote for a party other than the one you want to see in power.

How are you so sure the NDP would fail to meet their promises as the federal government? If it is a foregone conclusion that they would fail, with your logic they should not be allowed to run, or I should not be allowed to vote for them.

I have a feeling that only if the Libertarian Party were elected in Canada you would be happy. So, how would you feel if I told you not to vote for them if they were running a candidate in your riding because they had no chance of being elected? Or, how would you feel if I told you that they would certainly fail .......... not based on any previous experiences with a Libertarian Party minority/majority federal government, but because I told you that they would fail???


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> With this line of thinking, we should have the system they have in Cuba, China, or even North Korea. One party, and no problem of watching an alternate party put forth any sort of promises.
> 
> For someone who prides himself on the rights of the individual, you seem to be taking away the individual rights and freedom of all people who want to vote for a party other than the one you want to see in power.
> 
> How are you so sure the NDP would fail to meet their promises as the federal government? If it is a foregone conclusion that they would fail, with your logic they should not be allowed to run, or I should not be allowed to vote for them.
> 
> I have a feeling that only if the Libertarian Party were elected in Canada you would be happy. So, how would you feel if I told you not to vote for them if they were running a candidate in your riding because they had no chance of being elected? Or, how would you feel if I told you that they would certainly fail .......... not based on any previous experiences with a Libertarian Party minority/majority federal government, but because I told you that they would fail???


I have never told you or anyone else not to vote for the NDP, Dr. G. 

I said that I fear they will make good on some of their promises, not that they will never keep them.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> If they achieve their promises, they will be failures to me. Their promises are anathema to me.





Macfury said:


> I have never told you or anyone else not to vote for the NDP, Dr. G.
> 
> I said that I fear they will make good on some of their promises, not that they will never keep them.


From all you have written re the NDP, Macfury, you have never once supported the individual's right to vote how he or she wants without coming out against it in some manner that goes beyond mere disagreement. I totally disagree with your views about Pres. Obama, but I support your right to express them freely.

Maybe the promises of the NDP are "an anathema to you", but consider the full meaning of the word "anathema" -- 1.a person or thing detested or loathed; 2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.

Try to be positive for once. Say who you do support, and what is correct in your opinion about the position of this person/party/policy. Everytime someone comes out with a view that may not be yours, say that you disagree with it and why you disagree with it, and move on.

While I respect your right to speak out against Pres. Obama, I tire of the constant jabs at him, regardless of the thread. At least in this thread, Jack Layton and the NDP are the targets of your jabs.

So, who shall you be voting for rather than telling us who we should not be voting for in this election?


----------



## whatiwant

Dr.G. said:


> From all you have written re the NDP, Macfury, you have never once supported the individual's right to vote how he or she wants without coming out against it in some manner that goes beyond mere disagreement. I totally disagree with your views about Pres. Obama, but I support your right to express them freely.
> 
> Maybe the promises of the NDP are "an anathema to you", but consider the full meaning of the word "anathema" -- 1.a person or thing detested or loathed; 2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
> 
> Try to be positive for once. Say who you do support, and what is correct in your opinion about the position of this person/party/policy. Everytime someone comes out with a view that may not be yours, say that you disagree with it and why you disagree with it, and move on.
> 
> While I respect your right to speak out against Pres. Obama, I tire of the constant jabs at him, regardless of the thread. At least in this thread, Jack Layton and the NDP are the targets of your jabs.
> 
> So, who shall you be voting for rather than telling us who we should not be voting for in this election?


Well said.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, the policies of the NDP Party are anathema to me--I think the definition works well. I've stated repeatedly that I will reluctantly vote Conservative in my riding, in order to ensure that the NDP does not take the seat.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No surprise. The sentence is not clear enough to divine its intent.


I think it's quite clear.

This whole scare crap that all the corporations are gonna leave or raise prices and kill our economic recovery if we don't hand them more tax breaks?

Total horsepucky. And it appears, lots of Canadians think so as well.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I think it's quite clear.
> 
> This whole scare crap that all the corporations are gonna leave or raise prices and kill our economic recovery if we don't hand them more tax breaks?
> 
> Total horsepucky. And it appears, lots of Canadians think so as well.



Capital flees at will. It has fled before and it will flee again.


----------



## groovetube

yes it does. It does regardless of whether there are tax cuts or not.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yes it does. It does regardless of whether there are tax cuts or not.


Perhaps. But it is already fleeing in anticipation of NDP success.


----------



## groovetube

corporations has already left?

My that's fast.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> corporations has already left?
> 
> My that's fast.


Decline in the dollar. Money is leaving already, not corporations.


----------



## groovetube

Yes we all know the dollar only declines when there's a chance the ndp might take power.


----------



## i-rui

OMG the sky is falling!!!

oh wait... the Dollar is doing just fine.


----------



## Macfury

NDP surge in polls begins to weigh on Canadian dollar - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube

I donno, it looked like it soared around thursday, perhaps it's the conservative government they fear. Massive debt, spending like wild drunks, bloating government bigger than Can history, that sort of thing.

Oh right the ndp would be worse, because someone said so.


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> I donno, it looked like it soared around thursday, perhaps it's the conservative government they fear. Massive debt, spending like wild drunks, bloating government bigger than Can history, that sort of thing.
> 
> Oh right the ndp would be worse, because someone said so.


I think it was MF who said it.


----------



## MacDoc

Some of us actually do this for part of our living....the money is hardly fleeing and I notice the Aussie dollar where EVERY party is to the left of ours and corporate taxes are 30% is at 1.09 to the US - historic highs.

Strange that .....











I found it so ironic, Harper bleating today about big gov if the NDP gets in when he oversees the biggest ever gov expenses ( ALL under his watch ), massive senate spending, stupid single engine jet purchases, a giant deficit that did not need to be as deep and corporate welfare for the oil patch.....

The irony the irony.....


----------



## dona83

Our local Libertarian candidate did not win any fans at all. Hahaha. Our local Conservative candidate got nothing but cheers, no matter what he spit out of his mouth. 

Harper's not going for smaller government, just government change. Less money on government workers, more money on fighter jets, prisons, and roads. We might as well be nicknamed US North.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Some of us actually do this for part of our living....the money is hardly fleeing and I notice the Aussie dollar where EVERY party is to the left of ours and corporate taxes are 30% is at 1.09 to the US - historic highs.
> 
> The irony the irony.....:


More like "the iron, the iron." Oz is rich with resources which are plumping up the Aussie dollar. Even a country to the left of ours will have a hard time pissing away that much resource wealth, though Julia Gillard is trying hard.

That's what's been plumping up Canada's dollar as well.


----------



## groovetube

and here I thought Canada, was rich with resources.

The tap dancing continues...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> and here I thought Canada, was rich with resources.


groove, your grasp of economics and currency markets may be... somewhat limited. Despite Canada's enviable resource situation, the dollar has been under pressure as the NDP surges to popularity.


----------



## Max

Yet a slightly lower dollar can also help with Canadian exports. I dunno, sky ain't falling yet.

But don't let me spoil your fun! Please - continue to sound the alarm.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Yet a slightly lower dollar can also help with Canadian exports. I dunno, sky ain't falling yet.
> 
> But don't let me spoil your fun! Please - continue to sound the alarm.


It won't fall unless he becomes PM. Then everyone would be exporting like crazy!


----------



## MacDoc

Harper''s whinging at the border was pathetic......who's afraid of the big bad Jack......

Harpo.....











> Clearly alarmed by polling that shows the New Democrats surging in many parts of the country, Harper escalated his rhetoric against the man who has emerged as his main opponent.
> 
> “Friends, the NDP approach to positions like trade has not changed since the Cold War. It is an ideological throwback, bad for the economy, bad for Canada,” he said.
> 
> He pleaded with Canadians to elect a Tory majority and cautioned against voting in “a ramshackle coalition led by the NDP that will not last and will do a lot of destruction.”


Layton a ?throwback? who would harm U.S. relations, Harper warns - thestar.com


----------



## groovetube

Then, hopefully he becomes PM then, because, increased exports, means more biz here.

But we should be cared, since, as macfury suggests, Canada has not much in the way of natural resources, a record high dollar ebbing and flowing means the communists are coming, and we should bloat government bigger, spend tons of cash on new toys, and let the big corporations off while we shoulder more tax burden.

That, apparently, should give us some warm fuzzies. If only macfury could actually vote libertarian! (but he doesn't like the libertarian party here it seems...)


----------



## Macfury

C'mon MacDoc, do you expect the leaders to be patting each other on the back. You've been alive a lot of years, MD--is this something new to you?


----------



## MacDoc

> NEW YORK, N.Y. - Exxon earned nearly US$11 billion in the first quarter, a performance likely to land it in the centre of the national debate over high gasoline prices in the United States.
> 
> The world's largest publicly traded company said Thursday that higher oil prices boosted profits 69 per cent from a year ago. The result was Exxon's best since earning a record $14.83 billion in 2008's third quarte


High oil boosts Exxon profit near $11B; looks to tame furor in gas price debate - Yahoo! Canada Finance



> the Canadian oil and gas industry “received $2.84 billion in tax incentives from the different levels of government across Canada in 2008 through 63 different subsidy programs”. *They estimate that $1.38 billion of this comes from the federal government.* Alberta is the province that provides the most subsidy: $1.05 billion, followed by Saskatchewan at $327 million and Newfoundland and Labrador at $83 million.


Fossil fuel subsidies in Canada

corporate welfare indeed ......under Harper, huge gov, huge deficit and the lowest corp taxes in OECD - almost 1/2 of the average, pander to the oil companies

Oh such a wonderful manager is Harpo.....NOT


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> groove, your grasp of economics and currency markets may be... somewhat limited. Despite Canada's enviable resource situation, the dollar has been under pressure as the NDP surges to popularity.


So the dollar has been under pressure for, like, a week now?

Perhaps that's because until the NDP surge, the results of this election was predicted to be "more of the same" and now it's "WTF? Damned if I know."


----------



## MacDoc

> That's what's been plumping up Canada's dollar as well.


It's CERTAINLY not Harper's management .....or ethics.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> It's CERTAINLY not Harper's management .....or ethics.


Resources.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-canada


I agree with you on this, MacDoc. But you want to subsidize other industries instead, while i want to subsidize no industry.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> corporate welfare indeed ......under Harper, huge gov, huge deficit and the lowest corp taxes in OECD - almost 1/2 of the average, pander to the oil companies
> 
> Oh such a wonderful manager is Harpo.....NOT


We have the lowest deficit in the G7. Did you notice the economic downturn, by chance?

Our job losses during the recession were very low. Lower taxes have a lot to do with that.


----------



## i-rui

just for the record, the dollar is actually up 2.5+ cents since Harper's last day in office.


----------



## MLeh

MacDoc said:


> lowest corp taxes in OECD - almost 1/2 of the average


I wish people would quit comparing the FEDERAL portion of taxes paid by corporations to other countries' total taxes. In Canada the Federal portion of the tax is approximately 1/2 of the total tax burden a corporation has. When you add in the provincial portion of the tax, the total corporate taxes paid by Canadian corporations becomes very close to the amount paid in other countries.

For instance, in BC the Federal Tax rate is currently 16.5%, while the BC tax is 4.5% for the first $500,000.00 in income (approximately) and 12% for anything over that. So for a big corporation the actual tax rate comes in close to 28.5%, or very close to the 'average' in most other countries. This is about the lowest rate in Canada. Most other provinces actually have higher provincial tax rates. Source


So, it's NOT '1/2 of the average', and I wish people would state WHOLE facts, not half-truths.

(Now, if you want to talk about tax loopholes, we can talk major inequities, but it won't be inequities in Canada - it'll be that country down south. Close the loopholes. The conservatives did close a major loophole - the income trust loophole. That's where the taxes are lost - in the loopholes, not in the base tax rates.)


----------



## MLeh

i-rui said:


> just for the record, the dollar is actually up 2.5+ cents since Harper's last day in office.


Compared to what? The US$?

Compare the CAD$ to the Euro or other major currencies.

It's not that the CAD$ is up so much as the US$ is down.


----------



## MLeh

I'd also like to point out that it's not so much tax rates and tax loopholes as 'tax avoidance' that has the greatest effect on tax revenues in the country, and these are usually the results of individual actions.

When a person avoids paying the GST or HST by paying a contractor under the table, not only are they robbing the federal or provincial coffers of that consumption tax, but they are also enabling the corporations or individual to avoid paying income tax on that income. It's a double whammy.

IMO one of the best programs the federal government came out with during the recession was the home improvement tax credit, because they required individuals to have receipts for any home improvements they wished to claim for the tax credit. Thousands of contractors who would normally avoid taxes had to actually claim income because their customers were asking for receipts.

The underground economy is far more expensive to our country as a whole than any corporate tax decreases. But that means taking individual responsibility - paying that GST or HST and thinking of the 'big picture'.

(If everyone actually paid 'their fair share', then tax rates overall could be lower. It goes hand in hand with not abusing the system when thinking we should be getting 'our fair share' back out of the system, when in reality a lot of 'our share' is actually going to help those less fortunate than ourselves - those who are truly 'in need'.)


----------



## MacDoc

You mean like droves of new appointed senators with lifetime pensions, or the destitute jet builders in the US ...or the horridly broke resource companies trucking national resources out of the country while paying a pittance compared to other OECD nations....Australia notably.

Mleh - if gov is perceived to be delivering value for money - which clearly this one is NOT.....then individuals are less inclined to dodge. 30% of families in Toronto are below the poverty line, much due to unbridled speculation on property which hammers the poor and working poor the hardest.

If on the other hand gov costs and wages are perceived to be far out of line with private......for instance pay levels and in particular pension benefits....against the private sector - then individuals and small companies are less inclined to feather the already over stuffed gov mattress.

Huge subsidies to highly profitable oil companies - while small business which provides 60% of the employment in the nation can't even get financing at reasonable cost from federally chartered banks.
THEIR capital can be used perfectly legally up to 15-20 times in a chartered fractional lending scheme.......but small business gets diddly - not even some protection from predatory credit companies.
And individuals subject to payday loan companies.

Sorry but your thesis fails badly when multinationals are catered to and not paying THEIR fair share and the gov spending on wages and benefits far above private sector. Harper has broken all records for size of gov and spending.

Australia is booming yet has a 30% corporate tax, an effective and smaller gov and much better, visibly better infrastructure ( outside Ottawa of course where the funds granted to the NCC keeps the city gorgeous and functional).
....meanwhile municipalities, notably Toronto, that provide those funds are starved.

It's busted, Canadians understand this and want change.....hence Jack's bounce.
Where IS the light rail transit for Toronto?

Mired in political games amongst three levels of over paid politicians.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> We have the lowest deficit in the G7. Did you notice the economic downturn, by chance?
> 
> Our job losses during the recession were very low. *Lower taxes have a lot to do with that.*


nonsense.


----------



## bryanc

MLeh said:


> If everyone actually paid 'their fair share', then tax rates overall could be lower. It goes hand in hand with not abusing the system when thinking we should be getting 'our fair share' back out of the system, when in reality a lot of 'our share' is actually going to help those less fortunate than ourselves - those who are truly 'in need'.


:clap:

Absolutely correct. And I completely agree with you on the issue of tax loopholes being the biggest problem. Unfortunately, we've allowed the system to develop into one where tax lawyers make the laws, and they have a vested interest in making the tax law as complex and esoteric as possible, because this creates work for tax lawyers.

It's also a system in which the vast majority of citizens, who work as salaried employes, have very little they can do to shelter their income from taxation, whereas wealthy individuals and large corporations have almost limitless opportunities to evade taxation. This obvious inequity is one of the perennial issues the NDP has raised and fought against since their inception. I'd love to see the NDP in a position where they could actually make some progress on this. It'd be nice to see if they actually achieve something in this regard.


----------



## groovetube

regardless of one's politic, this needs to be considered.

At one time the call was to send a message to the liberals that what happened with adscam, was not acceptable. So we should be sending the same sort of message, to the conservatives.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And I completely agree with you on the issue of tax loopholes being the biggest problem. Unfortunately, we've allowed the system to develop into one where tax lawyers make the laws, and they have a vested interest in making the tax law as complex and esoteric as possible, because this creates work for tax lawyers.
> 
> It's also a system in which the vast majority of citizens, who work as salaried employes, have very little they can do to shelter their income from taxation, whereas wealthy individuals and large corporations have almost limitless opportunities to evade taxation.


Their policies are inherently incapable of addressing this. A flat tax would. 

Buying into the notion that most taxes are helping "the needy" now borders on the ridiculous. Most social programs now move money from one person's pocket to another's and neither of them are in particular need, or disabled, or visited upon by misfortune of any sort. The amount of money that actually helps the truly needy is a pittance compared to the huge cash outlays for non-essentials. Even the NDP obfuscates this, because they see themselves administering vast and complex social engineering schemes instead of getting at the root of the problem.

Even the idea that raising corporate taxes considerably would somehow fill the coffers without causing other problems is embarrassingly simplistic.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> 
> Absolutely correct. And I completely agree with you on the issue of tax loopholes being the biggest problem. Unfortunately, we've allowed the system to develop into one where tax lawyers make the laws, and they have a vested interest in making the tax law as complex and esoteric as possible, because this creates work for tax lawyers.
> 
> It's also a system in which the vast majority of citizens, who work as salaried employes, have very little they can do to shelter their income from taxation, whereas wealthy individuals and large corporations have almost limitless opportunities to evade taxation. This obvious inequity is one of the perennial issues the NDP has raised and fought against since their inception. I'd love to see the NDP in a position where they could actually make some progress on this. It'd be nice to see if they actually achieve something in this regard.


Amen, Brother bryanc. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

and, what would getting at the root of the problem be for you macfury?


----------



## jimbotelecom

groovetube said:


> regardless of one's politic, this needs to be considered.
> 
> At one time the call was to send a message to the liberals that what happened with adscam, was not acceptable. So we should be sending the same sort of message, to the conservatives.


:clap::clap::clap::clap:
One of my former profs. I didn't expect this from Peter since he advised our GG during the prorogue incident. He's bang on.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> and, what would getting at the root of the problem be for you macfury?


"At this festive time of year Mr. Scrooge, many of us believe that we must take care of our poor and homeless."

"Are there no prisons or poor houses?" Scrooge asked.

"Oh,plenty of those sir."

"Excellent," Scrooge said happily, "for a moment I was worried."


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Their policies are inherently incapable of addressing this. A flat tax would.
> 
> Buying into the notion that most taxes are helping "the needy" now borders on the ridiculous. Most social programs now move money from one person's pocket to another's and neither of them are in particular need, or disabled, or visited upon by misfortune of any sort. The amount of money that actually helps the truly needy is a pittance compared to the huge cash outlays for non-essentials. Even the NDP obfuscates this, because they see themselves administering vast and complex social engineering schemes instead of getting at the root of the problem.
> 
> Even the idea that raising corporate taxes considerably would somehow fill the coffers without causing other problems is embarrassingly simplistic.


Thank you.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> and, what would getting at the root of the problem be for you macfury?


The root of the problem differs for many but the root problem in this situation fits plenty of folk.

I have a relative in his 50s. His moto and that of his wife was to "live life to the full, you could be dead tomorrow" and "you can't take it with you". They often repeated this mantra whenever a friend tried to caution them about buying something they couldn't afford.
_Live life to the full_ meant they never denied themselves anything they desired if it was obtainable. Lots of whiskey and pot, never missed a party, a vacation, a hockey tournament in a distant city and ate out in restaurants regularly for breakfast, lunch and supper. Drove 5 miles every day, often twice a day to pick up a Timmy's. He and the wife insisted on granite countertops in their house and the wife often treated herself to $100 pairs of jeans. They also seemed to despise work. His wife often bitched about her job and longed for a workers compensation pension for a non work related injury. Claiming unemployment insurance was something they looked forward to, like winning a lottery. He was in a band on the weekends and rarely worked during the weekdays even though there was plenty of work available to him. If money did come in, paying debt wasn't on the radar. More toys and good times were the priority.

_You can't take it with you_ meant they never saved a dime for retirement, took the longest mortgage humanly possible, bought most everything during those don't pay a cent events, ran up credit cards and only worked when they felt like it or needed to. Sadly her parents spoiled her rotten as a child and were enablers during the marriage often covered when there was too much week at the end of the money. They practically raised their children for them.

Now the marriage has imploded and the chickens are coming home to roost. The wife hooked up with an old high school sweetheart on facebook and he's faced with loosing everything as the creditors close in. The guy now goes to his aging parents, whom he often belittled for being so tight with a buck, with cap in hand looking for a bailout to try and hold his house which he has only paid off about 15% of after all those years. He goes to his elderly parents not in humility but with a sense of expectancy and entitlement. His parents aren't biting though. Once the lawyers are done with them and the debts are paid, he'll be broke and living in a small apartment someplace.

Now he is counted among the needy. Sadly this outcome could have easily been averted if he had addressed his root problem, his outlook on life. This outlook on life is the root problem of many (not all) that find themselves in desperate times. Its not fair to those that were responsible citizens or those truly in need due to legitimate circumstances to be expected to come in and clean up the mess of this self inflicted train wreck if the root cause is not addressed. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G.

MacGuiver said:


> The root of the problem differs for many but the root problem in this situation fits many.
> 
> I have a relative in his 50s. His moto and that of his wife was to "live life to the full, you could be dead tomorrow" and "you can't take it with you". They often repeated this mantra whenever a friend tried to caution them about buying something they couldn't afford.
> _Live life to the full_ meant they never denied themselves anything they desired if it was obtainable. Lots of whiskey and pot, never missed a party, a vacation, a hockey tournament in a distant city and ate out in restaurants regularly for breakfast, lunch and supper. Drove 5 miles every day, often twice a day to pick up a Timmy's. He and the wife insisted on granite countertops in their house and the wife often treated herself to $100 pairs of jeans. They also seemed to despise work. His wife often bitched about her job and longed for a workers compensation pension for a non work related injury. Claiming unemployment insurance was something they looked forward to, like winning a lottery. He was in a band on the weekends and rarely worked during the weekdays even though there was plenty of work available to him. If money did come in, paying debt wasn't on the radar. More toys and good times were the priority.
> 
> _You can't take it with you_ meant they never saved a dime for retirement, took the longest mortgage humanly possible, bought most everything during those don't pay a cent events, ran up credit cards and only worked when they felt like it or needed to. Sadly her parents spoiled her rotten as a child and were enablers during the marriage often covered when there was too much week at the end of the money. They practically raised their children for them.
> 
> Now the marriage has imploded and the chickens are coming home to roost. The wife hooked up with an old high school sweetheart on facebook and he's faced with loosing everything as the creditors close in. The guy now goes to his aging parents, whom he often belittled for being so tight with a buck, with cap in hand looking for a bailout to try and hold his house which he has only paid off about 15% of after all those years. He goes to his elderly parents not in humility but with a sense of expectancy and entitlement. His parents aren't biting though. Once the lawyers are done with them and the debts are paid, he'll be broke and living in a small apartment someplace.
> 
> Now he is counted among the needy. Sadly this outcome could have easily been averted if he had addressed his root problem, his outlook on life. This outlook on life is the root problem of many (not all) that find themselves in desperate times. Its not fair to those that were responsible citizens or those truly in need due to legitimate circumstances to be expected to come in and clean up the mess of this self inflicted train wreck if the root cause is not addressed.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


An interesting scenario, MacG. Not sure what province he is in, but here in NL, he would find it difficult to get much social assistance in that he is an able-bodied male with no dependents. True, this situation was of his own making and I don't feel much pity for him. Still, the problem is do we deny the 99 people who are truly in need of assistance because we want to deny him of any assistance? That is a problem, I agree, but as much as I would not want to see my hard-earned tax dollars going to help him somewhat, I certainly would not want to see these dollars not spent on those in true need through no fault of their own.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Buying into the notion that most taxes are helping "the needy" now borders on the ridiculous.


Taxes aren't for the 'needy' but for the needs of society. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, enforcement of public safety/environmental/labour laws, scientific research, policing and emergency services, etc. These are essential aspects of a modern society, but they cannot (and should not) be provided as a for profit service.

Even if we personally don't 'need' much by way of healthcare, education, etc. we all benefit from living in a society of educated, healthy people with technological innovations, art, literature, a clean environment, etc.

Providing a social safety net is a small aspect of the essential role of government.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> Taxes aren't for the 'needy' but for the needs of society. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, enforcement of public safety/environmental/labour laws, scientific research, policing and emergency services, etc. These are essential aspects of a modern society, but they cannot (and should not) be provided as a for profit service.
> 
> Even if we personally don't 'need' much by way of healthcare, education, etc. we all benefit from living in a society of educated, healthy people with technological innovations, art, literature, a clean environment, etc.
> 
> Providing a social safety net is a small aspect of the essential role of government.


One of the best postings I have ever read in any thread in my nearly 10 years here in ehMacLand. Kudos to you, bryanc. Excellent points. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MLeh

bryanc said:


> Taxes aren't for the 'needy' but for the needs of society. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, enforcement of public safety/environmental/labour laws, scientific research, policing and emergency services, etc. These are essential aspects of a modern society, but they cannot (and should not) be provided as a for profit service.
> 
> Even if we personally don't 'need' much by way of healthcare, education, etc. we all benefit from living in a society of educated, healthy people with technological innovations, art, literature, a clean environment, etc.
> 
> Providing a social safety net is a small aspect of the essential role of government.


I agree with this. Now if we can only agree what the essential 'needs' are, versus 'wants'.

Some believe that they are entitled to be the beneficiaries of government programs as long as someone else is paying the taxes.


----------



## FeXL

MLeh said:


> Some believe that they are entitled to be the beneficiaries of government programs as long as someone else is paying the taxes.


Thank you.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> An interesting scenario, MacG. Not sure what province he is in, but here in NL, he would find it difficult to get much social assistance in that he is an able-bodied male with no dependents. True, this situation was of his own making and I don't feel much pity for him. Still, the problem is do we deny the* 99 people who are truly in need of assistance* because we want to deny him of any assistance? That is a problem, I agree, but as much as I would not want to see my hard-earned tax dollars going to help him somewhat, *I certainly would not want to see these dollars not spent on those in true need through no fault of their own.*
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


This is a vast generalization and one that I doubt there is little evidence to support. We all make choices in life and some of us are more willing to accept our lot in life based on those choices than others. Some people truly are the victims of circumstance, but I highly doubt it is 99% of those seeking government assistance.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Providing a social safety net is a small aspect of the essential role of government.


Providing jobs to a bloated bureaucracy twice or three times the size needed to actually get the job done is not.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> This is a vast generalization and one that I doubt there is little evidence to support. We all make choices in life and some of us are more willing to accept our lot in life based on those choices than others.


True, but my point is how do we determine that this person brought this upon himself, where others have been struggling to get ahead and their company just packed up to go to Mexico, or there are no trees to mill so the lumber plant closed?


----------



## bryanc

MLeh said:


> Now if we can only agree what the essential 'needs' are, versus 'wants'.


A very tricky business indeed.

I have little to contribute to this difficult problem apart from pointing out that this is not necessarily a binary distinction; there exists a spectrum ranging from 'need' to 'want'. Furthermore, what is a 'need' for some may be a 'want' (or even an undesirable) for another, so there will be no "one size fits all" solution. There will likely be some programs that most (but probably not all) of us can agree are needed (healthcare, education, environmental protection, and emergency services come to mind), and others that would be more difficult to prioritize (arts funding, research funding, military funding, etc.).

How we prioritize these, and where we draw the line at which government funding stops is the interesting debate.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> True, but my point is how do we determine that this person brought this upon himself, where others have been struggling to get ahead and their company just packed up to go to Mexico, or there are no trees to mill so the lumber plant closed?


I was working for a company that packed up and moved to the US in 2006. I had to go on EI and then when that ran out cash out all my RRSPs just to stay afloat until I found a job. I ended up having to take a 20% pay cut from my previous situation despite my education and experience just to get a job to keep us afloat and at no time did I think it was the government's fault or their responsibility to bail me out.


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr.G. said:


> An interesting scenario, MacG. Not sure what province he is in, but here in NL, he would find it difficult to get much social assistance in that he is an able-bodied male with no dependents. True, this situation was of his own making and I don't feel much pity for him. Still, the problem is do we deny the 99 people who are truly in need of assistance because we want to deny him of any assistance? That is a problem, I agree, but as much as I would not want to see my hard-earned tax dollars going to help him somewhat, I certainly would not want to see these dollars not spent on those in true need through no fault of their own.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Hey Dr.G

I agree with you that we need to help those that need it. It is essential that we have a social safety net for those that fall through the cracks but I do differ with you on your 99% figure. I think variations of my scenario above are playing out far more often than we think.

You used the Scrooge analogy earlier but I recon a good number of our needy don't fit the hard working, humble Bob Cratchit model. I don't think its fair to be constantly bailing out those that have absolutely no desire to help themselves despite having the ability to do so. 

Again, there are many that truly need our help and they should get it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MLeh

bryanc said:


> A very tricky business indeed.
> 
> I have little to contribute to this difficult problem apart from pointing out that this is not necessarily a binary distinction; there exists a spectrum ranging from 'need' to 'want'. Furthermore, what is a 'need' for some may be a 'want' (or even an undesirable) for another, so there will be no "one size fits all" solution. There will likely be some programs that most (but probably not all) of us can agree are needed (healthcare, education, environmental protection, and emergency services come to mind), and others that would be more difficult to prioritize (arts funding, research funding, military funding, etc.).
> 
> How we prioritize these, and where we draw the line at which government funding stops is the interesting debate.


Exactly.

For instance: housing. Are we entitled to shelter? I think everyone would say 'yes', to some basic form of protection from the elements. What form should that shelter take?

My family is very involved with 'Habitat for Humanity'. A lot of people think that H4H is a 'handout' program, but it is actually conceived as a 'hand up not a hand out'. People who get Habitat homes have to have a source of income and be willing to commit to paying a mortgage. The mortgage has zero interest, but they still are committing to paying back the cost of the home. But you wouldn't believe the number of people who come forward looking for a 'freebie', or the members of the general public who think that someone moving into a Habitat home in their community is a 'freeloader'. Neither is the case. The committee who selects the families who get the homes have to be strong enough to say "Sorry, this is not the program for you."

I really believe that the differences between the political spectrums come from cynicism on one side to too much optimism about humanities motivations on the other. I try to have a touch of both cynicism and optimism, although I fear I do fall a bit on the cynic side of things when it comes to government programs.


----------



## Vandave

MacGuiver said:


> You used the Scrooge analogy earlier but I recon a good number of our needy don't fit the hard working, humble Bob Cratchit model. I don't think its fair to be constantly bailing out those that have absolutely no desire to help themselves despite having the ability to do so.
> 
> Again, there are many that truly need our help and they should get it.


I agree.

We have essentially waged a 'War on Poverty' for the last 80 years that has been about as successful as the 'War on Drugs'.

Sadly, no amount of money or programs will solve our social problems. You fundamentally cannot save those who do not want to be saved. Throwing money at things doesn't lead to better outcomes. 

Many of our First Nation communities are a very good example of this. You can compare two different bands living side by side and see drastically different outcomes. For example, compare the Penticton Band to the Osoyoos Band. The Osoyoos Band is fanatical about jobs and the economy and business is absolutely booming for them and they have had great outcomes. The opposite is true of Penticton, yet both started with the exact same resources. The difference between the two was simply leadership and a desire of the Osoyoos Band to make things better.

In my opinion, this anecdote is similar to those in poverty. If the will is there, the system will help people move forward. But, if the desire is missing, it just won't happen, no matter the amount of NDP MPs or money thrown at the issue.


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> Taxes aren't for the 'needy' but for the needs of society. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, enforcement of public safety/environmental/labour laws, scientific research, policing and emergency services, etc. These are essential aspects of a modern society, but they cannot (and should not) be provided as a for profit service.


Why can they not be provided as a for profit? Who cares what the mechanisms are? Are we not simply interested in outcomes? ?

If businesses can deliver such services more efficiently, I would rather that occur so that our money can go further and help more people.


----------



## Rps

Very true Dr. G. We tend to have a myopia on how we as a whole people live. I remember a number of years ago there was a debate on the economy and poverty ( perpetual I know ), I lived in Oshawa then and worked for GM. At that time Oshawa had one of the highest per capita incomes in Canada. I remember getting into a discussion with a fellow employee and he stated that all this talk about poverty was just spin by the campaigning political parties....as he stated "I look outside my window and I don't see a single poor person". I felt sad for his mind set. Now, almost 20 years later with substantial layoffs and job loss, many have not recovered...... I wonder what he sees outside his window now.

The true issue with distribution is the constant interference by the Feds into Provincial responsibilities. We will never get our act together as long as our government's compete amongst themselves....... we need to stop treating symptoms and start treating root causes ....


----------



## FeXL

Vandave said:


> Many of our First Nation communities are a very good example of this. You can compare two different bands living side by side and see drastically different outcomes. For example, compare the Penticton Band to the Osoyoos Band. The Osoyoos Band is fanatical about jobs and the economy and business is absolutely booming for them and they have had great outcomes. The opposite is true of Penticton, yet both started with the exact same resources. The difference between the two was simply leadership and a desire of the Osoyoos Band to make things better.
> 
> In my opinion, this anecdote is similar to those in poverty. If the will is there, the system will help people move forward. But, if the desire is missing, it just won't happen, no matter the amount of NDP MPs or money thrown at the issue.


Thank you.

"I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson


----------



## MacDoc

> If businesses can deliver such services more efficiently, I would rather that occur so that our money can go further and help more people.


The right wing mantra privatization and the market fixes all ills - we certainly saw the failure of that big time in the financial meltdown.

and just how do you account for China....dumb luck?
Or France's nuclear program.

Optional items like consumer electronics say on one end are fine in the private sector - while essentials like water supply and quality are not.

Private money always has a place to be part of the funding of projects be it private or public.

There are grey areas? is a national airline an essential service.
Most nations have put airspace control and safety squarely in the public domain and have gone back and forth between private and public on a national airlines in conjunction with parallel private airlines.

Leaving critical services in the hands of private monopolies or oligopolies has proven disastrous, leaving services at the mercy of public unions also disastrous.

There is no one answer fits all.

In war nations take control to an extent people would be hard pressed to believe......why so they do that?.....because it's efficient use of resources under a single command ( see China even now )

Where private comes in is in innovative approaches and willingness to fail that govs rarely show or are loathe to undertake.


----------



## MacDoc

> The difference between the two was simply leadership


and that applies at all levels from the individual entrepreneur to the public servant to the heads of nations and corporations.
The additional aspect is willingness to make a decision and move forward with it and not waffle.
Chretien understood that, Martin did not.
Harper should be serving his with maple syrup.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> The right wing mantra privatization and the market fixes all ills - we certainly saw the failure of that big time in the financial meltdown.
> 
> *and just how do you account for China....dumb luck?*
> Or France's nuclear program.
> 
> Optional items like consumer electronics say on one end are fine in the private sector - while essentials like water supply and quality are not.
> 
> Private money always has a place to be part of the funding of projects be it private or public.
> 
> There are grey areas? is a national airline an essential service.
> Most nations have put airspace control and safety squarely in the public domain and have gone back and forth between private and public on a national airlines in conjunction with parallel private airlines.
> 
> *Leaving critical services in the hands of private monopolies or oligopolies has proven disastrous, leaving services at the mercy of public unions also disastrous.*
> 
> There is no one answer fits all.
> 
> In war nations take control to an extent people would be hard pressed to believe......why so they do that?.....because it's efficient use of resources under a single command ( see China even now )
> 
> Where private comes in is in innovative approaches and willingness to fail that govs rarely show or are loathe to undertake.


What is China other than monopolies or oligopolies... oh I know an authoritarian dictatorship.... you are going to cite China as an alternative... Puhhlleeaasee.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Even the idea that raising corporate taxes considerably would somehow fill the coffers without causing other problems is embarrassingly simplistic.


it's just as simplistic as anyone who says raising them 3% (or not dropping them) will cost us massive job and economic growth.

or that an NDP government would send our dollar crashing.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Very true Dr. G. We tend to have a myopia on how we as a whole people live. I remember a number of years ago there was a debate on the economy and poverty ( perpetual I know ), I lived in Oshawa then and worked for GM. At that time Oshawa had one of the highest per capita incomes in Canada. I remember getting into a discussion with a fellow employee and he stated that all this talk about poverty was just spin by the campaigning political parties....as he stated "I look outside my window and I don't see a single poor person". I felt sad for his mind set. Now, almost 20 years later with substantial layoffs and job loss, many have not recovered...... I wonder what he sees outside his window now.
> 
> *The true issue with distribution is the constant interference by the Feds into Provincial responsibilities.* We will never get our act together as long as our government's compete amongst themselves....... we need to stop treating symptoms and start treating root causes ....


I totally agree but this is exactly what the NDP and new red Lib agendas call for... a National Daycare program, a National Education program, a National Housing program etc. etc... they are calling for a one size fits all solution and grossly overstepping their jurisdictional authority in their platforms...


----------



## chasMac

screature said:


> What is China other than monopolies or oligopolies... oh I know an authoritarian dictatorship.... you are going to cite China as an alternative... Puhhlleeaasee.


Laud Chinese government policies and then criticize Harper for being a control freak. Odd.


----------



## MacDoc

There is this little term called *public weal* .....look it up some time.

bit different than corporate pandering and welfare.


----------



## chasMac

Ah, (certain corners of) the left's fascination with China:



> According to New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman in his mega-best-selling book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, China banned plastic bags a few years ago. “Bam! Just like that — 1.3 billion people, theoretically, will stop using thin plastic bags,” he gushed. “Millions of barrels of petroleum will be saved, and mountains of garbage avoided.”
> 
> *China’s got us beat, suggests Friedman, because its leaders aren’t hung up on democracy, checks and balances, or any of the other dusty old impediments found in the American system.* Friedman has proclaimed his envy for China’s authoritarian system countless times. It’s why he titled one of the chapters in his book “China for a Day.” The idea — he calls it his “fantasy” — is that if we could just be China for a day, the experts could impose by diktat what they cannot win through democratic debate.
> 
> See You Next Tyranny Day! - Jonah Goldberg - National Review Online


----------



## Rps

Screature, I think this is an issue with all parties not just the NDP and Libs, but one gets better coverage with the term National Programme........


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Screature, I think this is an issue with all parties not just the NDP and Libs, but one gets better coverage with the term National Programme........


We will have to agree to disagree on this point. The Cons are much more concerned with respecting and promoting the jurisdictional authority of the provinces than are the two other national parties in terms of general policy.


----------



## MacDoc

Funny sort of fleeing ....another MF "theory" shot down.


----------



## MLeh

MacDoc said:


> Funny sort of fleeing ....another MF "theory" shot down.


PLEASE look at other rates comparatively: ie the Euro and UK £

As I said before, it's not that the Canadian $ is up, it's that the US$ is down.

If you look at the CAD$ compared to the £, the exchange rate has gone from 1.54 to 1.60, and the Euro from 1.35 to 1.40. Our dollar is dropping, but the US$ is dropping FASTER.


----------



## i-rui

Currency fluctuates. Right now the Euro and Pound are strong.

The most important currency to Canada is the USD.


----------



## MacDoc

And by MFs thinking the Australian economy should be floundering with 30% corporate tax and their dollar is also high.

Harper is a sell out to special interests......not Canadian interests....he only panders to get elected.

The US is case in point for failure of market uber alle mind set ...how 16th century.


----------



## MLeh

i-rui said:


> Currency fluctuates. Right now the Euro and Pound are strong.
> 
> The most important currency to Canada is the USD.


Actually ... no, the Euro and especially the £ are not strong right now. They're just not as weak as the US$. This global recession has hurt a lot of currencies, and it is a very complex issue, especially with the artificial limitations the Chinese have placed on their currency.

(You're living in a dream world if you don't think the relative strength of the CAD$ to currencies other than the US$ doesn't matter in our global economy.)


----------



## Vandave

screature said:


> What is China other than monopolies or oligopolies... oh I know an authoritarian dictatorship.... you are going to cite China as an alternative... Puhhlleeaasee.


I agree. It's completely absurd to compare Canada to China. It's equally absurd to think that we should emulate their approach to governance and business in any way.

Any dummy can see that China has done well to date mostly due to cheap labour and free trade.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> There is no one answer fits all.


Never made such a claim. You clearly missed the 'If'.


----------



## MLeh

MacDoc said:


> And by MFs thinking the Australian economy should be floundering with 30% corporate tax and their dollar is also high.
> 
> Harper is a sell out to special interests......not Canadian interests....he only panders to get elected.
> 
> The US is case in point for failure of market uber alle mind set ...how 16th century.


As noted previously, when the provincial component is included the combined tax burden on Canadian corporations in most provinces of Canada is on par with Australia.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!

U.S. border deal at risk without majority: Harper - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## whatiwant

jimbotelecom said:


> Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> U.S. border deal at risk without majority: Harper - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


FEAR !


----------



## Dr T

MLeh said:


> PLEASE look at other rates comparatively: ie the Euro and UK £
> 
> As I said before, it's not that the Canadian $ is up, it's that the US$ is down.
> 
> If you look at the CAD$ compared to the £, the exchange rate has gone from 1.54 to 1.60, and the Euro from 1.35 to 1.40. Our dollar is dropping, but the US$ is dropping FASTER.


I quite agree with your point.

And the Australian dollar, which has for a long time been lower-valued than the Canadian dollar, has now overtaken our currency, since the new coalition govt came to power Down Under.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> I was working for a company that packed up and moved to the US in 2006. I had to go on EI and then when that ran out cash out all my RRSPs just to stay afloat until I found a job. I ended up having to take a 20% pay cut from my previous situation despite my education and experience just to get a job to keep us afloat and at no time did I think it was the government's fault or their responsibility to bail me out.


Sorry to hear of this situation, screature. Sadly, the company may have applied for a tax credit to move to the US.


----------



## i-rui

MLeh said:


> Actually ... no, the Euro and especially the £ are not strong right now. They're just not as weak as the US$. This global recession has hurt a lot of currencies, and it is a very complex issue, especially with the artificial limitations the Chinese have placed on their currency.
> 
> (You're living in a dream world if you don't think the relative strength of the CAD$ to currencies other than the US$ doesn't matter in our global economy.)


The Euro is at a 17 month high. The Pound is down recently, but overall it seems to have been fairly stable.

I'm not saying the strength of the CAD$ to global currencies "doesn't matter", what I'm saying is that the most *IMPORTANT* currency to the CAD$ is the USD$. They're our major trading partner. It's actually better if they're up on us (although obviously not at the expense of devaluing both our currencies).

Point being this fear mongering about our dollar is silly.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Oh No!!!!!!!!!!
Canada's economy unexpectedly shrinks in February - The Globe and Mail
What with Harper in charge and no writ dropped? Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc

The knives will be out....



> NIAGARA FALLS—Stephen Harper's Conservatives must win 23 more seats in Ontario to achieve their coveted majority, a task that senior party insiders now admit is almost impossible, the Star has learned.
> 
> High-ranking sources confide that even with the collapse of Michael Ignatieff's Liberals — and NDP Leader Jack Layton's surge, which helps split the vote in many Ontario ridings — it will be very difficult to make such immense gains in Canada's most populous province.
> 
> At the dissolution of Parliament, the minority Tories held 51 of Ontario's 106 federal seats.
> 
> Party sources say the possible loss of several British Columbia ridings to the New Democrats — and others in Quebec, where Layton is surfing an orange wave — has forced them to revise their projections.
> 
> As of Thursday, they said they needed to win at least 74 seats in Ontario to achieve a majority.
> 
> “It all comes down to Ontario and we're just not there,” a source said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the party's internal polling is closely guarded.
> 
> Another source confirmed the Tories' data echoes publicly available polls, such as Wednesday's Toronto Star-Angus Reid survey showing the Conservatives at 35 per cent, the New Democrats at 30 per cent and the Liberals at 22 per cent.


could not happen to a nicer guy 

Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say - thestar.com

4 elections in 7 years Stevie ..no one is fooled. 

2004 30%

In 2006, the Party received 36.27 percent of the national popular vote; 

in 2008, it received 37.63 percent 

Fast forward to 2011 a couple days before elections
The Conservatives remain stuck at 34.5 points

Give it up.


----------



## macintosh doctor

MacDoc said:


> The knives will be out....
> 
> 
> 
> could not happen to a nicer guy
> 
> Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say - thestar.com
> 
> 4 elections in 7 years Stevie ..no one is fooled.
> 
> 2004 30%
> 
> In 2006, the Party received 36.27 percent of the national popular vote;
> 
> in 2008, it received 37.63 percent
> 
> Fast forward to 2011 a couple days before elections
> The Conservatives remain stuck at 34.5 points
> 
> Give it up.


I rather have a Conservative any day - ( or Liberal -oj vey.. ) than NDP - who will destroy the country like they have every province they managed. 
( BC, ONT, now Nova Scotia - which want NDP out after 1 year. )
We came to Canada to get away from communists.. now we have a potential of a Great Country falling to its knees if NDP win.. ( already at the chance of them being opposition Bay st. and stocks are reflecting )

Not to mention would you want a prime minister who was on city counsel collecting $120 Gs with his wife and stealing from the same city ? no way.. ( Layton and his wife - collection free welfare housing - while collecting $120Gs from City of Toronto ) that is the NDP for you... 'what is mine is mine and what yours is mine'

being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year.


----------



## MacDoc

why how very McCarthy of you 










get out of the 50s much?


----------



## MacDoc

> * Economic impact of NDP win? Not much *
> 
> STEPHEN GORDON
> Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011 7:34PM EDT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The transition from producing platforms that are crazy to ones that are just dumb may not seem like much progress, but it’s enough to put the NDP within hailing distance of the Liberals and the Conservatives,' Stephen Gordon says. (PATRICK DOYLE/REUTERS)
> 
> Recent polls are pushing a surprising question to the forefront: “What would be the economic consequences of a federal NDP victory?” The equally surprising answer is: “Not much.”


Stephen Gordon - The Globe and Mail

but of course you know better

and Manitoba seems to be doing just fine .....

Then there is Muloonie and Harper.....the deficit kings of all time.....


----------



## groovetube

It's really rich to hear the con supporters screech that the NDP is gonna, or woulda spend more when we had a government, who actually did, spend way more than anyone (ever), and not only that, had major plans to spend obscene amounts of money on many hairbrained ideas that they wouldn't come clean on how much it would actually cost. Perhaps because tey knew quite well Canadians would gasp at the [price tag.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> The Conservatives remain stuck at 34.5 points
> 
> Give it up.


Give what up?

They are the most popular party in this country and represent more people than any other party does.

A majority is out of reach for every party and this has been the case for a long time and will likely remain so for a long time.

Bottom line is that Harper will remain PM for as long as he is the leader of the Conservatives and we mostly want him to stay. Deal with it.


----------



## groovetube

actually, far more Canadians do NOT want him as PM.

This is why the current system needs to be changed. A minority of Canadians get a party elected that wants to ram through their policies only and cause unnecessary elections over it. The same case can be made for Chretien's majorities.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Bottom line is that Harper will remain PM for as long as he is the leader of the Conservatives and we mostly want him to stay. Deal with it.


MacDoc is hoping the NDP will build him a hydrogen grid at taxpayer expense. Of course, he's still steaming over the fact that his dreams of government-owned housing are being torn apart, so he can be forgiven for being sore.


----------



## groovetube

we aren't ragging about tax payer funded projects are we? Harper and co were total masters of spendin it up in that regard it seems.


----------



## screature

MLeh said:


> Actually ... no, the Euro and especially the £ are not strong right now. They're just not as weak as the US$. This global recession has hurt a lot of currencies, and *it is a very complex issue, especially with the artificial limitations the Chinese have placed on their currency.*
> 
> *(You're living in a dream world if you don't think the relative strength of the CAD$ to currencies other than the US$ doesn't matter in our global economy.)[*


+1000% :clap:


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Sorry to hear of this situation, screature. Sadly, the company may have applied for a tax credit to move to the US.


At the time it was a shared US/Canadian entity a merger between GSI (General Scanning Instruments) (US) and Lumonics (Can).... it is a hugely involved situation that I was privy to beyond the position that I held.... I can't say anything more....

The company was both on the TSX and the NYSE... as I said it is a complicated situation.... 

If the company applied for a tax credit given the circumstance I would presume it was a US tax credit?


----------



## i-rui

macintosh doctor said:


> I rather have a Conservative any day - ( or Liberal -oj vey.. ) than NDP - who will destroy the country like they have every province they managed.
> ( BC, ONT, now Nova Scotia - which want NDP out after 1 year. )
> We came to Canada to get away from communists.. now we have a potential of a Great Country falling to its knees if NDP win.. ( already at the chance of them being opposition Bay st. and stocks are reflecting )


...and with Harper in a majority you'd be running from a "communist" into the waiting arms of a "fascist".

(if we're going to throw around extremes)



macintosh doctor said:


> Not to mention would you want a prime minister who was on city counsel collecting $120 Gs with his wife and stealing from the same city ? no way.. ( Layton and his wife - collection free welfare housing - while collecting $120Gs from City of Toronto ) that is the NDP for you... 'what is mine is mine and what yours is mine'
> 
> being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year.


oh gawd....



> Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[17] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[18] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing[19], and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time.[20] Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW Magazine that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.[21


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> ...and with Harper in a majority you'd be running from a "communist" into the waiting arms of a "fascist".
> 
> (if we're going to throw around extremes)
> 
> 
> 
> oh gawd....


people still believe that BS about the subsidized housing.

Well when you got nothing, lies will do eh?


----------



## screature

Ahhh.... at least some of us are true/honest to/about our proclivities and in turn our actual vote.... if only all of us could be so honest. Some of us I feel are concealing hidden agendas... the very thing that they criticize... I think that is called hypocrisy.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> people still believe that BS about the subsidized housing.
> 
> Well when you got nothing, lies will do eh?


I remember when it happened. They were driven out in disgrace.Thought people had forgotten bout that one 'eh groove?

Jack Layton flying high ? for now - thestar.com



> From time to time he has been criticized for saying one thing and doing another, including being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when he and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year.
> 
> “Jack once told me many years after that incident that it is the one thing he has never able to purge or expunge from the public’s mind, this apparent contradiction,” said former seatmate Brian Ashton.


----------



## groovetube

for the con fear monger's, today's dollar rise news...



> The Canadian dollar rebounded from a slow start Friday to end the day at 105.66 cents US -- the highest close since Nov. 9, 2007, when the Canadian dollar was worth 106.07 cents US.


What's the spin on this one, the ndp surge still affecting the canadian dollar?
:lmao:


----------



## Dr T

Vandave said:


> Give what up?
> 
> They are the most popular party in this country and represent more people than any other party does.
> 
> A majority is out of reach for every party and this has been the case for a long time and will likely remain so for a long time.
> 
> Bottom line is that Harper will remain PM for as long as he is the leader of the Conservatives and we mostly want him to stay. Deal with it.


In spite of facing the voters in several general elections, Harper's Reform-Alliance-Conservative coalition has never had the level of support that some previous Progressive Conservative leaders achieved. So maybe it is time for the Progressive Conservative faction to bow out of their failed coalition with the Harper extremists.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I remember when it happened. They were driven out in disgrace.Thought people had forgotten bout that one 'eh groove?
> 
> Jack Layton flying high ? for now - thestar.com


it was found to be erroneous. look it up. The star, reported incorrectly.


----------



## MacDoc

I'd rather 12 billion spent on affordable housing MF than useless jets and the corporate welfare schemes you love to support.

But of course you are the Harper lap puppy - yet you never acknowledge Harper is a spendthrift, questionable ethics and disrespectful of parliament.

Did you ever complain about his bloated government or his flooding the Senate with life time Senators?? Not a peep

You are just interested in keeping your right to speculate on housing intact and afraid that affordable public housing might hurt your unearned equity.

You know very well the NDP are likely to hit property speculators hard and so they should.

They should also hit rich corporations for their fair share in keeping with OECD standards - not Bush lite standards....we've seen what that has done to the US finances and infrastructure.

Disgusting comes to mind.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> for the con fear monger's, today's dollar rise news...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the spin on this one, the ndp surge still affecting the canadian dollar?
> :lmao:


The US $ is still dropping. The Canadian dollar is still at exactly the same level it was compared to other major currencies earlier today, which is lower than it was earlier this week.


----------



## groovetube

I knew there'd be a spin at the ready. But I still dont see the can dollar 'reacting' to the ndp surge.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> I remember when it happened. They were driven out in disgrace.Thought people had forgotten bout that one 'eh groove?
> 
> Jack Layton flying high ? for now - thestar.com


In case you have forgotten about it, please read the post 3 before yours, no. 1851. The concept in urban planning of mixed housing, referring to income levels, is a sound one that has proven its merit, whether applied to a single building or to an entire subdivision.


----------



## groovetube

Dr T said:


> In case you have forgotten about it, please read the post 3 before yours, no. 1851. The concept in urban planning of mixed housing, referring to income levels, is a sound one that has proven its merit, whether applied to a single building or to an entire subdivision.


he seems incapable of discovering that Layton/Chow paid extra to market value, apparently the only ones there to do so.

But they keep trotting it out, because well, you gotta hang on to something eh? :baby:


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> I'd rather 12 billion spent on affordable housing MF than useless jets and the corporate welfare schemes you love to support.
> 
> But of course you are the Harper lap puppy - yet you never acknowledge Harper is a spendthrift, questionable ethics and disrespectful of parliament.
> 
> Did you ever complain about his bloated government or his flooding the Senate with life time Senators?? Not a peep
> 
> You are just interested in keeping your right to speculate on housing intact and afraid that affordable public housing might hurt your unearned equity.
> 
> You know very well the NDP are likely to hit property speculators hard and so they should.
> 
> They should also hit rich corporations for their fair share in keeping with OECD standards - not Bush lite standards....we've seen what that has done to the US finances and infrastructure.
> 
> Disgusting comes to mined.


"If you're going to San Francisco 
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair"

Yes, I think that sets the stage nicely for a retro hippie tirade.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> he seems incapable of discovering that Layton/Chow paid extra to market value, apparently the only ones there to do so.


That's right. They were booted out for paying above market value... and the rent cheque was delivered by unicorns.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> I knew there'd be a spin at the ready. But I still dont see the can dollar 'reacting' to the ndp surge.


It's not 'spin', and world economics are a bit more complex than reacting to a simple pre-election poll in Canada. However, there may also be a bit of a reaction to Layton's retraction of his 'shoot from the hip' comment about his intention of keeping Canadian interest rates low. Apparently he doesn't even know how things work with the Bank of Canada. I'd just as soon not have him 'learning on the job' about how things actually work in the real world.


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> It's not 'spin', and world economics are a bit more complex than reacting to a simple pre-election poll in Canada. However, there may also be a bit of a reaction to Layton's retraction of his 'shoot from the hip' comment about his intention of keeping Canadian interest rates low. Apparently he doesn't even know how things work with the Bank of Canada. I'd just as soon not have him 'learning on the job' about how things actually work in the real world.


really, well it certainly didn't stop fear mongering cons from hissing the dollar dropped because of the ndp surge now did it?

I was merely mocking it, which seems to have swooshed over the head...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> That's right. They were booted out for paying above market value... and the rent cheque was delivered by unicorns.


They weren't booted out at all.

And macfury, there are no unicorns unfortunately.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> really, well it certainly didn't stop fear mongering cons from hissing the dollar dropped because of the ndp surge now did it?
> 
> I was merely mocking it, which seems to have swooshed over the head...


Pay attention to the news. The depressive effect of Layton's popularity is only one of the factors affecting the Canadian dollar.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Pay attention to the news. The depressive effect of Layton's popularity is only one of the factors affecting the Canadian dollar.


for someone who got the layton/chow story completely backwards and google confounds, I'd have to ask if your pet unicorn told you this.


----------



## Macfury

I still remember the building they were booted out of. Voluntarily paying market rent? I guess Jack decided what that was.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I still remember the building they were booted out of. Voluntarily paying market rent? I guess Jack decided what that was.


I heard somewhere that Harper stole people's grandmothers money to buy his first house. I read about it. Ask your unicorn.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I heard somewhere that Harper stole people's grandmothers money to buy his first house. I read about it. Ask your unicorn.


round and round she goes, eh groove?


----------



## MLeh

It's quite interesting to observe the different factors that affect currency exchange rates across the globe. The wedding in the UK today, tourism during the summer months, the earthquake in Japan, currency manipulation by the Chinese, wars in countries with oil supplies, wars waged on countries with oil supplies who want to sell their oil in Euros instead of US$, the dominance of the US$ for trading versus the Euro, the meltdown of various economies within the EU, etc., etc., etc. 

I find it rather fascinating.

An election in Canada? About the only consideration in the big picture is the 'stability' of the government right now. We've been living with a minority government and if you go back over the past few years you'll see changes that reflect perceptions of stability. Any changes made in the next few days will be based upon 'conjecture' on the outcome of the election and then the market will correct after the real polls are counted.

But the 'swooshing' sound you heard wasn't over _my_ head, groovetube.


----------



## groovetube

as long as you continue to spout lies, I guess it does!


----------



## Macfury

MLeh said:


> But the 'swooshing' sound you heard wasn't over _my_ head, groovetube.


MLeh, if groovetube can't understand currency fluctuations, how is it possible that you can?


----------



## groovetube

MLeh said:


> It's quite interesting to observe the different factors that affect currency exchange rates across the globe. The wedding in the UK today, tourism during the summer months, the earthquake in Japan, currency manipulation by the Chinese, wars in countries with oil supplies, wars waged on countries with oil supplies who want to sell their oil in Euros instead of US$, the dominance of the US$ for trading versus the Euro, the meltdown of various economies within the EU, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> I find it rather fascinating.
> 
> An election in Canada? About the only consideration in the big picture is the 'stability' of the government right now. We've been living with a minority government and if you go back over the past few years you'll see changes that reflect perceptions of stability. Any changes made in the next few days will be based upon 'conjecture' on the outcome of the election and then the market will correct after the real polls are counted.
> 
> But the 'swooshing' sound you heard wasn't over _my_ head, groovetube.


well gee, thanks for the primer. But really, I thought it was obvious I was poking fun at the keeners jumping up and down that the prospect of an ndp government was deflating the dollar, and well the rest of the doomsday stuff.


----------



## dona83

Anyone heard of the Progressive Canadian Party? I just heard of them when some people who said that they intended to vote for the Conservatives accidentally voted for the PC Party, but I think this may be the party that's closest to my position. It is slightly right in some topics and slightly left in others. They don't have many candidates around but I would definitely be interested in running with them next go around.

PC Party, Canada, Progressive Conservative, Progressive Canadian Party


----------



## groovetube

nice. Splittin the right, next election


----------



## dona83

The real answer to solving Harper? 

They support covering autism under Medicare... why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Parents of autistic children across Canada are struggling to provide for them.


----------



## groovetube

seriously, if Harper and his gang of divisive fear monger fools weren't such idiots, they'd have their majority. 2 elections ago. I don't know why this isn't any clearer.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> At the time it was a shared US/Canadian entity a merger between GSI (General Scanning Instruments) (US) and Lumonics (Can).... it is a hugely involved situation that I was privy to beyond the position that I held.... I can't say anything more....
> 
> The company was both on the TSX and the NYSE... as I said it is a complicated situation....
> 
> If the company applied for a tax credit given the circumstance I would presume it was a US tax credit?


GSI Lumonics? I had stock in the company!!!


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> seriously, if Harper and his gang of divisive fear monger fools weren't such idiots, they'd have their majority. 2 elections ago. I don't know why this isn't any clearer.


And despite all these nasty, unconscionable shortcomings, they've managed to hang onto the reins for 5 years.

Yeah, he may be a loser. But he's head & shoulders above anything else the opposition's got...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Did you ever complain about ... his flooding the Senate with life time Senators?? Not a peep


It's a means to an end, much like every government before him.

Didn't hear you bitching much when it was stacked in the Liberal's favor...


----------



## jimbotelecom

fexl said:


> and despite all these nasty, unconscionable shortcomings, they've managed to hang onto the reins for 5 years.
> 
> Yeah, he may be a loser. But he's head & shoulders above anything else the opposition's got...


lol!


----------



## MacDoc

Hang on via proroguing and fear mongering about coalitions that every other democracy enters into from time time.
Harper is stale, was from the get go.
Dated views, typical talk of fiscal responsibility while spending big.
Useless tit and has damaged Canada.....
At least Muloonie had some good ideas on the environment even while spending Canada into a deep hole.

be gone foul spirits.........go wallow in tar sands ponds with the dead ducks.


----------



## Vandave

Dr T said:


> In spite of facing the voters in several general elections, Harper's Reform-Alliance-Conservative coalition has never had the level of support that some previous Progressive Conservative leaders achieved. So maybe it is time for the Progressive Conservative faction to bow out of their failed coalition with the Harper extremists.


Ya, what a failure. Three consecutive governments. Harper will soon make history by being a three term PM. :clap:


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> actually, far more Canadians do NOT want him as PM.


Wrong. Some Canadians may prefer a different leader, but it does not follow they do not want him for PM.



groovetube said:


> This is why the current system needs to be changed. A minority of Canadians get a party elected that wants to ram through their policies only and cause unnecessary elections over it. The same case can be made for Chretien's majorities.


It's the best system out there. Your Proportional Rep system would only empower extremists. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## kps

My only consolation if Jack Layton becomes PM, is that it'll be a very short term and he'll go down in history as a colossal failure for not keeping any of his promises. Once reality sets in and the bureaucrats take over, he'll realise...much like Rea did, that it's not that easy to govern and pay for all the goodies he promised when he didn't think he'd win.

I mean why else would the NDP run candidates in french ridings who do not speak a word of french? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Hang on via proroguing and fear mongering about coalitions that every other democracy enters into from time time.
> Harper is stale, was from the get go.
> Dated views, typical talk of fiscal responsibility while spending big.
> Useless tit and has damaged Canada.....
> At least Muloonie had some good ideas on the environment even while spending Canada into a deep hole.
> 
> be gone foul spirits.........go wallow in tar sands ponds with the dead ducks.


Stale? Not like that hip Ignatieff... or that rockin' Layton!

Who is your hydrogen grid candidate this year MacDoc?


----------



## Max

It's true. Harper will likely come out the leader for the third time in a row. Good for him! Takes _cojones_ to hang in there for so long and rule with as much iron will as he has. Definitely history in the making.

On the other hand, his hands will have been tied by the Canadian electorate thrice in a row. Thankfully. The Liberals need to go back and figure out what they really stand for and a newly revitalized NDP is shaping up to be an interesting foil to the HarperCo way of viewing Canada and its place in the world.


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> It's true. Harper will likely come out the leader for the third time in a row. Good for him! Takes _cojones_ to hang in there for so long and rule with as much iron will as he has. Definitely history in the making.
> 
> On the other hand, his hands will have been tied by the Canadian electorate thrice in a row. Thankfully. The Liberals need to go back and figure out what they really stand for and a newly revitalized NDP is shaping up to be an interesting foil to the HarperCo way of viewing Canada and its place in the world.


Mebbe Max, but only mebbe at this point. It all depends on what the NDP's so-called "new found support" translates into in real seat gains. My bet is that it is way overboard in many minds. Split votes have saved many a seat. Stay tuned, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


----------



## Max

'tis true, Sinc. I'm sincerely hoping Stephen Harper is once again stymied. Anything can happen, admittedly. 'specially with this election.

Out your way I'm sure there's plenty of talk about how the NDP would wreck Canada. But back here I'm hearing plenty of people voicing an enthusiasm for politics I've not encountered in some time.

Gotta love Canada. Held together by spit, superglue and just a teensy spit of pure vitriol.


----------



## Max

Kps, Layton won't become PM. Not this time around. Rest easy, lad. Save yer strength for the battles ahead!


----------



## kps

Max said:


> Kps, Layton won't become PM. Not this time around. Rest easy, lad. Save yer strength for the battles ahead!


Yeah I know, but I had to say my profound prediction. LOL

Once in, he'll become just like all the rest that preceded him.


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> Once in, he'll become just like all the rest that preceded him.


What's different about him now?


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> On the other hand, his hands will have been tied by the Canadian electorate thrice in a row.


Partially empowered. The losers had their hands tied.


----------



## Sonal

Max said:


> Out your way I'm sure there's plenty of talk about how the NDP would wreck Canada. But back here I'm hearing plenty of people voicing an enthusiasm for politics I've not encountered in some time.


Agreed, Max, and it's refreshing to see.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Out your way I'm sure there's plenty of talk about how the NDP would wreck Canada. But back here I'm hearing plenty of people voicing an enthusiasm for politics I've not encountered in some time.


I'm hearing a lot of concern in Toronto as well. The enthusiasm is a sort of _American idol/Hell's Kitchen _ fascination with the NDP blip.


----------



## Max

Naww, that's just the sourpuss conservalibertarian take on the sich and you know it.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> be gone foul spirits.........go wallow in tar sands ponds with the dead ducks.


I'm pretty familiar with old Will the Quill. I think your meter is wrong.

Oh, and as far as dead birds are concerned, have you checked out the piles under your own giant, subsidized, inefficient giant fans? You may have to sift through the piles of dead chiroptera to get to them, but they're there.

The ones that haven't died from bunker fuel pollution, anyways...


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Mebbe Max, but only mebbe at this point. It all depends on what the NDP's so-called "new found support" translates into in real seat gains. My bet is that it is way overboard in many minds. Split votes have saved many a seat. Stay tuned, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


I'm not nearly as edumacated as some of the political geniuses here, but what seems patently obvious is that people who would never vote conservative in the first place are distancing themselves as far away from Iggy as possible and, for want of another place to go, are suddenly considering Layton. This should be recognized for what it actually is: not nearly so much support as it is the lesser of three evils for previous Liberal supporters.

What remains to be seen is how many of the recently converted can keep the clothespin on their nose long enough to actually cast a vote for orange. Big difference between talking to a pollster between sips of beer and swallowing that lump in your throat whilst putting an "X" down.

As far as the BS public polls are concerned, the COTU people would do well to recall Rob Ford was publicly polled as being on the ropes just prior to the election as well, whereas internal polls showed the win.


----------



## Sonal

FeXL said:


> As far as the BS public polls are concerned, the COTU people would do well to recall Rob Ford was publicly polled as being on the ropes just prior to the election as well, whereas internal polls showed the win.


Perhaps all I heard was the internal polls then, since I recall that Ford seemed very likely to win.

The Conservatives are losing some votes, but I suspect those are the Red Tories/Blue Liberals who are distancing themselves from both Harper AND Iggy.

Still, Layton has been polling as the leader with the most credibility for (as I recall) 2 elections now, including this one, so I don't think this is all a protest vote.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> And despite all these nasty, unconscionable shortcomings, they've managed to hang onto the reins for 5 years.
> 
> Yeah, he may be a loser. But he's head & shoulders above anything else the opposition's got...


well, next to a big corrupt 13 year grinding to a screeching halt liberal government full of scandal, I wouldn't exactly say, barely eeking out government in minority is exactly, much of an accomplishment. But I suppose tories will take what they can get. I thought after Canadians see how wonderful Harper is, they'd flock to him. That still doesn't seem to be the case. The only way he'll get a majority is by sheer luck and vote splitting. Yeah that's really having the confidence of Canadians... Judging by how they've acted with a minority, it's pretty clear to me, rewarding them with 4 years of a majority will ensure Canadians will never vote conservative for a very long time once again. Which is fine with me. 



Vandave said:


> Wrong. Some Canadians may prefer a different leader, but it does not follow they do not want him for PM.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the best system out there. Your Proportional Rep system would only empower extremists. Be careful what you wish for.



Your logic is silly. If people want Harper for a PM, then they'll vote for him. Period. Except 65% +- don't want Harper. As far as extremists, that's pure nutty fear mongering once again, which you cons seems to cling to with all your might. There's simply nothing that would suggest that. Next you'll be telling us the commies will be fornicating in the streets.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Perhaps all I heard was the internal polls then, since I recall that Ford seemed very likely to win.
> 
> The Conservatives are losing some votes, but I suspect those are the Red Tories/Blue Liberals who are distancing themselves from both Harper AND Iggy.
> 
> Still, Layton has been polling as the leader with the most credibility for (as I recall) 2 elections now, including this one, so I don't think this is all a protest vote.


me too, Ford was clearly the front runner pretty much as the campaign gained steam. People simply disliked what's his McGuinty ass minister guy's name, and Pantalone was small potatoes in the scheme of things.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> I'm not nearly as edumacated as some of the political geniuses here, but what seems patently obvious is that people who would never vote conservative in the first place are distancing themselves as far away from Iggy as possible and, for want of another place to go, are suddenly considering Layton. This should be recognized for what it actually is: not nearly so much support as it is the lesser of three evils for previous Liberal supporters.
> 
> What remains to be seen is how many of the recently converted can keep the clothespin on their nose long enough to actually cast a vote for orange. Big difference between talking to a pollster between sips of beer and swallowing that lump in your throat whilst putting an "X" down.
> 
> As far as the BS public polls are concerned, the COTU people would do well to recall Rob Ford was publicly polled as being on the ropes just prior to the election as well, whereas internal polls showed the win.


As someone who has voted liberal in the past, I have no problem marking X for an NDP candidate. I think you're overstating the distaste for the NDP, Jack has made his party a little more mainstream, and voters are simply taking to it. The feeling I get from many I hear, is that voting liberal would be splitting the vote, better to throw support to who has the better chance. With Layton's lastest surge, that simply given many fence sitters who may have help split the vote the reason to jump and vote NDP. So yeah, it's possible we haven't seen nuthin yet. The cons are really praying for a split vote. It may not go down the way they wish. But it's hard to tell. I heard on the radio tonight they're smearing Jack with a 1996 bawdy house sighting. You just know, the CPC war room is just frothing at the NDP surge, so they're worried...


----------



## fjnmusic

I've noticed a lot more NDP ads on YouTube than I have for the other parties. And since there is a big chunk of the population that resides with the youth vote (biggest users of YouTube) which normally does not get too excited about elections, I think that it's a good marketing decision by the NDP, even though I HATE YouTube ads myself, if they can mobilize young adults to vote. Especially if they're not fond of Conservative stalking tactics on Facebook.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

Oh that youth vote again: the non-player on whom every election is supposed to turn.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> You just know, the CPC war room is just frothing at the NDP surge, so they're worried...


Not worried... just smart in the way they channel voter energy.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Oh that youth vote again: the non-player on whom every election is supposed to turn.


True dat, but the youth voter can also influence older voters who would like to still be young and hip again and might vote accordingly. People like…oh, I dunno…me. I am not impressed with the tactics of the Cons or the Libs, whom I usually support. NDP's looking better all the time. And anyway, Stephen Harper has had five years to try to rally the troops across the country and he has failed. Time for a new approach.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And anyway, Stephen Harper has had five years to try to rally the troops across the country and he has failed. Time for a new approach.


By becoming PM? And what is the new approach--more YouTube videos?


----------



## chas_m

In our particular riding, there was little choice BUT to vote NDP. Our MP is friendly, reasonable, caring, accessible and professional. Her opponents are mostly clownish or strictly amateur hour, regardless of what party you might happen to personally align with politically.

In the ridings around me, there's usually a pretty clear choice of one person who seems to be a genuine, community-centered, effective communicator with sensible ideas, and three other people who are just CLEARLY running for the sake of running or because they like the money or power. In some of the ridings near me, the "good politico" is the Conservative candidate, in some it's the Green, in some its the Liberal and in mine it's the NDP.

I think if more people would forget "party allegiance" and really listen to each new candidate -- regardless of party -- there would be a lot less difficulty making a decision and a lot more quality leaders in all the parties. Better still, those parties that consistently failed to produce quality candidates would be taken to task by both their own members and the voters (some would say that is what's been happening to the Liberals, for example).


----------



## fjnmusic

chas_m said:


> In our particular riding, there was little choice BUT to vote NDP. Our MP is friendly, reasonable, caring, accessible and professional. Her opponents are mostly clownish or strictly amateur hour, regardless of what party you might happen to personally align with politically.
> 
> In the ridings around me, there's usually a pretty clear choice of one person who seems to be a genuine, community-centered, effective communicator with sensible ideas, and three other people who are just CLEARLY running for the sake of running or because they like the money or power. In some of the ridings near me, the "good politico" is the Conservative candidate, in some it's the Green, in some its the Liberal and in mine it's the NDP.
> 
> I think if more people would forget "party allegiance" and really listen to each new candidate -- regardless of party -- there would be a lot less difficulty making a decision and a lot more quality leaders in all the parties. Better still, those parties that consistently failed to produce quality candidates would be taken to task by both their own members and the voters (some would say that is what's been happening to the Liberals, for example).


Or better yet, get rid of parties entirely and judge each candidate on their merit. This will never happen in Canada, of course, as long as we continue to follow the Westminster model. Parties are a fact of life, as inevitable as snow in May.


----------



## Dr T

fjnmusic said:


> Or better yet, get rid of parties entirely and judge each candidate on their merit. This will never happen in Canada, of course, as long as we continue to follow the Westminster model. Parties are a fact of life, as inevitable as snow in May.


But political parties are the way that we organize ourselves around shared values.


----------



## MacDoc

Oreven better have proportional mandatory voting as Australia has had since 1901 and get actually populat vote in play and kiss the right wing goodbye as they have.


----------



## Dr T

MacDoc said:


> Or even better have proportional mandatory voting as Australia has had since 1901 and get actually populat vote in play and kiss the right wing goodbye as they have.


Maybe mandatory voting and preferential ballots would lead to a fairer, more stable political system. 
Or instead we could rely on Herr Harper to impose on Canada the extremist positions he has imposed already on his Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative Coalition.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> Mebbe Max, but only mebbe at this point. It all depends on what the NDP's so-called "new found support" translates into in real seat gains. My bet is that it is way overboard in many minds. Split votes have saved many a seat. Stay tuned, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


Yep. The vote splitting is going to be ugly and damper a lot of expectations. 

Here's my prediction:

CONS 143
Libs 70
NDP 53
BQ 41
Green 1


----------



## Max

That's not a bad prediction, Jimbotelecom. Often the day of voting itself tells the tale. Enthusiasm for new ideas (or just new faces spouting the same old 'new' ideas) aside, people often rein in their urges at the last moment and park their vote in a safer or more traditional camp.

Well it certainly feels like a real democracy in here. That's all to the good, whatever the outcome. May we all end up getting the leader we deserve.


----------



## Macfury

chas_m said:


> I think if more people would forget "party allegiance" and really listen to each new candidate -- regardless of party -- there would be a lot less difficulty making a decision and a lot more quality leaders in all the parties.


This is really a voting theory for those who don't care about the policies that will result from their votes. The MP will go to Ottawa and simply vote along the party line on all issues, regardless of how many babies they were seen hugging in the riding.

If national policy is irrelevant to you, by all means use the Dr. Feelgood method to choose your candidate.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> May we all end up getting the leader we deserve.


And may Christmas bring what you deserve, Max.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Oreven better have proportional mandatory voting as Australia has had since 1901 and get actually populat vote in play and kiss the right wing goodbye as they have.


MacDoc, that statement is complete nonsense. Why would mandatory proportional voting result in the elimination of an entire field of candidates?

The Australian Liberal Party skews Centre-Right and their reliance on the conservative National Party of Australia pushes them a little farther right still. As an outlier, the Family First party is also self-identified as Conservative. Judging by the outright hostility toward Julia Gillard and her out-to-lunch enviro policies, the centre left won't be in power for long.

l know you've gone to Oz and seen the 'roos and all, but...


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Ya, what a failure. Three consecutive governments. Harper will soon make history by being a three term PM. :clap:


Yeah but that's like dog years to human years.

The term is the old five year term that is before fixed election dates.What ever that means. Ask Harper.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Mebbe Max, but only mebbe at this point. It all depends on what the NDP's so-called "new found support" translates into in real seat gains. My bet is that it is way overboard in many minds. Split votes have saved many a seat. Stay tuned, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


More conservative "We'll eat pie in the sky bye and bye?"


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I heard on the radio tonight they're smearing Jack with a 1996 bawdy house sighting.


Is a rub-and-tug considered a bawdy house? I don't see what the problem is anyway. As city councillor, Jack used to jerk Toronto taxpayers around every day. He was simply too tired to perform the service for himself at night.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Yep. The vote splitting is going to be ugly and damper a lot of expectations.
> 
> Here's my prediction:
> 
> CONS 143
> Libs 70
> NDP 53
> BQ 41
> Green 1


Interesting forecast, jimbotelecom. Compared to mine, we should see quite the shift in election results. Still, as Max correctly contends, the actual numbers shall be created on Monday when the people actually go to vote and the real votes start to get tallied. Paix, mon ami.

My prediction:

Conservatives 115
NDP 109
Liberals 65
Bloc 18
Green 1


----------



## jimbotelecom

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting forecast, jimbotelecom. Compared to mine, we should see quite the shift in election results. Still, as Max correctly contends, the actual numbers shall be created on Monday when the people actually go to vote and the real votes start to get tallied. Paix, mon ami.
> 
> My prediction:
> 
> Conservatives 115
> NDP 109
> Liberals 65
> Bloc 18
> Green 1


Dr. G., I hope your prediction is correct. Regardless, this country is in big trouble if there's a CON majority. My feeling is that Canada will be sucked into a culture war much like the one we are seeing in our neighbour's country to the south of us.

Time will tell.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Dr. G., I hope your prediction is correct. Regardless, this country is in big trouble if there's a CON majority. My feeling is that Canada will be sucked into a culture war much like the one we are seeing in our neighbour's country to the south of us.
> 
> Time will tell.


Yes, we shall see, jimbotelecom. We shall see.

Still, things will be lot more interesting comes Tuesday than they are today. Hopefully, we will have some sense of the results on Tuesday. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Is a rub-and-tug considered a bawdy house? I don't see what the problem is anyway. As city councillor, Jack used to jerk Toronto taxpayers around every day. He was simply too tired to perform the service for himself at night.


Laughable that the CONS or Libs release this now of course. Reminds me of Clinton and weed. Bill didn't inhale. So Jack didn't e"Jack"ulate?


----------



## MLeh

jimbotelecom said:


> Dr. G., I hope your prediction is correct. Regardless, this country is in big trouble if there's a CON majority. My feeling is that Canada will be sucked into a culture war much like the one we are seeing in our neighbour's country to the south of us.
> 
> Time will tell.


Oh, please, spare us the fear mongering. Greed and fear: the two motivating forces of the non-rational. Don't you ever feel like you're been manipulated by your emotions? "FEAR THE CON MAJORITY". Sheesh.

Ignorance is the issue down south. I like to think that Canadians are a litte better informed about world affairs and are a little less arrogant than our neighbours to the south. Although given the opinions expressed on this board, sometimes I wonder ...

I will be SO glad when this election is over and we can just get back to normal life.

Two more sleeps ...


----------



## jimbotelecom

MLeh said:


> Oh, please, spare us the fear mongering. Greed and fear: the two motivating forces of the non-rational. Don't you ever feel like you're been manipulated by your emotions? "FEAR THE CON MAJORITY". Sheesh.
> 
> Ignorance is the issue down south. I like to think that Canadians are a litte better informed about world affairs and are a little less arrogant than our neighbours to the south. Although given the opinions expressed on this board, sometimes I wonder ...
> 
> I will be SO glad when this election is over and we can just get back to normal life.
> 
> Two more sleeps ...


Ignorance is bliss MLeh. I do fear a CON majority for several tens of reasons already mentioned throughout this thread. Bottom line is that a majority of CDN voters fear Steve the social CON and his team of mean spirited thugs. That's not to say there are not good CONS, but they are clearly not in control of the CON agenda.

There are too many variables at play for things to normalize after the election is over. It will be tense for quite a while regardless of who wins.

Best of luck.


----------



## Macfury

Who would be a "good" conservative in your estimation jimbotelecom?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Not worried... just smart in the way they channel voter energy.


nice spin!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Who would be a "good" conservative in your estimation jimbotelecom?


I'll jump in here as well.

Let's start with making government smaller, and being prudent with our dollars. Because Harper and Co, did the total opposite. And if they get a majority, let's talk in 4 years... no blaming the liberals then eh?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Who would be a "good" conservative in your estimation jimbotelecom?


Jim Prentice who is not running in this election. I tend to like red tories.


----------



## MacDoc

> Ignorance is the issue down south. I like to think that Canadians are a litte better informed


Why indeed we are and the proof is that time after time the cons are restricted to about 1/3 of the popular vote and had we a rational proportiona election system they'd be a rump party everywhere except Alberta which after all is mostly Texas light.












> Proportional Representation in the 2008 Election
> I thought it would be an interesting exercise to look at what the 2008 election would have been like if Canada had a proportional representation system. I chose a regional PR system, with each province voting MPs according to PR and giving them each the amount of seats they have presently. What do we get?
> The Conservatives win a minority with 119 seats, rather than 143. The Liberals form the Official Opposition with 84 seats, rather than 77. The New Democrats form the second opposition party, rather than the third, with 56 seats. The Bloc Quebecois wins 29 seats and the Greens elect 17 MPs.
> 
> This would be a far more representative system of government. Rather than the Tories winning 72 of 95 seats in Western and Northern Canada, they would win 51. The Liberals would have 16 MPs from the West and North (rather than eight), the NDP would have 21 (instead of 15), and the Greens would have seven.


ThreeHundredEight.com: Proportional Representation in the 2008 Election

The same Harpo that would have Canada in Iraq and push forward the Family Coalition agenda still lurks - Canadians in general understand that even if you are being Conned by him.

THIS is the guy you want us to think harmless???!!!












> I tell you, that in this room and every room like this across Canada, if we rise together in solidarity and support, the Conservative Party will live again!"
> - Brian Mulroney praising former ideological enemy and new Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, April 23rd 2004.
> 
> 
> "We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system."
> - Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, October 2002.
> 
> 
> *"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."*
> - Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.
> 
> 
> "What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]."
> - Stephen Harper, then President of the NCC, 2001.
> 
> 
> "You have 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 ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
> - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001.
> 
> 
> "Nay."
> - Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003.
> 
> 
> "It's the idea that we just have to go along, we can't change it, things won't change. I think that's the sad part, the sad reality traditional parties have bred in parts of Atlantic Canada."
> - Conservative leader Stephen Harper talks about the Atlantic provinces, May 2002.
> 
> 
> "A weak nation strategy..."
> - Conservative leader Stephen Harper describes Canada's historic foreign policy position of multilateralism.
> 
> 
> "Continental economic and security integration" with the U.S. as well as a "continental energy strategy" that should be broadened "to a range of other natural resources."
> - Conservative leader Stephen Harper.
> 
> 
> "Abrasively neutral."
> - Conservative leader Stephen harper on Canada's position on Iraq.
> 
> 
> "Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
> - Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.
> 
> "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and *advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."*
> - Stephen Harper, May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy.
> 
> "*A culture of defeat..."
> - Stephen Harper, describing the Atlantic provinces*, May


Stephen Harper | In Their Own Words: Quotations by and about Canada's Conservatives


----------



## jimbotelecom

^^^^^^^^^

No argument from me. I think PR is a better way to govern.


----------



## FeXL

MLeh said:


> I will be SO glad when this election is over and we can just get back to normal life.
> 
> Two more sleeps ...


Thank you.


----------



## MLeh

MacDoc said:


> Why indeed we are and the proof is that time after time the cons are restricted to about 1/3 of the popular vote and had we a rational proportiona election system they'd be a rump party everywhere except Alberta which after all is mostly Texas light.


Nice to know that's how you feel about us. Perhaps it's time to revive the Western Separatist party ...

By the way, we started off this topic with a general agreement that we would not use disparaging nicknames like 'Harpo', etc., and tried to concentrate on 'facts and policies', which happened for the most part. It was quite nice, actually.

It's interesting to see when it comes to the short strokes people lose their thin veneer of civility and revert to form. Panicking?


----------



## Vandave

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> No argument from me. I think PR is a better way to govern.


Fortunately most Canadians do not share this view and it will be a couple decades before it gets revisited.

All it does is empower extremists.


----------



## CubaMark

So the wonderfully ethical folks at the brand-spankin' new SunTV are on the job, creating a "scandal" to stem the NDP surge...

*Smear Campaign Launched*



> It's fairly obvious this news came out during the last few days of the election to attack Layton's character and credibility. Do you really think this story would have made the headline news had the NDP not surged in the polls...


(Local2)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> So the wonderfully ethical folks at the brand-spankin' new SunTV are on the job, creating a "scandal" to stem the NDP surge...


We've already seen a dupe post from you on this in another thread.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Why indeed we are and the proof is that time after time the cons are restricted to about 1/3 of the popular vote and had we a rational proportiona election system they'd be a rump party everywhere except Alberta which after all is mostly Texas light.


So you merely favour a system that would promote the fortunes of the parties you like. Well, good luck with that.

That list of quotes you selected is exactly what I want the Conservatives to do. What worries me is that they might not.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Vandave said:


> Fortunately most Canadians do not share this view and it will be a couple decades before it gets revisited.
> 
> All it does is empower extremists.


I beg to differ. I believe PR encourages compromise, consensus, and cooperation. We all have opinions of course.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Why indeed we are and the proof is that time after time the cons are restricted to about 1/3 of the popular vote and had we a rational proportiona election system they'd be a rump party everywhere except Alberta which after all is mostly Texas light.


And time after time everybody else is restricted to less.

I jes' laughs every time I read drivel like this. It ranks right up there with "63% of Canadians didn't vote for the Conservatives".

Well, guess what, bubba? In the last election, 74% of Canadians didn't vote for Liberal, 82% of Canadians didn't vote for NDP, 90% didn't vote for the Bloc. And 93% didn't vote for Green. 

A little perspective goes a long way, non?

You cry and whine and wring your hands and shout & name call and roll your eyes and you still got nuttin' to offer as an alternative acceptable to more Canadians than 37%. Does that not speak volumes about the quality of leadership on your front? 

Jes' askin'...

And, once again, I never heard a peep from you on the injustices of the irrational proportional election system when the Liberals were in power.

Oh, I was meanin' to tell ya...that shot you made yesterday about ducks in tar sands ponds? Have a little respect. Out here, in "Texas Light", we call that marinade...


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Fortunately most Canadians do not share this view and it will be a couple decades before it gets revisited.
> 
> All it does is empower extremists.


ah. Another one who spouts this view without any sort of reasons as to how or why this could happen.

BTW, as far as I'm concerned, we already have some extremist MPs in power. Take the genius out west publicly boasting he is getting his anti abortion views in action in parliament. Let's go down your road. Perhaps next he'll require a christmas tree in every home and everyone to attend church. Since he's so hot on others adhering to his extremist christian views.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ah. Another one who spouts this view without any sort of reasons as to how or why this could happen.
> 
> BTW, as far as I'm concerned, we already have some extremist MPs in power. Take the genius out west publicly boasting he is getting his anti abortion views in action in parliament. Let's go down your road. Perhaps next he'll require a christmas tree in every home and everyone to attend church. Since he's so hot on others adhering to his extremist christian views.


Now this is the sort of jibbering fear I enjoy seeing! More!


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> And time after time everybody else is restricted to less.
> 
> I jes' laughs every time I read drivel like this. It ranks right up there with "63% of Canadians didn't vote for the Conservatives".
> 
> Well, guess what, bubba? In the last election, 74% of Canadians didn't vote for Liberal, 82% of Canadians didn't vote for NDP, 90% didn't vote for the Bloc. And 93% didn't vote for Green.
> 
> A little perspective goes a long way, non?
> 
> You cry and whine and wring your hands and shout & name call and roll your eyes and you still got nuttin' to offer as an alternative acceptable to more Canadians than 37%. Does that not speak volumes about the quality of leadership on your front?
> 
> Jes' askin'...
> 
> And, once again, I never heard a peep from you on the injustices of the irrational proportional election system when the Liberals were in power.
> 
> Oh, I was meanin' to tell ya...that shot you made yesterday about ducks in tar sands ponds? Have a little respect. Out here, in "Texas Light", we call that marinade...


yes you can certainly cite the numbers in all different perspectives, and they're quite true. But that isn't the point. I'm tired of any party, on either side getting total power based on a minority of Canadians votes, period. I don't want majorities for any of the parties, ever.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> And time after time everybody else is restricted to less.
> 
> I jes' laughs every time I read drivel like this. It ranks right up there with "63% of Canadians didn't vote for the Conservatives".
> 
> Well, guess what, bubba? In the last election, 74% of Canadians didn't vote for Liberal, 82% of Canadians didn't vote for NDP, 90% didn't vote for the Bloc. And 93% didn't vote for Green.
> 
> A little perspective goes a long way, non?
> 
> You cry and whine and wring your hands and shout & name call and roll your eyes and you still got nuttin' to offer as an alternative acceptable to more Canadians than 37%. Does that not speak volumes about the quality of leadership on your front?
> 
> Jes' askin'...
> 
> And, once again, I never heard a peep from you on the injustices of the irrational proportional election system when the Liberals were in power.
> 
> Oh, I was meanin' to tell ya...that shot you made yesterday about ducks in tar sands ponds? Have a little respect. Out here, in "Texas Light", we call that marinade...


Minority is minority git along Harper, it's all of your doin' and none mine own.


----------



## jimbotelecom

There are probably more than a few Libs steaming about this endorsement:

Toronto Star endorses the NDP - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> There are probably moire than a few Libs steaming about this endorsement.


The Star always thought Iggy was too far to the right. No surprise here--though it will cost the Star a number of readers.

These endorsements don't really hold much water any longer. I remember the Star's collective shock after their candidate was decimated in the Toronto mayoral elections.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Now this is the sort of jibbering fear I enjoy seeing! More!


I guess mocking goes right over your head macfury. But I can see, given your propensity for fear mongering yourself, why you would consider this as serious.


----------



## MacDoc

The Harper lap dogs don't read Harper's own words about fear of ..............fill in many blanks, coalition, rampaging criminals in the street, economic disaster, cold war.......etc.....lol.

••••

from another site



> *In 2009, Harper appointed a Minister of Science who refused to say whether he believed in evolution. Harper then cut science research funding by $138 Millio*n (while the US invested $2.75 Billion). Since 2007 Harper has forced scientists at Environment Canada to get permission to do interviews, often screening their answers. As a result media coverage of climate change science was reduced by 80%.
> 
> On April 3rd, 2011 Harper had his people lurk a teenager's Facebook page and then kick her out of an event because she had posed for a photo with the Liberal leader Michael Igantieff.* This should come as no surprise from Harper - he tried and failed (4 times!) to create a law that would allow the government to obtain your personal information from an internet provider - without a warrant.*
> 
> At the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, Harper spent $1.9 million building a fake lake and nearly $1 Billion on security for the 3 day event. 1,105 arrests were made - the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Only 99 criminal charges were laid. So everyone else was arrested, you know, just 'cuz.
> 
> Harper plans to double annual prison spending by 2015 *(an increase of $5 billion annually), despite the fact that crime rates have been falling for a decade.
> *
> Since 2006, Harper has cut funding for women's advocacy by 43 per cent, shut 12 out of 16 Status of Women offices in Canada and eliminated funding of legal voices for women and minority groups, including the National Association of Women and the Law and the Courts Challenges Program.
> 
> *Harper's economic 'recovery' favoured the extremely wealthy. Over 321,000 Canadians lost their jobs in 2008 and Canadians' average wages fell. Meanwhile Canada's 100 wealthiest persons became richer, reaching an average net worth of $1.7 billion each, up almost 5 per cent from 2008. *
> 
> *One of Harper's top aides, Bruce Carson, had been convicted of 5 counts of fraud.* Most recently he was lobbying the government to buy water filtration systems for First Nations communities. He wanted the government to buy the systems from a company where his 22 year old wife was working.
> 
> In Spring 2011, a federal court found that Harper's Conservatives broke election spending laws during the campaign which originally brought them to power in 2006.* 4 Conservatives (including 2 Senators) currently face charges and possibly jail time.*
> 
> In 2008, Linda Keen President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reported that the aging Chalk River nuclear facility was at a risk 1000 times greater than the international average. Harper quickly fired her.
> 
> At the 2009 G20 Harper actually said this - 'We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them.' *couch*first nations*cough*
> 
> Stephen Harper weakened regulations so that more pesticide residue could be left on fruits and vegetables.
> 
> Harper decorated the government lobby in parliament with photos of just himself, instead of the traditional portraits of former Prime Ministers.
> 
> The census is how our government determines the state and needs of the country. Harper tried to secretly eliminate the long form census so that he could quite literally make uninformed decisions.
> 
> The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren't born-again are 'lost.'
> 
> Harper likes being in power so much, he LITERALLY renamed 'The Government of Canada' to 'The Harper Government'. Creepy right?
> 
> Harper tried to buy fighter jets and claimed they would cost a certain amount. when independantly verified the cost was found to be massively and unrealistically low. He refused to release supporting documents to parliment- a cardinal sin since the PM supposedly answer to parliment, not the other way around.
> 
> *In 2008, Luc Pomerleau, a biologist at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, discovered secret government plans to weaken regulations & allow corporate food producers to conduct their own safety inspections. Pomerleau leaked the news and was immediately fired. Then the listeriosis meat outbreak killed 17 Canadians.*
> 
> Stephen Harper doesn't know the difference between people from India and First Nations people.
> 
> In 2007, *Harper cut $1.2 Billion in spending for the establishment of quality national childcare. However, he never kept his promise to cut the $1.4 billion in tax breaks he gives to oil companies.*
> 
> The Kelowna accord was a $5 billion breakthrough agreement to improve the quality of health and education for Canada's First Nation's Peoples. Harper canceled it in 2006, immediately after taking office.
> 
> In 2010, Harper eliminated funding for Sisters in Spirit. An internationally praised organization leading investigations into 600 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls.
> 
> In the 2011 budget, the Harper government failed to allocate any new funding for drinking water on First Nations reserves. 100 First Nations communities currently have water advisories, including 49 communities which are high risk. Harper also refuses to sign the UN Declaration designating clean water as a human right.
> 
> In 2006, Harper said none of his staff would 'get rich lobbying a future Conservative government.' But then his Senior Policy Adviser Ken Boessenkool did just that. He has lobbied Harper on behalf of pharmaceutical giant Merck Frost, law-breaking Egyptian telecom corp Globalive, oil criminal Enbridge and Taser International (right after the Taser murder of Robert Dziekanski sparked international outrage).
> 
> We detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.' in 2009 Canadian Diplomat Richard Colvin shocked the nation with these words. In Afghanistan, Canada captured 6x more prisoners than the British and 20x as many as the Dutch. Colvin explained that 'Many were just local people: farmers; truck drivers; tailors, peasants...the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured.' This is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. He was sacked. Harper asked to have parliament shut down for over a month in order to avoid having to answer to the claims (which, by the way, turned out to be true).
> 
> *In order to protect the profits of his friends in Big Oil Stephen Harper has purposely sabotaged global efforts to deal with climate change. He has been so destructive in this regard that in 2009 prominent politicians and scientists called for Canada to be removed from the Commonwealth. This mark of shame had last been used against South Africa when it was still under racist Apartheid rule.*
> 
> A cabinet minister directed an aid to doctor a signed and completed document in order to deny funding to an aid group working against Harper's agenda. When asked directly under oath in parliament she denied any knowledge of what happened. Harper blocked the release of the documents which eventually found her guilty for as long as he could.
> 
> Harper ended traditional weekly scrums with the media.
> 
> Harper only once visited a building dedicated to the PM communicating openly with the media and only to say that he wasn't going to use it and was, in fact, building a new building which would be tightly controlled. No footage would be allowed of the proceedings- that would be provided by the PM's office. . .
> 
> During this election Harper began every rally with the national anthem and said "I'm proud to lead a party that sings the national anthem at every stop no matter where in the country we are". He did not sing the national anthem when stopping in Quebec.
> 
> During this election every single speech in every single campaign stop was identical, including the points at which he stopped for a sip of water. When the teleprompter failed at one campaign stop there was a 7 second pause followed by Harper incessantly repeating "Jeremy, get me my notes".
> 
> At every stop the media was told they were only allowed to ask FIVE QUESTIONS. When a reporter asked something along the lines of "Isn't that unfair?" Harper replied "No. And that counts as a question." At that particular stop he took two more questions. The second one was uncomfortable for him so he refused to take any more and just left. Apparently he refused to take even one question from a room of 75 seniors all sympathetic to his party.


Largely lifted from **** Harper Did

foul indeed and in deeds ........begone....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, why didn't you just link to the previous time someone posted this list here?


----------



## chasMac

Stuff like this:



> Stephen Harper doesn't know the difference between people from India and First Nations people.


doesn't help the list-compilers' cause. It brings to mind _falsus in unum falsus in omnibus_.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Stuff like this...


Might as well put Jack Layton's penchant for rub-and-tug on the list of "NDP crimes" then--it has about as much backing as that chestnut.


----------



## chasMac

Oh, and that bit about the Alliance church: "...believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality" - seems to me there's a rather bigger church that subscribes to these beliefs as well, the name of it escapes me, but I do recall Trudeau and Chretien as being members.


----------



## Vandave

jimbotelecom said:


> I beg to differ. I believe PR encourages compromise, consensus, and cooperation. We all have opinions of course.


Consensus is not always possible. Extremists are single issue driven and they would hijack the broader good for themselves. No thanks.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Consensus is not always possible. Extremists are single issue driven and they would hijack the broader good for themselves. No thanks.


Consensus: a situation in which all parties weaken their position and fail to achieve their goals.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> ah. Another one who spouts this view without any sort of reasons as to how or why this could happen.


That's rich coming from you. I bet you don't even see your own contradictions because you are so blinded by your hatred of all things Conservative. 

You claim that 60% of Canadians do not want Harper, yet all PR systems are about having multiple choices. LOL.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> You are just interested in keeping your right to speculate on housing intact and afraid that affordable public housing might hurt your unearned equity.


And what are the causes of speculation? If you think the answer is a free market, then you would be wrong. We don't have a free market. We have government intervention in all aspects of our economy and it starts at the Central Bank. More government and more intervention is the wrong direction in the long run.

If you think governments and central planning will lead us to prosperity, then you need to brush up on history and economics.



MacDoc said:


> You know very well the NDP are likely to hit property speculators hard and so they should.


Go for it. If you truly believed in affordable housing and if you believe we are in a bubble, then you should be happy because the economy will over invest and over supply housing. That will result in more housing for those in need.



MacDoc said:


> They should also hit rich corporations for their fair share in keeping with OECD standards - not Bush lite standards....we've seen what that has done to the US finances and infrastructure.
> 
> Disgusting comes to mind.


Hey, free money right?

Let's punish the winners and reward the losers. Sounds like a great plan for success.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Let's punish the winners and reward the losers. Sounds like a great plan for success.


Vandave, I'm sure this stuff sounded pretty innovative in 1969. However, the Eastern bloc has collapsed since then.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> Vandave, I'm sure this stuff sounded pretty innovative in 1969. However, the Eastern bloc has collapsed since then.


 What's old is new again brother.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Might as well put Jack Layton's penchant for rub-and-tug on the list of "NDP crimes" then--it has about as much backing as that chestnut.


Tres cute MF. Mention the smear (twice), nudge nudge, wink wink, repeat it as if it's true, then indicate that it has no backing. So are you saying you believe Layton did something illegal at the massage clinic in '96 or do you just want to carry on with the Sun TV innuendo?

Fantastic to see Fox News North living up to its namesake so quickly. And Con supporters happily revelling in their abhorrent smears. Will they be asking Layton to prove he was born in Canada next?


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr T said:


> But political parties are the way that we organize ourselves around shared values.


I call BS. We seem to have one set of values during elections and then quite another during actual governance, where your local representative pledges allegiance only to caucus, not to you. And the party choices are overly simplistic, it's an all or none offering, not a buffet. I mean, you can be both against the long gun registry and for abortion, for example. So I'd have to say the "shared values" premise is a pretty weak connection between some 33 million people. It's like saying the lives of 7 billion people on the planet can be covered by twelve possibilities that we call horoscopes.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Consensus: a situation in which all parties weaken their position and fail to achieve their goals.


Perfect!


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Consensus is not always possible. Extremists are single issue driven and they would hijack the broader good for themselves. No thanks.


Just like Stevie's tirades on a need for a majority instead of consensus building in a minority Parliament? The cost of this election would have bought Harper the NDP's support to benefit seniors in the Budget.


----------



## MacDoc

Little wonder he adores Herr ( my way or the highway ) Harper eh


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Tres cute MF. Mention the smear (twice), nudge nudge, wink wink, repeat it as if it's true, then indicate that it has no backing. So are you saying you believe Layton did something illegal at the massage clinic in '96 or do you just want to carry on with the Sun TV innuendo?


I think it's likely that Layton had himself pleasured, but who cares?


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> That's rich coming from you. I bet you don't even see your own contradictions because you are so blinded by your hatred of all things Conservative.
> 
> You claim that 60% of Canadians do not want Harper, yet all PR systems are about having multiple choices. LOL.


what contradictions vandave? And I -want- multiple choices. This isn't, about limiting one party, it's really about not wanting any of them, conservative, liberal, or ndp (etc.) getting full power to push _their_ agenda.

You can try to make this about my hatred of conservatives, but I don't hate conservatives. I dislike Harper and some of his cabinet ministers for very good reason. They're simply waving the conservative banner with all the comforts of small government and less spending, which is a total crock.

Making this about left vs right is for stooges. End of story.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Little wonder he adores Herr ( my way or the highway ) Harper eh


Is Harper German or are you relying (again) on ludicrous Nazi implications? You certainly weaken your message when you resort to that.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I think it's likely that Layton had himself pleasured, but who cares?


clearly, you and the righteous right shriekers do.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> what contradictions vandave?


On one hand you claim that 60% of Canadians oppose Harper because they didn't directly vote for him. On the other hand, you support PR which is based upon giving voters multiple votes they so can support multiple candidates. It also allows you to make second choices. For example, Harper might be my first choice and Iggy second. Just because I vote for Harper under the current system does not imply that I oppose Iggy. I might be happy to have him as well. Just an example though... I don't like Iggy.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> On one hand you claim that 60% of Canadians oppose Harper because they didn't directly vote for him. On the other hand, you support PR which is based upon giving voters multiple votes they so can support multiple candidates. It also allows you to make second choices. For example, Harper might be my first choice and Iggy second. Just because I vote for Harper under the current system does not imply that I oppose Iggy. I might be happy to have him as well. Just an example though... I don't like Iggy.


no contradiction whatsoever vandave. Refer to the graph posted by macdoc showing what could have happened with PR in the 2008 election, and repeat your scenario of Iggy being your second choice and Harper your first. 

I can see however, how PR would be a nightmare for right of center conservatives. Though admittedly I can;tsee the liberals liking it much either, as it would deny them (as others) total domination.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> I call BS. We seem to have one set of values during elections and then quite another during actual governance, where your local representative pledges allegiance only to caucus, not to you. And the party choices are overly simplistic, it's an all or none offering, not a buffet. I mean, you can be both against the long gun registry and for abortion, for example. So I'd have to say the "shared values" premise is a pretty weak connection between some 33 million people. It's like saying the lives of 7 billion people on the planet can be covered by twelve possibilities that we call horoscopes.


The perils of not having a direct democracy.

Most citizens do not want direct democracy and willingly opt for representative democracy. 

I prefer the Westminster collective policy Party system, to the, so called Individual policy Party system of say a certain Southern Republic.

The "Individual" is beholding to the money that bought his election not the electorate that she/he represents at least from my prospective.

The Westminster Party's policy system is at least a guiding indication of intention. You may not agree with it all but at least you know how much of it can be stomached.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> I think it's likely that Layton had himself pleasured, but who cares?


Apparently Sun Media does.

you know, that bastion of moral righteousness. Please ignore the sunshine girl.....do they still run half page ads for strip joints after the sports section?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Is Harper German or are you relying (again) on ludicrous Nazi implications? You certainly weaken your message when you resort to that.





Macfury said:


> I think it's likely that Layton had himself pleasured, but who cares?


Speaking of implications ... and weak messages.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Apparently Sun Media does.
> 
> you know, that bastion of moral righteousness. Please ignore the sunshine girl.....do they still run half page ads for strip joints after the sports section?


Can't answer. I know nothing of the newspaper, as I don't read it--except the links provided here today.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Can't answer. I know nothing of the newspaper, as I don't read it--except the links provided here today.


yet you spout their nonsense.

Curious.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Speaking of implications ... and weak messages.


I see nothing wrong with Layton's choice of massage houses. What happened behind those doors is his business. The Nazi implication is an aspersion.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Is Harper German or are you relying (again) on ludicrous Nazi implications? You certainly weaken your message when you resort to that.


Yes! Harper's Grandfather who mysteriously disappeared during the Great Depression (sorry the great depression was his grandfather not the economy) is a blood relative of the Steeves which is an english corruption of the German name "Stieff family" who emigrated from Philadelphia to settle in the Petitcodiac River Valley and in particular the Stieff (Steeves) settled in Albert County.

Steve's Family Depression


----------



## groovetube

and he continues. And fails to see the funny in this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Vandave said:


> On one hand you claim that 60% of Canadians oppose Harper because they didn't directly vote for him. On the other hand, you support PR which is based upon giving voters multiple votes they so can support multiple candidates. It also allows you to make second choices. For example, Harper might be my first choice and Iggy second. Just because I vote for Harper under the current system does not imply that I oppose Iggy. I might be happy to have him as well. Just an example though... I don't like Iggy.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, not that I believe this will happen, that the NDP gets a majority government with 37% of the vote, as Chretien once did.

As a supporter of PR and someone who is sympathetic to NDP policies, I still don't believe that majority and the near-dictatorial power is confers on the Prime Minister is a legitimate reflection of the democratic will. If this were to actually happen, I would be urging NDPers to remember that while they may hold the majority of seats, they do not have a majority mandate.

On the other hand Stephen Harper has believed he has a mandate with a minority of seats and has refused to work co-operatively with others. First past the post is broken as a democratic system given more than 2 parties in the running. Your charges of PR promoting extremism are not born out in practice elsewhere.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If this were to actually happen, I would be urging NDPers to remember that while they may hold the majority of seats, they do not have a majority mandate.


Except, of course, unless they were doing what was "fair."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> I see nothing wrong with Layton's choice of massage houses. What happened behind those doors is his business. The Nazi implication is an aspersion.


Cute again MF. You know full well that the 11th hour innuendo that Layton received sexual services is damaging to his electoral chances, even if you claim you don't care. 

Repeating a baseless bit of innuendo is the same thing as the Nazi aspersion, which I agree is also wrong. 

This is how Fox News right-wing media is the US has worked and how what TV is patterning themselves after, repeat baseless garbage, force their opponents to deny it.

Thank you Stephen Harper and friends for paving the way for Fox News North.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Except, of course, unless they were doing what was "fair."


Fair is subjective. I would say unless the proposed policy is something that would generally have majority support.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Cute again MF. You know full well that the 11th hour innuendo that Layton received sexual services is damaging to his electoral chances, even if you claim you don't care.


NDP voters are open-minded, 'sauce. From all the comments I've seen on the CBC web site reporting this story, many people who had no inkling of voting NDP are now supporting Jack. Switching their votes they are!

At least I can comfort myself in the fact that, had this story been about Harper, it would never have appeared on the hallowed pages of ehMac. Of course, it was groovetube who alerted me to the story--I had no idea this had become public before then.


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Thank you Stephen Harper and friends for paving the way for Fox News North.


We ready have Fox News North. It's called the CBC.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> We ready have Fox News North. It's called the CBC.


Delivering our daily dose of "progressive" objective news since 1953!


----------



## Vandave

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Cute again MF. You know full well that the 11th hour innuendo that Layton received sexual services is damaging to his electoral chances, even if you claim you don't care.


Is it innuendo, or is it true? 

Is it not a valid question to ask? I agree with Trudeau that government has no business knowing what people do in their own bedrooms, but rub and tugs are notorious for exploiting immigrants. It's even to the point of sexual slavery in some cases.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> We ready have Fox News North. It's called the CBC.





Macfury said:


> Delivering our daily dose of "progressive" objective news since 1953!





Vandave said:


> Is it innuendo, or is it true?
> 
> Is it not a valid question to ask? I agree with Trudeau that government has no business knowing what people do in their own bedrooms, but rub and tugs are notorious for exploiting immigrants. It's even to the point of sexual slavery in some cases.


It is really so sad to see conservative supporters losing it when their hero Harper is about to lose it.


----------



## imactheknife

I am so glad I am in Vegas until the 5th of May so I don't have to vote for any of the idiots running in this Canadian election. I still think we should vote for SJ and have iCanada.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> It is really so sad to see conservative supporters losing it when their hero Harper is about to lose it.


This has been my opinion on the CBC for at least the past 30 years. It was probably true before then. Do you think the Conservatives will fail to come in first this election?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> This has been my opinion on the CBC for at least the past 30 years. It was probably true before then. Do you think the Conservatives will fail to come in first this election?


Not having 155 seat Harper's much coveted majority = lose it;
Harper having 142 seats or less = lose it;
not having Harper as Prime Minister, well that would be priceless.


----------



## Vandave

At least our Asia-Pacific trade would be stimulated under a Jack Layton government.


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> Not having 155 seat Harper's much coveted majority = lose it;
> Harper having 142 seats or less = lose it;
> not having Harper as Prime Minister, well that would be priceless.


Not at all. A majority is just too high a bar to achieve under the present dynamics. Under the circumstances, I am quite happy with strong Conservative minorities.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Not having 155 seat Harper's much coveted majority = lose it;
> Harper having 142 seats or less = lose it;
> not having Harper as Prime Minister, well that would be priceless.


So, everyone loses if there is no majority government. The biggest loser would be the party who elects the fewest members. The reverse of Starbucks, where the smallest coffee is a tall.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> This has been my opinion on the CBC for at least the past 30 years. It was probably true before then. Do you think the Conservatives will fail to come in first this election?


Of course CBC has the Jack Layton story buried a few links deep.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Of course CBC has the Jack Layton story buried a few links deep.


They don't want to upset their core (balanced) audience!


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Not at all. A majority is just too high a bar to achieve under the present dynamics. Under the circumstances, I am quite happy with strong Conservative minorities.


I would be happy to have a minority government after any election. In that way we have the best chance for democracy and governing from the centre, hopefully by finding a consensus amongst the Parties.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I would be happy to have a minority government after any election. In that way we have the best chance for democracy and governing from the centre, hopefully by finding a consensus amongst the Parties.


Why this constant emphasis on "the centre" as though it's some sort of holy grail instead of some mushy no-man's land? Smilin' Jack isn't campaigning on crutches so he can govern from the centre. The centre only becomes desirable for the left when they are out of power.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Of course CBC has the Jack Layton story buried a few links deep.


likely since the CBC is a real news organization, they understand that this sort of thing being unproven is best not trumpeted from the highest mountain until further info is revealed.

Something the SNN needs to learn. You'd think they would have after having been totally pwned by the cons over that latest iggy/Iraq fake news fiasco. Even had the ceo blasting over that one.

My guess, it'll get uglier with hacks like levant etc. mouthing off soon enough.


----------



## Macfury

The CBC should not carry it at all if they see it as having no substance.


----------



## groovetube

then the righters like yourself would scream left bias at the top of your lungs.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> likely since the CBC is a real news organization, they understand that this sort of thing being unproven is best not trumpeted from the highest mountain until further info is revealed.
> 
> Something the SNN needs to learn. You'd think they would have after having been totally pwned by the cons over that latest iggy/Iraq fake news fiasco. Even had the ceo blasting over that one.
> 
> My guess, it'll get uglier with hacks like levant etc. mouthing off soon enough.


I'm sure Jack was just discussing unionization with the sex trade workers. Nothing to see here folks. 

Not even Jack is denying this and his wife said that he went there at the alleged time.

Like it or not, this is a legitimate story, assuming that you are concerned about exploitation of women and sex trade workers.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> then the righters like yourself would scream left bias at the top of your lungs.


Oh, so that's the only reason they are reporting it.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> I'm sure Jack was just discussing unionization with the sex trade workers. Nothing to see here folks.
> 
> Not even Jack is denying this and his wife said that he went there at the alleged time.
> 
> Like it or not, this is a legitimate story, assuming that you are concerned about exploitation of women and sex trade workers.


No, they're not denying it. But what seems to be the thing titillating our right wing friends (after seeing the content of fox south, no surprise there...) is whether he was there for a massage, or sexual massage.

However, one interesting view, it certainly stopped anyone from discussing whether Jack is good for the economy, or carbon taxes.

zing.


----------



## Macfury

Other people are supposed to say "zing" groove--you can't zing yourself.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> No, they're not denying it. But what seems to be the thing titillating our right wing friends (after seeing the content of fox south, no surprise there...) is whether he was there for a massage, or sexual massage.
> 
> However, one interesting view, it certainly stopped anyone from discussing whether Jack is good for the economy, or carbon taxes.
> 
> zing.


Here are the facts in his own words:

“[Layton] does recall being advised by the police at the time that he did nothing wrong, but that the location was questionable, and to be stayed away from. Mr. Layton gave the officer his name and address, and nothing further happened.”


What percent of people that go to a rub and tug just go for the massage? Why was he completely naked? What did the 'masseuse' throw in the garbage?

We both know what he was really there for. Let's not kid ourselves. And that's not just a pun. The police were there the prior week trying to protect underaged sex workers at that very location.

Would you trust Jack to babysit your teenage daughter? I wouldn't. Then why should Canadians trust him to build a national daycare program?


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Here are the facts in his own words:
> 
> “[Layton] does recall being advised by the police at the time that he did nothing wrong, but that the location was questionable, and to be stayed away from. Mr. Layton gave the officer his name and address, and nothing further happened.”
> 
> 
> What percent of people that go to a rub and tug just go for the massage? Why was he completely naked? What did the 'masseuse' throw in the garbage?
> 
> We both know what he was really there for. Let's not kid ourselves. And that's not just a pun. The police were there the prior week trying to protect underaged sex workers at that very location.


Generally, you are naked for a massage, under towels. I guess you may not have known this fact. That's what happens when you mouth off not knowing these little details.

And no, I don't know why he was there.

Let's not kid ourselves. You're just making crap up just as you were with screeching we'd have extremists running the country should we have PR in Canada.

Pure, crap.

If you can provide more info with real facts, be my guest. Otherwise, you're simply another conservative yapping about something we don't know anything really beyond what was suggested.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Other people are supposed to say "zing" groove--you can't zing yourself.


Guess that stung enough for a 'i know you are but what am I"?

Intelligent macfury!


----------



## Vandave

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## groovetube

it wouldn't be the first legit massage parlour to be busted for some of it's workers doing sexual services. That doesn't mean all the clients were involved, and somehow, I find it interesting that the very one Layton happened to be at (and apparently the cop admitted he wasn't a fan of layton) happened to be targeted at that time.

Go buy that bridge pal.


----------



## Vandave

OK, so now he was guilty, but he shouldn't have been caught because the cops had it out for him.


----------



## groovetube

You're beginning to sound like a 5 year old whining why.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> You're beginning to sound like a 5 year old whining why.


.


----------



## Ottawaman

The timing of this smear campaign shows how desperate the Harper crowd has become.


----------



## mrjimmy

Ottawaman said:


> The timing of this smear campaign shows how desperate the Harper crowd has become.


Absolutely. It also confirms SunTV as being the low brow mouthpiece of the Cons that many expected it to be.


----------



## Vandave

Ottawaman said:


> The timing of this smear campaign shows how desperate the Harper crowd has become.


.


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> The timing of this smear campaign shows how desperate the Harper crowd has become.


they've resorted to making pictures OM. :clap:


----------



## Vandave

Uh ya...


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I would be happy to have a minority government after any election. In that way we have the best chance for democracy and governing from the centre, hopefully by finding a consensus amongst the Parties.


This is what Lester Pearson was able to do, and his minority government brought about some of the best social legislation that still exists in Canada. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> This is what Lester Pearson was able to do, and his minority government brought about some of the best social legislation that still exists in Canada. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Hopefully, there'll be a strong enough result returned for the parties less interested in scaring Canadians with bogus claims of low corp taxes creating jobs, and handing billions and billions over to hairbrained ideas filling their friends back pockets.

Imagine, people willing to actually believe this stuff, and accept tax breaks for regular people in the far distant future!

Only in Canada?


----------



## BigDL

+1
When campaigns are going bad you go negative.

Look at the messages today.

Harper said NDP = Radical, Dangerous. I was thought for a second Harper was going to say Terrorist Organization.

When a campaign is going well you stay positive and Jack Layton's speech from Burnaby couldn't have been more up beat and positive.


----------



## i-rui

lol. i just read the article that the sun has on their website...what a joke.



> they saw an attractive 5-foot-10 Asian woman who was in her mid-20s


"attractive" by who's standards? was she hot enough to be a sunshine girl? what were her turn offs?



> His notes also claim he saw the "female dump wet Kleenex into garbage."


did the officer actually go through the garbage to see if they were wet? or does Layton shoot so much goo that they were visibly dripping with man-seed?



> "If we had barged in and he was engaged in a sex act and we had plainly saw it, then it would have been a different story."


oh you mean that pesky thing called "evidence". too bad about that whole bit of our justice system. Oh well, at least an "ex-cop" can come out with this info anonymously a couple of days before the election! That must make everything quoted in the article true!

The best part is the Sun cried foul about the Right trying to use them as a political mud slinger a few days ago with the Iggy-Iraq photo story (a leader that was already deemed to be on the downward slide to the NDP surge) so this story must *NOT* be politically motived!!! Right????? Right???


----------



## mneub

Vandave said:


> Here are the facts in his own words:
> 
> “[Layton] does recall being advised by the police at the time that he did nothing wrong, but that the location was questionable, and to be stayed away from. Mr. Layton gave the officer his name and address, and nothing further happened.”


If there was evidence that he did anything wrong they could have charged him.



> Why was he completely naked?


Because he was having a massage.



> What did the 'masseuse' throw in the garbage?


Where is the evidence that anything was thrown in a garbage? Who is saying this anyways? Where is his evidence? Why does it even matter? Why should we trust credibility of an anonymous source?



> We both know what he was really there for.


So where is your evidence then?

So I am assuming you're kidding or trolling since nothing you've said really has basis in rationality. Just crazy partisanship, so I assume you are making a satirical portrayal of a conservative partisan.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> Here are the facts in his own words:
> 
> “[Layton] does recall being advised by the police at the time that he did nothing wrong, but that the location was questionable, and to be stayed away from. Mr. Layton gave the officer his name and address, and nothing further happened.”
> 
> 
> What percent of people that go to a rub and tug just go for the massage? Why was he completely naked? What did the 'masseuse' throw in the garbage?
> 
> We both know what he was really there for. Let's not kid ourselves. And that's not just a pun. The police were there the prior week trying to protect underaged sex workers at that very location.
> 
> Would you trust Jack to babysit your teenage daughter? I wouldn't. Then why should Canadians trust him to build a national daycare program?





Vandave said:


> If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.


:baby:



Vandave said:


> OK, so now he was guilty, but he shouldn't have been caught because the cops had it out for him.


:baby:



Vandave said:


> .


:baby:



Vandave said:


> .


:baby:



Vandave said:


> Uh ya...


:baby:

Watch out Jack next they will be asking you to prove you are not wearing dentures for your incredible smile. Probably they will go after your birth certificate after that.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> This is what Lester Pearson was able to do, and his minority government brought about some of the best social legislation that still exists in Canada. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


As you pointed out in an earlier post some of the defining elements of Canadian society.


----------



## ehMax

Guys, I'm away today at an event. I'm getting several alerts from members of innapropriate comments. I can't view the thread right now, but I'm going to temporarily close this thread until I can review tomorrow. Any members who are insulting other members by making personal comments may receive moderation action. 

Anyone continuing on in a new thread may receive moderation action.


----------



## ehMax

Hi everyone. 

My apologies... I was away in Toronto Friday and Saturday. Saturday I checked my iPhone and saw about a dozen reports on this thread from some comments. 

It was a sunny day, I was in a pub with friends having some drinks and not really in shape or felt like reading through a whole politic thread, so I just temporally closed it until I'll have a chance to look things over. 

I've re-opened and going to look over things now. 

Will again kindly request that members not attack other members with insults. 

On that note, I can't wait until the election is over.  I really do loathe the topic of politics lately.


----------



## ehMax

Didn't really find anything too bad. 

Will be interesting to see how things play out tomorrow.


----------



## ehMax

I will say, it's pretty obvious the whole issue on Jack Layton is a very desperate, transparent attempt at a smear campaign. I don't know how it could be any more obvious. Perhaps it will work, but I think maybe it will backfire.


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> Didn't really find anything too bad.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how things play out tomorrow.


Not really, a little circular, some cartoons, and somewhat sarcastic, but I'm happy that we made it over 200 pages without anything major.

As far as the Layton thing, the fact it was released mere days before the vote, by Sun news no less, probably made people sick of it, because Layton's up in the polls days after the smear attempt.

So, as far as the polls say anyway, it did backfire. We'll see more tomorrow night I guess.

Perhaps the other thread should merged in to this?


----------



## jimbotelecom

And now the big media weighs in. Be afraid....be very afraid!

O'Grady: Canada's Capitalism Referendum - WSJ.com

Canada Vote Upended by Surge in Left-Leaning Party - WSJ.com


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> And now the big media weighs in. Be afraid....be very afraid!
> 
> O'Grady: Canada's Capitalism Referendum - WSJ.com
> 
> Canada Vote Upended by Surge in Left-Leaning Party - WSJ.com


It is a reason to be afraid if one values a healthy economy. Those articles are not just whistling Dixie, but warning investors who would act in a heartbeat. Canada's economic strength is its resource sector--the same one Jack wants to hag-ride. The articles are correct and the warnings are apt.


----------



## DR Hannon

I still do not know which way to vote. No leader or even candidate, in my riding, can I stomach. My breaking point was a recorded message from Stephen Harper this evening. I have not seen one candidate in my neighbourhood. At least in the last election, the Liberals and the Conservatives offered to drive people to the polls, if they could not get there themselves. This year is very quiet. I just wished they would count spoiled votes as voted of non confidence.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> It is a reason to be afraid if one values a healthy economy. Those articles are not just whistling Dixie, but warning investors who would act in a heartbeat. Canada's economic strength is its resource sector--the same one Jack wants to hag-ride. The articles are correct and the warnings are apt.


"healthy economy" is a relative term. healthy for who? The right was spouting off about stocks generally perform better after a tory election victory. A company's stock value usually goes up after they layoff a lot of workers. Is that better for the economy? Certainly not for the workers with no jobs.

Point is nothing the NDP is proposing is that radical. The country would survive fine and not turn into an economic wasteland despite the fear mongering from Wallstreet (which last time i checked almost drove the world's economy off a cliff).


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> "healthy economy" is a relative term. healthy for who? The right was spouting off about stocks generally perform better after a tory election victory. A company's stock value usually goes up after they layoff a lot of workers. Is that better for the economy? Certainly not for the workers with no jobs.
> 
> Point is nothing the NDP is proposing is that radical. The country would survive fine and not turn into an economic wasteland despite the fear mongering from Wallstreet (which last time i checked almost drove the world's economy off a cliff).


If Wall Street does not like what it sees, it will drive our economy off a cliff.


----------



## Ottawaman

Macfury said:


> If Wall Street does not like what it sees, it will drive our economy off a cliff.


It does that anyway. If they sent some of those pricks to prison, perhaps they'd stop gaming the system.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> If Wall Street does not like what it sees, it will drive our economy off a cliff.


Thank God we will have small business creating all kinds of jobs after the NDP benefits for small business kicks in.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If Wall Street does not like what it sees, it will drive our economy off a cliff.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

Dude. I think, they did a pretty damn good job of that already. Surely, you're not suggesting we live in fear and continue to do their bidding?

There we have it. The libertarian stance, is to do what Wall street says, and continue, to feed the mighty monster.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!
> 
> Dude. I think, they did a pretty damn good job of that already. Surely, you're not suggesting we live in fear and continue to do their bidding?
> 
> There we have it. The libertarian stance, is to do what Wall street says, and continue, to feed the mighty monster.


Not telling anyone what to do. Actions have consequences.


----------



## groovetube

yeah we certainly found that out in 2008 eh.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yeah we certainly found that out in 2008 eh.


For sure. I hope they don't make that mistake again.


----------



## groovetube

but you suggested we do that very thing. We should be scared of wall street, and listen to their exhortations!

But you probably think it was someone else's fault don't you.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, why didn't you just link to the previous time someone posted this list here?


What we should acknowledge is that what MacDoc posted is spot on, and if it gets re-posted another time or two, or twenty more times, it will still be spot on.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> What we should acknowledge is that what MacDoc posted is spot on, and if it gets re-posted another time or two, or twenty more times, it will still be spot on.


It's repetition of a list of complaints. Some worthwhile, some ridiculous.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> It's repetition of a list of complaints. Some worthwhile, some ridiculous.


That was in post # 1951. I had to scroll back a lot to find it. (Between my day job and time for my family, I don't seem to properly keep up with this thread...)


So how do you labvel the following, a worthwhile complaint, or a ridiculous complaint:

Quoting the earlier post:
"In 2009, Harper appointed a Minister of Science who refused to say whether he believed in evolution. Harper then cut science research funding by $138 Million (while the US invested $2.75 Billion). Since 2007 Harper has forced scientists at Environment Canada to get permission to do interviews, often screening their answers. As a result media coverage of climate change science was reduced by 80%."


I say that calling this a "complaint" trivializes the issue.

The Harper Reform-Alliance-Conservative coalition, in its role as the recent minority government, has ill-served Canadians by muzzling experts that we as Canadians rely on for our safety.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> That was in post # 1951. I had to scroll back a lot to find it. (Between my day job and time for my family, I don't seem to properly keep up with this thread...)
> 
> 
> So how do you labvel the following, a worthwhile complaint, or a ridiculous complaint:
> 
> Quoting the earlier post:
> "In 2009, Harper appointed a Minister of Science who refused to say whether he believed in evolution. Harper then cut science research funding by $138 Million (while the US invested $2.75 Billion). Since 2007 Harper has forced scientists at Environment Canada to get permission to do interviews, often screening their answers. As a result media coverage of climate change science was reduced by 80%."


A ridiculous complaint.


----------



## Vandave

I went to see Harper tonight. Too bad he didn't mention the Bin Laden news. He was probably briefed before his speech.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> A ridiculous complaint.


So that is where you and me and many others differ a whole lot. I think it is a very serious indictment of the Harper coalition. The Progressive Conservatives would probably not have abused government experts in the way that they have acceded to, in their coalition with Harper. We count on our government to look after our well-being. At least that is the way that Progressive Conservatives, NDPers, Liberals etc etc have looked at it. (They differ as to how the government should carry out this responsibility.) Only the Harper extremists question the role of government. They want corporations to rule.


----------



## Macfury

Let me break it down:



> In 2009, Harper appointed a Minister of Science who refused to say whether he believed in evolution.


Irrelevant. Is this an inquisition? Did they ask him if he believed in Gaia? Horoscopes? 



> Harper then cut science research funding by $138 Million (while the US invested $2.75 Billion).


Bean counting. Let the U.S. do it then.



> Since 2007 Harper has forced scientists at Environment Canada to get permission to do interviews, often screening their answers.


Typical of government employees anywhere.



Dr T said:


> We count on our government to look after our well-being.


When I hear a statement like this I'm shocked to see how far people have fallen in their level of dependence on government. Statements like this galvanize me to push harder the other way. 



> As a result media coverage of climate change science was reduced by 80%


No great loss. There's too much coverage already.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> Let me break it down:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Is this an inquisition? Did they ask him if he believed in Gaia? Horoscopes?
> 
> 
> 
> Bean counting. Let the U.S. do it then.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical of government employees anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear a statement like this I'm shocked to see how far people have fallen in their level of dependence on government. Statements like this galvanize me to push harder the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> No great loss. There's too much coverage already.



I'd like to respond, but first I must master the black art of Multi-Quoting.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> I'd like to respond, but first I must master the black art of Multi-Quoting.


It's harder to learn Ecky-Thump.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> It's harder to learn Ecky-Thump.


Thank you for your help.


----------



## groovetube

Dr T said:


> What we should acknowledge is that what MacDoc posted is spot on, and if it gets re-posted another time or two, or twenty more times, it will still be spot on.


it really upsets them. They prefer to shriek adscam etc. for the umpteenth time.


----------



## SINC

Dr T said:


> What we should acknowledge is that what MacDoc posted is spot on, and if it gets re-posted another time or two, or twenty more times, it will still be spot on.


Allow me to make a minor correction: 

What MacDoc posted is spot on, *in your opinion.*


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> Allow me to make a minor correction:
> 
> What MacDoc posted is spot on, *in your opinion.*


Except that much of it is FACT.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> but you suggested we do that very thing. We should be scared of wall street, and listen to their exhortations!
> 
> But you probably think it was someone else's fault don't you.


Oh! Geeeez! Don't get him started on Fanny, Freddy or Obama.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> Except that much of it is FACT.


Glad you didn't state "all" of it.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Allow me to make a minor correction:
> 
> What MacDoc posted is spot on, *in your opinion.*


I guess implied and inferred are not understood here.
help with implied and inferred

For most people understand the author implied in his opinion MacDoc was "spot on." Apparently the reader in this instance can not infer that was the message.


----------



## iphilip

*To Vote or not to Vote*

And before those days we had Trudeau Mania (Two million baby boomers try to find themselves in the youth rebellion)

I'm old enough to remember, and I quote a soon to be leader of our country: "Reason before passion" Trudeau talked to the crowds about building a “just society” in which all Canadians were respected and shared in the country’s prosperity. 

No matter the party you support, please, please take the time out from your busy day and vote with a passion for reasonable non confrontational house of commons. 
iphilip


----------



## Macfury

I want a confrontational House of Commons in which bad ideas are tossed into the trash heap. As the Bible says, vigorous debate is steel sharpening steel.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> I guess implied and inferred are not understood here.
> help with implied and inferred
> 
> For most people understand the author implied in his opinion MacDoc was "spot on." Apparently the reader in this instance can not infer that was the message.


One needs to use the phrase, to be clear in meaning. 

He specifically stated it WAS spot on.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> I want a confrontational House of Commons in which bad ideas are tossed into the trash heap. As the Bible says, vigorous debate is steel sharpening steel.


I don't know, I see a lot of vigourous debate on the internet and at most it seems to cause bad ideas to proliferate....


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I don't know, I see a lot of vigourous debate on the internet and at most it seems to cause bad ideas to proliferate....


I've seen a lot of areas on the internet where everyone agrees--and they're agreeing on something stupid. The internet is not real life because there is no cost associated with espousing the ideas--and few of these ideas are in danger of being enacted.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> I've seen a lot of areas on the internet where everyone agrees--and they're agreeing on something stupid. The internet is not real life because there is no cost associated with espousing the ideas--and few of these ideas are in danger of being enacted.


So the choices are, in your mind, debate vigourously or agree with everyone???

It's also possible to discuss reasonably.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> So the choices are, in your mind, debate vigourously or agree with everyone???
> 
> It's also possible to discuss reasonably.


I prefer vigorous in political discussion. Dancing around the Maypole won't cut it with me.


----------



## dona83

I voted.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> I voted.


Democracy in action. Kudos. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## dona83

Thanks, Dr. G., my true hope this election is that 70% of eligible voters get out there and vote. Then I would be more accepting of whatever the end result may be.


----------



## Dr.G.

dona83 said:


> Thanks, Dr. G., my true hope this election is that 70% of eligible voters get out there and vote. Then I would be more accepting of whatever the end result may be.


Let us hope so, dona83. "The mouse that roared" shall be heard by all those who say that voting is not important. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL

Just back from casting my vote. Good to exercise my franchise.

The only real difference I shall make in this Federal riding is in the percentage of participation, popular vote, and the $2 the NDP will receive from my vote unless Mr. Harper has his way.

Rob Moore, the Conservative candidate, will win the election, given the history of the riding since 1867. The only non-Conservative Candidate to win the riding was Paul Zed, a Liberal, who happens to be the son in law of the "New Brunswick Irvings."


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> Just back from casting my vote. Good to exercise my franchise.
> 
> The only real difference I shall make in this Federal riding is in the percentage of participation, popular vote, and the $2 the NDP will receive from my vote unless Mr. Harper has his way.
> 
> Rob Moore, the Conservative candidate, will win the election, given the history of the riding since 1867. The only non-Conservative Candidate to win the riding was Paul Zed, a Liberal, who happens to be the son in law of the "New Brunswick Irvings."


Well, you voted, BigDL, and that is one of your four responsibilities as a Canadian citizen. Kudos. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## whatiwant

Going to vote after lunch, though my vote will likely be a throwaway, given Bob Rae always wins in this riding.


----------



## bryanc

I was thinking as I voted this afternoon, that one of the up sides of having elections frequently is that we do seem to have developed a pretty good system. No long line-ups... just walk in; show your ID and voter registration card, go to the booth, mark an 'X', and drop it in the box. Took me about 10 minutes, including walking to the poling station.

When you think about the chaos that surrounds elections in other countries (even/especially) the US, you've got to admire the quiet competence of Elections Canada.

:clap:


----------



## Sonal

jawknee said:


> Going to vote after lunch, though my vote will likely be a throwaway, given Bob Rae always wins in this riding.


We're in the same riding.

I voted Green. Bob Rae will take the riding, but at least the Green party gets an extra $2 out of me, and I think they are a party that who deserves a stronger voice.

I must say, I like this voting with my funding business.


----------



## Dr T

bryanc said:


> I was thinking as I voted this afternoon, that one of the up sides of having elections frequently is that we do seem to have developed a pretty good system. No long line-ups... just walk in; show your ID and voter registration card, go to the booth, mark an 'X', and drop it in the box. Took me about 10 minutes, including walking to the poling station.
> 
> When you think about the chaos that surrounds elections in other countries (even/especially) the US, you've got to admire the quiet competence of Elections Canada.
> 
> :clap:


The USA has federal elections, for at least some of their legislators, every 2 years, relentlessly. Plus they seem to be in perpetual campaign mode - like right now, for example. The worst aspect of their voting is that there are no scrutineers - they vote on machines and whoever controls the machines controls the vote count.


----------



## chimo

I voted a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> I was thinking as I voted this afternoon, that one of the up sides of having elections frequently is that we do seem to have developed a pretty good system. No long line-ups... just walk in; show your ID and voter registration card, go to the booth, mark an 'X', and drop it in the box. Took me about 10 minutes, including walking to the poling station.
> 
> When you think about the chaos that surrounds elections in other countries (even/especially) the US, you've got to admire the quiet competence of Elections Canada.
> 
> :clap:


Very true, bryanc. Also, voting is one of the four responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> We're in the same riding.
> 
> I voted Green. Bob Rae will take the riding, but at least the Green party gets an extra $2 out of me, and I think they are a party that who deserves a stronger voice.
> 
> I must say, I like this voting with my funding business.


Amen, Sister Sonal. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Dr.G.

Dr T said:


> The USA has federal elections, for at least some of their legislators, every 2 years, relentlessly. Plus they seem to be in perpetual campaign mode - like right now, for example. The worst aspect of their voting is that there are no scrutineers - they vote on machines and whoever controls the machines controls the vote count.


You are so right, Dr.T. re the notion of most politicians being in "perpetual campaign mode".


----------



## whatiwant

Sonal said:


> We're in the same riding.
> 
> I voted Green. Bob Rae will take the riding, but at least the Green party gets an extra $2 out of me, and I think they are a party that who deserves a stronger voice.
> 
> I must say, I like this voting with my funding business.


Heh. My deed hath been done. Fingers crossed for a minority of any colour.


----------



## Vandave

jawknee said:


> Fingers crossed for a minority of any colour.


That's what 'he' said.

<---


----------



## dona83

Vandave, I officially have beef with you, literally, I must be a cow according to what you said about NDP volunteers.


----------



## Vandave

dona83 said:


> Vandave, I officially have beef with you, literally, I must be a cow according to what you said about NDP volunteers.


I never said, 'all NDP volunteers'. I said disproportionately more.

I think those who can't take care of themselves love the idea of a nanny state. I also think those who are not very successful like to attribute their failings to something else, such as fat cat businesses. The NDP seems to play into that mentality.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> I was thinking as I voted this afternoon, that one of the up sides of having elections frequently is that we do seem to have developed a pretty good system. No long line-ups... just walk in; show your ID and voter registration card, go to the booth, mark an 'X', and drop it in the box. Took me about 10 minutes, including walking to the poling station.
> 
> When you think about the chaos that surrounds elections in other countries (even/especially) the US, you've got to admire the quiet competence of Elections Canada.
> 
> :clap:





Dr.G. said:


> Very true, bryanc. Also, voting is one of the four responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. Paix, mon ami.


Perhaps through the miracle of tax cuts we might end out with the system left in the Excited States.


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> I never said, 'all NDP volunteers'. I said disproportionately more.
> 
> I think those who can't take care of themselves love the idea of a nanny state. I also think those who are not very successful like to attribute their failings to something else, such as fat cat businesses. The NDP seems to play into that mentality.


Talk about over-generalizations!?! This is just as insensitive and inaccurate a comment as Macfury's contention that academics and teachers should not become MPs.

I know you have the right to express your views, but it does not serve you well to lump a whole group of people together, especially since you have not seen the entire group of NDP volunteers. It just makes you look more foolish than what you are trying to contend re the image of these NDP supporters.


----------



## MacDoc

> I think those who can't take care of themselves love the idea of a nanny state. I also think those who are not very successful like to attribute their failings to something else, such as fat cat businesses


red in tooth and claw - what a joke ...... how 16th century
I've survived in a very tough business for a 1/4 century and I find your view point odious in the extreme but then you knew that.

Your view ends in isolation and conflict....always has always will

What don't you understand about the "soci" in society.

pah.....hopeless - like Harpo your Dear Leader....


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> Talk about over-generalizations!?! This is just as insensitive and inaccurate a comment as Macfury's contention that academics and teachers should not become MPs.


As a professor, would you not agree that Math professors generally dress like slobs? That has been my experience.



Dr.G. said:


> I know you have the right to express your views, but it does not serve you well to lump a whole group of people together, especially since you have not seen the entire group of NDP volunteers. It just makes you look more foolish than what you are trying to contend re the image of these NDP supporters.


Sure, the map is not the terrain. All observation is fundamentally subject to flaw. That's the nature of reality and it's why our brains search for patterns. This is just one such pattern that mine has picked up on. I have worked on a number of Federal and Provincial elections and it's an unbiased observation. I provided an explanation as to why I think the observation is true.

It might not be politically correct, but that won't stop me from saying it. I just see too many entitled mooches to not bring it up.


----------



## Sonal

Vandave said:


> As a professor, would you not agree that Math professors generally dress like slobs? That has been my experience.


As a holder of a B.Math degree, no, I would not.

The math students, perhaps.....


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Your view ends in isolation and conflict....always has always will


No it doesn't.


----------



## Vandave

Sonal said:


> As a holder of a B.Math degree, no, I would not.
> 
> The math students, perhaps.....


I have an engineering degree and that's not my experience.


----------



## SINC

Just returned from voting. Very quiet at our polling station, hardly a half dozen there when we were. 

I tried to take a pic of the entire gym in the school it was set up in for my web site, but was refused by a young lady who ran across the room screaming no pictures!

I then asked her why not, as I had seen TV taped shots of the federal leaders voting and dripping their ballots in the box just this morning. Why are they allowed to have pictures taken, I asked? She could not answer my question even when shown my press credentials. I left without taking the shot.


----------



## Sonal

Vandave said:


> I have an engineering degree and that's not my experience.


Likewise, your experience wasn't mine either.


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> Just returned from voting. Very quiet at our polling station, hardly a half dozen there when we were.
> 
> I tried to take a pic of the entire gym in the school it was set up in for my web site, but was refused by a young lady who ran across the room screaming no pictures!
> 
> I then asked her why not, as I had seen TV taped shots of the federal leaders voting and dripping their ballots in the box just this morning. Why are they allowed to have pictures taken, I asked? She could not answer my question even when shown my press credentials. I left without taking the shot.


http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=apr2611&dir=pre&lang=e



> If the location allows, media may film or photograph from the doorway of a polling site as long as they do not disturb electors or compromise the secrecy of the vote. Media are asked to arrange this in advance with the local returning officer.


Maybe she's only doing what she's told?


----------



## dona83

Vandave said:


> I never said, 'all NDP volunteers'. I said disproportionately more.
> 
> I think those who can't take care of themselves love the idea of a nanny state. I also think those who are not very successful like to attribute their failings to something else, such as fat cat businesses. The NDP seems to play into that mentality.


I don't agree BTW, I think "cows" "slobs" are represented proportionally across all political parties. 

And there are many NDP supporters who have done well in life who just believe that there should be equal opportunity for all Canadians. I'm glad they defocussed on unions, so now we see union members voting for all different parties, it allows the NDP to tackle issues that pertain to all Canadians.

Your Conservatives have an agenda to bring back the Church to the parliament. How is that any good?

I'm typically centrist, but the right wing Harper is equally destroying our country and destroying democracy. A left wing party at this point is the way to neutralize them.


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> As a professor, would you not agree that Math professors generally dress like slobs? That has been my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the map is not the terrain. All observation is fundamentally subject to flaw. That's the nature of reality and it's why our brains search for patterns. This is just one such pattern that mine has picked up on. I have worked on a number of Federal and Provincial elections and it's an unbiased observation. I provided an explanation as to why I think the observation is true.
> 
> It might not be politically correct, but that won't stop me from saying it. I just see too many entitled mooches to not bring it up.


No, Math professors dress no differently than English professors, or Science profs, or Education profs, or Business profs, or Nursing profs, or profs in the Medical Schools, or profs in History, Political Science, Economics, Romance Languages, etc, etc, etc. How can you make such an overgeneralization??? At least you said "in my experience", which must be limited if this is all you've seen to make this sort of silly statement. It may be an "unbiased observation" if this is all you have seen, but it is certainly flawed based on limited information. If you have seen "too many entitled mooches to not bring it up", then you need to get out more and see the various people from coast to coast to coast in this great land of ours. It might provide you with another perspective, or at least more information upon which to base your conclusions. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Ah, it's a misty day in Ottawa. I walked the 1500m to the poll and then back again. I noticed a few robins were feasting on the savoury worms that surface in weather like this. I kept thinking that I could always change my vote and if that would make any difference. I was warmly received at the church where the poll has been set up. Some neighbours were Elections Canada volunteers gave me a nod and a wave. I'm always so impressed at how smooth and cordial our system is run compared to the horror stories we read about in so many other countries that share our ecosphere. I gave my card to the gentlemen at my booth and showed him my driver's license. He gave me the ballot and I went to mark my choice. I voted Green out of respect for the party's platform and leader, but most of all for the admiration I have for our local candidate who grew stronger and stronger through the weeks of the campaign. The Green goal is to have Ms. May elected and sent to parliament, and locally, to exceed the vote the Green's gained in 2008. Walking back my thoughts dwelled on all the good questions that were asked at all candidates meetings and the feeling that this election may clear the poisonous atmosphere temporarily. This has been an election worth having. Soon I'll be off to get our vote out. I do hope we get a minority government.


----------



## whatiwant

Not exactly a straight shooter...


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> As a professor, would you not agree that Math professors generally dress like slobs? That has been my experience.


As a professor, I don't notice or care how people dress. I'm more interested in what they say and do. And I can certainly defend the generalization that the NDP are saying and doing the right things.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Ah, it's a misty day in Ottawa. I walked the 1500m to the poll and then back again. I noticed a few robins were feasting on the savoury worms that surface in weather like this. I kept thinking that I could always change my vote and if that would make any difference. I was warmly received at the church where the poll has been set up. Some neighbours were Elections Canada volunteers gave me a nod and a wave. I'm always so impressed at how smooth and cordial our system is run compared to the horror stories we read about in so many other countries that share our ecosphere. I gave my card to the gentlemen at my booth and showed him my driver's license. He gave me the ballot and I went to mark my choice. I voted Green out of respect for the party's platform and leader, but most of all for the admiration I have for our local candidate who grew stronger and stronger through the weeks of the campaign. The Green goal is to have Ms. May elected and sent to parliament, and locally, to exceed the vote the Green's gained in 2008. Walking back my thoughts dwelled on all the good questions that were asked at all candidates meetings and the feeling that this election may clear the poisonous atmosphere temporarily. This has been an election worth having. Soon I'll be off to get our vote out. I do hope we get a minority government.


Good for you, jimbotelecom -- another Canadian citizen taking his or her responsibility of citizenship to heart. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Vandave

dona83 said:


> Your Conservatives have an agenda to bring back the Church to the parliament. How is that any good?


It isn't. I don't support any form of religion in our politics or government. This is one of many points that I do not agree with the Conservatives with, others being gay marriage and drug legalization.

I'm quite happy to criticize my party of choice. I feel that they represent my issues more closely than any other party.



dona83 said:


> I'm typically centrist, but the right wing Harper is equally destroying our country and destroying democracy. A left wing party at this point is the way to neutralize them.


He isn't destroying anything other than the dreams of leftists to double down on the nanny state. There is no end to it. Government isn't the solution to every little problem we face. Let's try to solve our own problems for once.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Just returned from voting. Very quiet at our polling station, hardly a half dozen there when we were.
> 
> I tried to take a pic of the entire gym in the school it was set up in for my web site, but was refused by a young lady who ran across the room screaming no pictures!
> 
> I then asked her why not, as I had seen TV taped shots of the federal leaders voting and dripping their ballots in the box just this morning. Why are they allowed to have pictures taken, I asked? She could not answer my question even when shown my press credentials. I left without taking the shot.


Interesting, but that was the same situation when my wife tried to take a picture of me just after I became a Canadian citizen and was voting for the first time.

Still, you voted, which is what counted.


----------



## dona83

jawknee said:


> Not exactly a straight shooter...


Haha. James Moore is the Conservative candidate in my local riding. Speaking of James Moore...

Facing Autism in New Brunswick: Autism Ignorance: Conservative James Moore Says Autism Is Not a Disability



James Moore said:


> "No, autism is not a disability and The Canada Health Act is not for Special interest Groups."


----------



## MacDoc

Dressed?????!!!!

Every seen Einstein ?

Even IBM got off the suit and tie a few decades ago...

why how shallow of you VD... still stuck in the 16th century








.


----------



## whatiwant

dona83 said:


> James Moore is the Conservative candidate in my local riding. Speaking of James Moore...
> 
> Facing Autism in New Brunswick: Autism Ignorance: Conservative James Moore Says Autism Is Not a Disability


pretty bright guy !


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> As a professor, I don't notice or care how people dress. I'm more interested in what they say and do. And I can certainly defend the generalization that the NDP are saying and doing the right things.


I care how people dress. It says a lot about a person. 

I see a big difference between saying and doing. Saying is easy and cheap. Doing something is another thing altogether.


----------



## dona83

jawknee said:


> pretty bright guy !


He's poised to yet again win our riding by a wide margin.



Vandave said:


> I care how people dress. It says a lot about a person.
> 
> I see a big difference between saying and doing. Saying is easy and cheap. Doing something is another thing altogether.


What do you make of Stephen Harper's knit sweaters?


----------



## jimbotelecom

dona83 said:


> Haha. James Moore is the Conservative candidate in my local riding. Speaking of James Moore...
> 
> Facing Autism in New Brunswick: Autism Ignorance: Conservative James Moore Says Autism Is Not a Disability


I feel I have a hearing disability when I try and listen to this motor mouth speak. He certainly can fill the air.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> I care how people dress. It says a lot about a person.
> 
> I see a big difference between saying and doing. Saying is easy and cheap. Doing something is another thing altogether.


I have seen how a few EhMacers in particular dress, VanDave. Trust me, I can tell why they might say it isn't an issue.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I have seen how a few EhMacers in particular dress, VanDave. Trust me, I can tell why they might say it isn't an issue.


Another overgeneralization, Macfury. How many of us are here in ehMacLand, and how many have you seen? See me on a particular day, and I might look as I did when I gave tilt the 2 cents tour of St.John's when he was here. Catch me on another day, and I am in a suit. So, it all depends upon the person, the day, the situation, the mood ............. none of which can be generalized to be the same for each person each day, and certainly not for the number of ehMacLanders you have seen to be extrapolated to represent all of us.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> why how shallow of you VD... still stuck in the 16tth century


How left wing and ignorant of you.

I guarantee that you place judgement on how others dress. I guarantee that if you were charged criminally in court that you would show up in a suit. I guarantee that when you go out for your anniversary that you dress nicely. I guarantee that you dress better for weddings.

Even caveman understood this.

Dressing well is not about being prissy or elitism, as the left likes to think. It's about respect for oneself and others.


----------



## Macfury

A few. 

In particular.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> I have seen how a few EhMacers in particular dress, VanDave. Trust me, I can tell why they might say it isn't an issue.


I wonder if there is a link between that and voting patterns. Just saying. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> I wonder if there is a link between that and voting patterns. Just saying. :lmao:


I think it would make a worthwhile study. Maybe try to do a correlation between leftist voting patterns and Birkenstocks.


----------



## Sonal

The irony for me is that my boyfriend is an academic and typically wears dress pants, dress shoes and a button up shirt every day. I am self-employed and a "fat-cat" landlord and I typically wear jeans, t-shirts and brightly coloured shoes.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> The irony for me is that my boyfriend is an academic and typically wears dress pants, dress shoes and a button up shirt every day. I am self-employed and a "fat-cat" landlord and I typically wear jeans, t-shirts and brightly coloured shoes.


Yeah, but you're a gurl.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but you're a gurl.


That was a very sexist remark, Macfury. Sonal is a woman and may dress however she pleases.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Vandave said:


> I wonder if there is a link between that and voting patterns. Just saying. :lmao:


I don't know if you have ever considered running as a candidate, but your overall presentation here in the last several days makes me wonder who exactly pissed in your corn flakes. I think you could give John Baird a good run for mean spirited MP of the year. I'll sign your nomination form if that will help you.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> That was a very sexist remark, Macfury. Sonal is a woman and may dress however she pleases.


Note the ironic use of the term "gurl" Instead of "girl" denoting a joke.


----------



## da_jonesy

Vandave said:


> I care how people dress. It says a lot about a person.
> 
> I see a big difference between saying and doing. Saying is easy and cheap. Doing something is another thing altogether.


I would agree that appearance does count. In a professional or social setting looking one's best counts. 

I buy hand tailored suits, sport coats and shirts. My shirts all have french cuffs and I have a variety of cufflinks for various occasions. I collect and wear vintage watches (Several Omegas, Heuer's etc...). 

Yet my political views are decidedly not conservative.

Making generalizations based on appearance and connecting them to political views is silly, however...

http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/*******-car.jpg

I might be wrong


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> How left wing and ignorant of you.
> 
> I guarantee that you place judgement on how others dress. I guarantee that if you were charged criminally in court that you would show up in a suit. I guarantee that when you go out for your anniversary that you dress nicely. I guarantee that you dress better for weddings.
> 
> Even caveman understood this.
> 
> Dressing well is not about being prissy or elitism, as the left likes to think. It's about respect for oneself and others.


well I just got back from voting, in a predominately ndp riding, and most of the people I saw, were younger, slim, fit, and pretty well put together. As were all of the election staff I saw, save for one who dared to wear jeans.


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> well I just got back from voting, in a predominately ndp riding, and most of the people I saw, were younger, slim, fit, and pretty well put together. As were all of the election staff I saw, save for one who dared to wear jeans.


Even I didn't wear jeans today! Oh the humanity!

Mind you that's because I have an appointment with the Council of Geniuses this afternoon...


----------



## Macfury

da_jonesy said:


> Making generalizations based on appearance and connecting them to political views is silly, however...


I believe that place is located just outside of Moncton.


----------



## jimbotelecom

da_jonesy said:


> I would agree that appearance does count. In a professional or social setting looking one's best counts.
> 
> I buy hand tailored suits, sport coats and shirts. My shirts all have french cuffs and I have a variety of cufflinks for various occasions. I collect and wear vintage watches (Several Omegas, Heuer's etc...).
> 
> Yet my political views are decidedly not conservative.
> 
> Making generalizations based on appearance and connecting them to political views is silly, however...
> 
> I might be wrong


Yep. During Iraq war I, I was working for a firm in downtown Toronto and I had finished my day and was walking home when I was confronted by a placard carrying Iraq war protester. She called me a suit (I was wearing one) and a sellout (I was roughly her young age). I walked over to her and calmly told her that I supported her and that she shouldn't judge a book by its cover. She was gobsmacked and gave me a meek apology. I wished her good luck.


----------



## MLeh

Better be careful, Vandave, judging people by appearances can be detrimental to your ego.

Should I feel bad for not upholding your ideal of the proper 'Conservative' dress code? Just got back from voting: wore my Guinnesss Hoodie with a leather jacket to hold off the rain, and a pair of jeans.

(I'm generally in a sweatshirt and or jeans. Doesn't make me less fiscally conservative.)


----------



## Vandave

da_jonesy said:


> Making generalizations based on appearance and connecting them to political views is silly, however...
> 
> http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/*******-car.jpg
> 
> I might be wrong


MacDoc on the left? I might be wrong.


----------



## chasMac

I actually do wear birkenstocks, eat bags of granola, grow my hair long and vote Conservative (and Wildrose in the prov. elections) ... while we're on the theme of going against stereotype.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> I actually do wear birkenstocks, eat bags of granola, grow my hair long and vote Conservative (and Wildrose in the prov. elections) ... while we're on the theme of going against stereotype.


You don't look like Buddy Holly?


----------



## Vandave

MLeh said:


> Better be careful, Vandave, judging people by appearances can be detrimental to your ego.


I agree. I am far less judgemental than most are probably assuming.



MLeh said:


> Should I feel bad for not upholding your ideal of the proper 'Conservative' dress code? Just got back from voting: wore my Guinnesss Hoodie with a leather jacket to hold off the rain, and a pair of jeans.
> 
> (I'm generally in a sweatshirt and or jeans. Doesn't make me less fiscally conservative.)


No you shouldn't. You were just voting.

I think volunteers should look clean and professional. You represent more than just your party. You represent our entire democratic system. To me, that's worthy of dressing with respect. That doesn't mean you need to wear a lounge suit or formal pants. It just means that you shouldn't dress and look like a slob.

If I have a chip on my shoulder with this issue, that it where it lies. Every time I volunteer as a scrutineer, a few NDPers show up looking like slobs. I don't like that.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Vandave said:


> MacDoc on the left? I might be wrong.


I'm not sure Vandave as I have never met MacDoc. But do you see that horse's ass in the background? Is that you?


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> You don't look like Buddy Holly?


That pic is strikingly similar to my high-school year book photo. I've rebelled since.


----------



## Sonal

Birkenstocks are ugly, ugly shoes....


----------



## Vandave

jimbotelecom said:


> I'm not sure Vandave as I have never met MacDoc. But do you see that horse's ass in the background? Is that you?


No, I am just hung like a horse. I could see the reason for the confusion.


----------



## chasMac

Sonal said:


> Birkenstocks are ugly, ugly shoes....


They look positively designer next to crocs though. They make your feet look like hooves.


----------



## Sonal

Vandave said:


> If I have a chip on my shoulder with this issue, that it where it lies. Every time I volunteer as a scrutineer, a few NDPers show up looking like slobs. I don't like that.


To be fair, Layton was apparently well-known for jeans and long hair when he started on Toronto City Council, and then when his political aspirations grew he smartened up into the snappy dresser he is today.

Iggy, apparently, has been wearing red sneakers to symbolize his sprint to the finish line....


----------



## jimbotelecom

Vandave said:


> No, I am just hung like a horse. I could see the reason for the confusion.


I do hope you were gelded as a colt to prevent further contamination of the gene pool.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> ggy, apparently, has been wearing red sneakers to symbolize his sprint to the finish line....


Has he put them on backwards?


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Has he put them on backwards?


Doesn't look that way, but who knows which direction he's facing?

Ignatieff dons red runners for sprint to finish, says campaign's not over - Yahoo! News


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> I have an engineering degree and that's not my experience.


It's very understandable now as the training for the steel ring turns a perfectly good mind into digital processor." 0 or 1, black or white, am I right or am I right?"

Least ways that's been my experience with engineers.

How's about *them* stereotypes?


----------



## iphilip

*Thank you*

No such thing as throughway vote. Bottom line you have exercised your inalienable right and for that be proud.:clap:


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> It's very understandable now as the training for the steel ring turns a perfectly good mind into digital processor." 0 or 1, black or white, am I right or am I right?"
> 
> Least ways that's been my experience with engineers.
> 
> How's about *them* stereotypes?


As an engineer, I readily admit that many of us fit that stereotype, myself excluded.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> No, I am just hung like a horse. I could see the reason for the confusion.


You have a chain inserted through your achilles tendons and attached with a block and tackle to a barn beam...sounds painful perhaps an explanation for the moodiness.


----------



## MLeh

Vandave said:


> As an engineer, I readily admit that many of us fit that stereotype, myself excluded.


Oh, I missed the gem earlier that you're an engineer. It explains a lot.


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> I guarantee that you place judgement on how others dress. I guarantee that if you were charged criminally in court that you would show up in a suit. I guarantee that when you go out for your anniversary that you dress nicely. I guarantee that you dress better for weddings.


Feel free to dress like you feel you have to in order to fit in or shield your insecurities if you like, but do refrain from "guaranteeing" how others dress or ought to dress. I don't own a suit (or a tie), and happily show up for job interviews in shorts and a t-shirt (if the weather is warm). I generally avoid weddings if possible, but at one of the nicest one's I've been to all the guests were suitably attired - in bathing suits (it was at a beach). I'm also pretty oblivious to how others dress. I've only recently become aware of this, because my students have pointed it out to me. Whatever. I really couldn't care less what other people choose to ornament themselves with. I have no respect (or disrespect) for any kind of uniform, wether it's the business suit or battle armour. I respect people, not their clothes. Clothes serve functions, and for me, comfort is all that matters.


----------



## Max

That's why I dig Ehmac. Seriously! The clash of cultures and the constant jolly dashing of expectations.

I have some nasty lingering respect for uniforms but that was probably just dinned into me in my youth. I invest more in what a person says and does. Thankfully, I too have a gig where it's not necessary to strap myself into some kind of official vestments in order to earn a paycheque. And I realize some people legitimately dig suits, feeling both powerful and comfortable in them. I'm working with guy like that right now. I think it's great. So glad he we get along regardless of what artificial skins are hanging off of our hides.


----------



## MacDoc

I own a suit and a tie for my parents death ....one of which has occurred.....I'd not be caught dead in anything that has it's roots in a military uniform - ever wonder what those notches are for?

I wear shorts and a shirt and a "dress up" is a tropical shirt...shoes are optional.

The only money I spend is on layered armor for motorcycling.
.....if you need to hide your insecurities by way of dressing up for the man VD .......well let's say I'm not surprised.
The Sun King had a similar issue










Fop comes to mind.....

Given Harper's apparent desire for absolute rule I'm not surprised one of his court lackeys shares divine right views...
France - Smarthistory


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> I agree. I am far less judgemental than most are probably assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> No you shouldn't. You were just voting.
> 
> I think volunteers should look clean and professional. You represent more than just your party. You represent our entire democratic system. To me, that's worthy of dressing with respect. That doesn't mean you need to wear a lounge suit or formal pants. It just means that you shouldn't dress and look like a slob.
> 
> If I have a chip on my shoulder with this issue, that it where it lies. Every time I volunteer as a scrutineer, a few NDPers show up looking like slobs. I don't like that.


Just got back from taking some new Canadian Immigrants, who I have been tutoring and who just became citizens, and are voting for the first time, over to the polls to vote. Looked around to see if I could spot anyone not dressed in a manner that would not earn them the Vandave Seal of Approval, and I could not find anyone there that was not dressed well. 

So, the new Canadians voted, although I could not take their pictures as they were casting their ballots, but the smiles on their faces showed that they were quite pleased with this opportunity. Nor could I take a picture of those working for Election Canada, or the scrutineers for the four main parties running here in St.John's East, to show Vandave that we dress well here in NL. I did recognize a colleague of mine who teaches in the Faculty of Engineering and was a scrutineer for the Jack Harris NDP campaign, but I could not take a picture of him all dressed up in a suit and tie. 

Too bad I could not get pics of this event. Guess you shall have to take my word for it that those here in this polling station in St.John's East would have earned the VSoA. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> Feel free to dress like you feel you have to in order to fit in or shield your insecurities if you like, but do refrain from "guaranteeing" how others dress or ought to dress. I don't own a suit (or a tie), and happily show up for job interviews in shorts and a t-shirt (if the weather is warm). I generally avoid weddings if possible, but at one of the nicest one's I've been to all the guests were suitably attired - in bathing suits (it was at a beach). I'm also pretty oblivious to how others dress. I've only recently become aware of this, because my students have pointed it out to me. Whatever. I really couldn't care less what other people choose to ornament themselves with. I have no respect (or disrespect) for any kind of uniform, wether it's the business suit or battle armour. I respect people, not their clothes. Clothes serve functions, and for me, comfort is all that matters.


Dress as you will, bryanc, but just don't expect to run for any political office and get Macfury's vote. Academics need not apply to run for any party supported by Macfury, regardless of your political stripe. Still, if you dress nicely, you might get Vandave's vote.

Lord, how I detest stereotypes. I could say so much about these two, our own "dynamic duo", but it would be all stereotypical and, if the truth be known, I actually like these two ehMacLanders. Still, I don't want to be hypocritical and stereotype Macfury and Vandave, so I shall end this here peacefully.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Dr.G.

Polls close in one hour here in NL .............. and so the counting begins. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Had to pay to park so I could vote. A 75-cent sacrifice but one I was willing to make to exercise my right.


----------



## Dr.G.

iphilip said:


> No such thing as throughway vote. Bottom line you have exercised your inalienable right and for that be proud.:clap:


Amen, brother. Vote, and the choice is yours ........... don't vote, and the choice goes to someone else.


----------



## Max

No need to insult those who prefer to wear a uniform of some sort, MacDoc... just seems like gratuitous spite to me.

Also, fops and royalty... I dunno. Elton John liked to do the foppish thing once upon a time. Didn't negatively impact his abilities as a songwriter or live performer. Half the entertainment world goes over the top with clothing and looks. Lady Gaga, Madonna... go back way further and then there's Liberace... 

But I digress. Go out and vote, y'all!


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Just returned from voting. Very quiet at our polling station, hardly a half dozen there when we were.
> 
> I tried to take a pic of the entire gym in the school it was set up in for my web site, but was refused by a young lady who ran across the room screaming no pictures!
> 
> I then asked her why not, as I had seen TV taped shots of the federal leaders voting and dripping their ballots in the box just this morning. Why are they allowed to have pictures taken, I asked? She could not answer my question even when shown my press credentials. I left without taking the shot.


I asked if I could take a picture of some new Canadian citizens voting for the first time, but was politely told no pictures were allowed within the polling station.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Go out and vote, y'all!" Amen, Brother Max. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Had to pay to park so I could vote. A 75-cent sacrifice but one I was willing to make to exercise my right.


Amen, Comrade Macfury. Good for you. Solidarity forever. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> No need to insult those who prefer to wear a uniform of some sort, MacDoc... just seems like gratuitous spite to me.
> 
> Also, fops and royalty... I dunno. Elton John liked to do the foppish thing once upon a time. Didn't negatively impact his abilities as a songwriter or live performer. Half the entertainment world goes over the top with clothing and looks. Lady Gaga, Madonna... go back way further and then there's Liberace...
> 
> But I digress. Go out and vote, y'all!


I spent 40 years in business suit and tie every day, many years in three piece suits. It made me no better or worse than anyone else, but it was accepted practice.

When I retired 10 years ago, I now dress for comfort. Shorts, button down shirt and sandals are daily summer wear, jeans and western shirts on cooler days and when camping.

Shoes are a must. I still don a suit and tie for weddings, funerals and special occasions. A pair of dress slacks, open neck button down shirt and a light, comfortable sports jacket some days fit the bill very nicely for such occasions.

I have friends who wear the same dull, drab stuff every day, but the bottom line is they are still friends. bottom line?

To each their own without tossing insults at anyone who is different from my particular choices.


----------



## Lawrence

Prime Minister Jack Layton Solves the...


----------



## screature

OMG this thread has reached new lows.... Who cares how one dresses.... it is all about what one knows and what one is capable of... I work on Parliament Hill and up until recently when I had to remove them for a dental X-ray and and proceeded to loose the backing for one of them, I wore an ear ring in each ear.

I got a few looks from a few people but my boss could care less.... I wear a jacket and tie when it is necessary and the rest of the time I just wear dress pants and a nice shirt, except on casual Fridays when I wear whatever I want.... Then in the summer it is whatever I want pretty much all the time... What the hell does how one looks, unless it is completely inappropriate to the circumstance matter...?????

Sorry Vandave but IMO you are being overly sensitive to the issue given the big picture.


----------



## Macfury

I want to see all gaucho pants and LuluLemon joggers voted out of office.


----------



## Lawrence

Harper = Pot belly and no tie

Iggy = Hawk like eyebrows and no tie

Layton = No tie


Who'd you vote for?


----------



## groovetube

My Canada does not include pot belly's nor hawk like eyebrows.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> My Canada does not include pot belly's nor hawk like eyebrows.


How about 1970's–era moustaches?


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> I agree. I am far less judgemental than most are probably assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> No you shouldn't. You were just voting.
> 
> I think volunteers should look clean and professional. You represent more than just your party. You represent our entire democratic system. To me, that's worthy of dressing with respect. That doesn't mean you need to wear a lounge suit or formal pants. It just means that you shouldn't dress and look like a slob.
> 
> If I have a chip on my shoulder with this issue, that it where it lies. Every time I volunteer as a scrutineer, a few NDPers show up looking like slobs. I don't like that.





MacDoc said:


> I own a suit and a tie for my parents death ....one of which has occurred.....I'd not be caught dead in anything that has it's roots in a military uniform - ever wonder what those notches are for?
> 
> I wear shorts and a shirt and a "dress up" is a tropical shirt...shoes are optional.
> 
> The only money I spend is on layered armor for motorcycling.
> .....if you need to hide your insecurities by way of dressing up for the man VD .......well let's say I'm not surprised.
> The Sun King had a similar issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fop comes to mind.....
> 
> Given Harper's apparent desire for absolute rule I'm not surprised one of his court lackeys shares divine right views...
> France - Smarthistory





Max said:


> No need to insult those who prefer to wear a uniform of some sort, MacDoc... just seems like gratuitous spite to me.
> 
> Also, fops and royalty... I dunno. Elton John liked to do the foppish thing once upon a time. Didn't negatively impact his abilities as a songwriter or live performer. Half the entertainment world goes over the top with clothing and looks. Lady Gaga, Madonna... go back way further and then there's Liberace...
> 
> But I digress. Go out and vote, y'all!





SINC said:


> I spent 40 years in business suit and tie every day, many years in three piece suits. It made me no better or worse than anyone else, but it was accepted practice.
> 
> When I retired 10 years ago, I now dress for comfort. Shorts, button down shirt and sandals are daily summer wear, jeans and western shirts on cooler days and when camping.
> 
> Shoes are a must. I still don a suit and tie for weddings, funerals and special occasions. A pair of dress slacks, open neck button down shirt and a light, comfortable sports jacket some days fit the bill very nicely for such occasions.
> 
> I have friends who wear the same dull, drab stuff every day, but the bottom line is they are still friends. bottom line?
> 
> To each their own without tossing insults at anyone who is different from my particular choices.





screature said:


> OMG this thread has reached new lows.... Who cares how one dresses....


 All of the above quoted here screature or apparently they say they do/don't. Just saying


----------



## fjnmusic

Or just plain old bad hair days?


----------



## BigDL

Geez! Harper looks like his nose is broken with the black eyes (dark circles?)


----------



## jimbotelecom

BigDL said:


> Geez! Harper looks like his nose is broken with the black eyes (dark circles?)


That's before he started wearing make-up.


----------



## ehMax

ehMac.ca is closing comments on all threads related to the election for several hours Monday to comply with an elections law that forbids any instance of "premature transmission of results" until the last polls have closed in every electoral district in the country.

All threads on ehMac.ca relating to the election will be closed until all polling stations across the country have closed at 10 p.m. ET.

At this time, I ask that all ehMac.ca members comply with this request. Any posts relating to the election will be removed and members may face moderation action. 

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## ehMax

Reports that Michael Ignatieff is currently losing his riding in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.


----------



## MacDoc

Pah ...more Harper... - yuck.  a pox on him.

Bloc blown out but so are the Libs.

NDP doing well.


----------



## Macfury

The NDP is the party of pork barrel this election. They will do well anywhere they offered to grease palms.


----------



## MacDoc

100 seats still very close but clear the Libs are toasted and the NDP will be Official Opposition.

Good on Jack....a pox on Harpo.

A Federalist party in Quebec for the first time in decades is good news all around. Damn 52 seats in Quebec for Jack - he needs to brush up on his French.

ack one more reason to move to Australia ,,,sooner than later.


----------



## Sonal

CBC is declaring NDP as official opposition... and the BQ is toast.


----------



## dona83

Con 144 NDP 88 Lib 29 BQ 3 Unaccounted 43. 

So the main question is, majority or minority?


----------



## chasMac

Cons gain 3 seats in Atlantic Canada.


----------



## MacDoc

Damn NDP approaching triple digits - leading or elected in 98 !!

Hard to believe the Bloc collapse. Good on you Quebec.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Damn NDP approaching triple digits - leading or elected in 98 !!
> 
> Hard to believe the Bloc collapse. Good on you Quebec.


Quebec is voting NDP because Layton offered the separatist element more than any other party.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Bloc obliterated and Liberals Orange Crushed.

We now have a much improved government.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> The NDP is the party of pork barrel this election. They will do well anywhere they offered to grease palms.


Tony Clement is NDP???


----------



## groovetube

I was going to ask. How is the ndp pork barrell when harper was spending his face off?

Must be confused as he was earlier about exhorting us to run scared of wall street


----------



## dona83

Macfury said:


> Quebec is voting NDP because Layton offered the separatist element more than any other party.


It's not a separatist element, it's giving the Quebec people a strong voice. Get your facts straight.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Quebec is voting NDP because Layton offered the separatist element more than any other party.


total nonsense.


----------



## Macfury

dona83 said:


> It's not a separatist element, it's giving the Quebec people a strong voice. Get your facts straight.


A strong voice? Is that what they're calling it now? He offered to repeal the federal Clarity Act and pave way to recognizing sovereignty. He offered to re-open the constitutional talks after creating "winning condition" for Quebec

Sweet.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

groovetube said:


> total nonsense.


+1


----------



## chasMac

CTV declaring majority govt. Way too early to tell I think.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> CTV declaring majority govt. Way too early to tell I think.


The _orange tsunami_ is getting a bit stale as it crosses the country.


----------



## groovetube

wooo! corp tax cuts for meee!

The family guy next door, to heck with him eh! He can wait til 2016.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> The ornage tsunami is getting a bit stale as it crosses the country.


Don't care if the NDP improves exponentially really; if Cons get a majority.


----------



## Macfury

The _Globe_ is calling a Conservative majority as well!


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Don't care if the NDP improves exponentially really; if Cons get a majority.


No, what I'm saying is that they aren't going to be threatening to the Conservative majority past this point.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> No, what I'm saying is that they aren't going to be threatening to the Conservative majority past this point.


Hope so!


----------



## Macfury

More and more news outlets jumping on the majority wagon. Layton will be Leader of the Neutered Opposition if this holds.


----------



## MacDoc

Bah humbug - I'll be gone before Harpo hits the polls again....his is not a vision of Canada I share.


----------



## Macfury

Conservatives leading in 165!


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Bah humbug - I'll be gone before Harpo hits the polls again....his is not a vision of Canada I share.


Take it like a man, MacDoc and congratulate me. It's a Conservative Tsunami!


----------



## chasMac

Congratulations MF!!


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Congratulations MF!!


Congratulations ChasMac! It was a hard won fight, but democracy won out today!


----------



## cap10subtext

Crap. Spoiler effect in my riding. I'm guessing there's a lot of that going on around, leading to the Major Con. Oh well, Very happy for the NDP overall.


----------



## cap10subtext

Anyone else have problems with the live CBC stream? only getting audio.


----------



## Macfury

cap10subtext said:


> Crap. Spoiler effect in my riding. I'm guessing there's a lot of that going on around, leading to the Major Con. Oh well, Very happy for the NDP overall.


I would say it's the _voter _effect.


----------



## MacGuiver

I'm no fan of the NDP or its policies but I'm really happy to see them kick the snot out of the Bloc. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax

Congratulations Prime Minister Harper and Conservative supporters. 




Oh, and by the way......













You're welcome.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I'm no fan of the NDP or its policies but I'm really happy to see them kick the snot out of the Bloc.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Agreed!


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> Congratulations Prime Minister Harper and Conservative supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and by the way......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.


You were his good luck charm!


----------



## chasMac

I have that photo too ehmax; different guy on the left though. Thanks for the congrats!


----------



## dona83

A Conservative majority is all but certain. Congratulations Stephen Harper, President of the United States of Canada.


----------



## SINC

dona83 said:


> A Conservative majority is all but certain. Congratulations Stephen Harper, President of the United States of Canada.


An opinion like that could be considered sour grapes.


----------



## groovetube

look at the libertarian. Happy, at having the highest spending government, biggest government in history, elected into a majority.

It puts the libertarian position into perspective!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Bah humbug - I'll be gone before Harpo hits the polls again....his is not a vision of Canada I share.


Two for the price of one...


----------



## dona83

SINC said:


> An opinion like that could be considered sour grapes.


I disagree. I've always wanted to use that comment.  On unfortunate circumstances but oh well.


----------



## iLabmAn

I'm just very happy to see my students participate in the Canadian Student Votes! program this year. It gave them a chance to put into practise what has been debated, ranted and picked apart (party platforms that is) over the course of two weeks.

They took the job of voting very seriously.

I'm proud of our student voters in Caledon.

District results


----------



## cap10subtext

I'm going to look at the bright side here. From what I've seen, many of the conservatives who've been elected are good solid community members, and while I'm not certain our priorities are aligned, I hope Conservative MPs are prepared to fight Harpers closed mouth policies and keep the parties shady financial transactions to a minimum (or, should the time come, let their consciences be their guide if the whistle needs blowing). If they are the kind of MP's they claim to be, I think we could do a lot worse.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> look at the libertarian. Happy, at having the highest spending government, biggest government in history, elected into a majority.
> 
> It puts the libertarian position into perspective!


The other four parties were the least Libertarian--with the NDP on the ass end of the Libertarian scale.


----------



## Macfury

cap10subtext said:


> I'm going to look at the bright side here. From what I've seen, many of the conservatives who've been elected are good solid community members, and while I'm not certain our priorities are aligned, I hope Conservative MPs are prepared to fight Harpers closed mouth policies and keep the parties shady financial transactions to a minimum (or, should the time come, let their consciences be their guide if the whistle needs blowing). If they are the kind of MP's they claim to be, I think we could do a lot worse.


This is Canada after all. A party can only go so far in their aspirations to transform the country.


----------



## groovetube

I hope this is taken with, -some- humor, but I facebooked...
"next time you hear a conservative tell you they didn't want this election, pour your drink on his head."

I think, anyone who believes Harper, for one second he didn't want this election, is gullible indeed.

I have to wonder, what Jack Layton was thinking, when he decided to be the one to decide to take down the Harper minority government.


----------



## Gene B

Now I know how it felt to be a Jew in Germany on the night of March 5, 1933.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I hope this is taken with, -some- humor, but I facebooked...
> "next time you hear a conservative tell you they didn't want this election, pour your drink on his head."
> 
> I think, anyone who believes Harper, for one second he didn't want this election, is gullible indeed.
> 
> I have to wonder, what Jack Layton was thinking, when he decided to be the one to decide to take down the Harper minority government.


Harper and his team are damned shrewd, but I'm not sure how much even they could predict. I think they took it so far as to convince Iggy this was his last chance to become PM, knowing full well he couldn't.


----------



## ehMax

The end result wasn't the one I wanted, but I am still extremely proud to be Canadian and of our democracy. 

The fact that we have the power to vote in and out our leaders is one we should never take for granted. 

Harper has his majority, and if he messes it up or starts going too far right, Canadians will have the peaceful right to vote him out of office, or keep him in office if he does a good job. 

Very historic night. The Bloc, a separatist party, has been practically reduced to nothing, which for me is a great thing. 

Very strong message has been sent to Liberal party and Ignatieff.


----------



## Macfury

Gene B said:


> Now I know how it felt to be a Jew in Germany on the night of March 5, 1933.


Get some perspective. That is absolute disrespect to the true suffering experienced by the Jewish people in Germany.


----------



## cap10subtext

Macfury said:


> This is Canada after all. A party can only go so far in their aspirations to transform the country.


Or in your own estimation, unless they're about to throw it down the crapper. Then apparently all bets are off.


----------



## chasMac

Gene B said:


> Now I know how it felt to be a Jew in Germany on the night of March 5, 1933.


Why?


----------



## Macfury

cap10subtext said:


> Or in your own estimation, unless they're about to throw it down the crapper. Then apparently all bets are off.


Layton was poised to kill the resource sector. It could be revived but I didn't want to suffer through that economic downturn.


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> The end result wasn't the one I wanted, but I am still extremely proud to be Canadian and of our democracy.
> 
> The fact that we have the power to vote in and out our leaders is one we should never take for granted.
> 
> Harper has his majority, and if he messes it up or starts going too far right, Canadians will have the peaceful right to vote him out of office, or keep him in office if he does a good job.
> 
> Very historic night. The Bloc, a separatist party, has been practically reduced to nothing, which for me is a great thing.
> 
> Very strong message has been sent to Liberal party and Ignatieff.


I agree with you on most points.

However, we've rewarded a government with more power, absolute power to be sure, that has already shown itself abusive of democracy, and our tax dollars more than once. This worries me.

We sent a message to the liberals for this very thing. Now, we're repeating the same mistakes.


----------



## MacGuiver

iLabmAn said:


> I'm just very happy to see my students participate in the Canadian Student Votes! program this year. It gave them a chance to put into practise what has been debated, ranted and picked apart (party platforms that is) over the course of two weeks.
> 
> They took the job of voting very seriously.
> 
> I'm proud of our student voters in Caledon.
> 
> District results


Thanks for sharing the link.

I must admit I'm surprised how the votes of the kids mirrored the national polls.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## BigDL

Congratulations to all successful candidates in all of the 308 elections tonight.

Congratulations to Conservative candidates and their Leader Prime Minister Stephen Harper the people have spoken and we must respect the decisions of the voters. Enjoy your success tonight.

Good luck to all of the other candidates who worked hard in bringing to all Canadians a chance to exercise our choice in the democratic exercise we cherish. 

The people have spoken and the people are never wrong.

* I stand corrected. I have corrected.


----------



## dona83

308...


----------



## cap10subtext

Macfury said:


> Layton was poised to kill the resource sector. It could be revived but I didn't want to suffer through that economic downturn.


Whereas Harper is poised to destroy so much of what makes Canada great. I don't disagree with all conservative policies but I know in my heart we, as a country, are going to regret giving Harper a Majority. We've already seen that he has every intention of wasteful spending and cronyism.

Like I said, my hopes ride on the decency of the individual candidates and the sheer number of those candidates to vote their conscience, and in the interest of the people that elected them, and not just the party line.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

ehMax said:


> Congratulations Prime Minister Harper and Conservative supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and by the way......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.


Mr Big with Mr Big


----------



## Macfury

It's been fun as usual folks. A real nail biter. Thanks for playing!


----------



## MazterCBlazter

macguiver said:


> i'm no fan of the ndp or its policies but i'm really happy to see them kick the snot out of the bloc.
> 
> Cheers
> macguiver


+1


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Layton was poised to kill the resource sector. It could be revived but I didn't want to suffer through that economic downturn.


more nonsense.


----------



## cap10subtext

Not sad to see the Bloc go.


----------



## groovetube

Bob Rae now talking about lib/ndp merger


----------



## Sonal

Like ehMax, it's not exactly the result I wanted, but a lot of stuff came close and there were a couple of bonuses thrown in.

Jack Layton took the official opposition.
The Green party is on their way to capturing their first seat.
The Bloc has been decimated.
The Liberal party has been sent a clear message to shape up.
Duceppe lost his seat.
Iggy looks like he will lose his seat.

I didn't get the Con minority, but there's a lot of good outcome here. It'll be an interesting 4 years.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Bob Rae now talking about lib/ndp merger


He wants to go home.


----------



## PenguinBoy

Congratulations to Prime Minister Harper - a stable majority will be a good thing for the economy. I doubt that the Conservatives will move *too* far to the right, if the continue to occupy the Centre Right they have a shot at becoming the new "Natural Ruling Party".

Congratulations to Leader of the Opposition Layton - I'm not a fan of NDP politics, but a hat tip to Layton for running a good campaign, and talking about ideas rather than attacking his opponents.

Congratulations as well to Elizabeth May, looks like she is leading at this point. Hopefully with a seat in parliament the Greens will be allowed into the debates in 2015. They are a legitimate political movement, and deserve to argue their case.

It looks like the Liberals had their "Kim Campbell" moment. Unlike Dr. G, I grew up in Trudeau's Canada - so I have never voted Liberal. Despite that, as a bit of a political junkie I should have been able to clearly articulate their position in one or two sentences - but I can't. If they are to remain a serious force they need to start with a policy convention and figure out what exactly they stand for, and start rebuilding from there.

It also looks like the Bloc are a spent force. Good riddance! My Canada includes Quebec, so I'm glad to see the Bloc can now hold caucus meetings in a Miata...


----------



## Low-gun

Certainly appears that voter turnout is up around the country, happy think that more canadians are getting involved. The political lanscape has certainly changed and history made by not only the Concervatives but also the NDP!


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> more nonsense.


The threat of Layton's attack on the Oil Sands is over. No need to discuss it any longer.


----------



## PenguinBoy

Low-gun said:


> Certainly appears that voter turnout is up around the country, happy think that more canadians are getting involved.


Excellent news!

And many close races - so in many cases, everyone's vote counts...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The threat of Layton's attack on the Oil Sands is over. No need to discuss it any longer.


but Harper's attack on the others still live.

Fistfuls of cash to continue to flow to the oil sands. Makes a libertarian's heart warm?


----------



## MacGuiver

cap10subtext said:


> Not sad to see the Bloc go.


Thats been a sweet outcome in this election. Maybe we've moved that much closer to putting the division of this country to bed for good. Congrats to the NDP for that. Canada will be more stable for it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The other four parties were the least Libertarian--with the NDP on the ass end of the Libertarian scale.


there's not a shred, of libertarian anything about Harper's government macfury. In fact, they are either just as bad, or worse. Currently, they stand as the highest spenders, biggest government party in Canadian history.

Now, tell me, how is that, more libertarian?

It isn't at all!


----------



## CubaMark

Low-gun said:


> Certainly appears that voter turnout is up around the country, happy think that more canadians are getting involved. The political lanscape has certainly changed and history made by not only the Concervatives but also the NDP!


As of 11:50 EST, Elections Canada's website has voter turnout at 46%.... or am I misreading something?

Elections Canada - National


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> Bob Rae now talking about lib/ndp merger


as enticing as it would be to take back power from the right, i hate the idea.

A two party system is bad.


----------



## Vandave

Just tuning in. Wow!


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> there's not a shred, of libertarian anything about Harper's government macfury. In fact, they are either just as bad, or worse. Currently, they stand as the highest spenders, biggest government party in Canadian history.
> 
> Now, tell me, how is that, more libertarian?
> 
> It isn't at all!


100% agree. 

they also oversaw the biggest mass arrest of innocent people in canadian history and want to build mega-jails while our crime rate drops.

the main point of libertarianism is individual freedom.


----------



## fjnmusic

All right, Screature. Apparently you can win a majority without Quebec after all. And with the BQ decimated, Stevie won't have to worry about Quebec separatists for a while. All in all, a very interesting weekend: a royal wedding, the assassination of a terrorist, and a Canadian federal election. Now we can rest.

Well played, Mr. Harper, well-played.


----------



## adagio

When I went to the advance poll I didn't think there was a chance my vote would matter. It was a Liberal stronghold and that of the Liberal leader. I hoped for the Etobicoke-Lakeshore result. Iggy is gone!!!!


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the main point of libertarianism is individual freedom.


It is freedom of individuals and the businesses they run. This wasn't being offered by Layton.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> as enticing as it would be to take back power from the right, i hate the idea.
> 
> A two party system is bad.


Uh……bad for whom?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> As of 11:50 EST, Elections Canada's website has voter turnout at 46%.... or am I misreading something?


Says 48.4 here.


----------



## gmark2000

I hope that the Tory caucus, not constrained by a PMO with siege (minority survival) mentality, will dictate to Harper for a change. The Conservatives are a coalition of far right, center-right and center tonight. As a Red Tory, I wish for steady governance with fiscal conservatism, high accountability, centrist social policy and attention to the Canadian's priorities such as economy and health. I hope the centrist voice is heard from the caucus.

As for Quebec, we should revisit Meech Lake and finally get Quebec within the Confederation.


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> When I went to the advance poll I didn't think there was a chance my vote would matter. It was a Liberal stronghold and that of the Liberal leader. I hoped for the Etobicoke-Lakeshore result. Iggy is gone!!!!


Congrats adagio--that must feel good. Iggy will have to parachute elsewhere.


----------



## gmark2000

Macfury said:


> Iggy will have to parachute elsewhere.


The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard?


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> It is freedom of individuals and the businesses they run. This wasn't being offered by Layton.


you can't run a business if you're in jail for no good reason.



fjnmusic said:


> Uh……bad for whom?


for everyone. a 2 party system reduces everyones choices to elect someone that will properly represent their views. It also allows the 2 parties to dictate the laws and policies of the country. 

Harper will now pass campaign funding laws that will destroy any chance of smaller parties being able to compete with major parties in elections. If there is an NDP/Liberal merge it also means lobbyists need only buy 2 parties to push their views.

Just look to the south to see what a 2 party system can become. One party can pull the other party to their direction and utterly change the whole centre of their politics.


----------



## SINC

Bah, that is all your opinion and nothing more.

As for the NDP/Liberal merger, they still can't muster enough votes in the House of Commons to matter.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Bah, that is all your opinion and nothing more.


Not all of it.

Harper has already said if he gets a majority his government will change campaign finance laws.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Not all of it.
> 
> Harper has already said if he gets a majority his government will change campaign finance laws.


I applaud that. Let them put some little collection boxes at polling stations for each of the parties. The fact that I vote for someone does not mean I want to give their party $2.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> Not all of it.
> 
> Harper has already said if he gets a majority his government will change campaign finance laws.


And thank goodness he will. That's one of the reasons I voted for him.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Bah, that is all your opinion and nothing more.
> 
> As for the NDP/Liberal merger, they still can't muster enough votes in the House of Commons to matter.


actually, the two got significantly more than the tories. And it was noted a merger could have even stronger appeal in Quebec. Not to mention Ontario.

But we'll see how this plays out, it was something that took some time on the right, I've predicted this with friends for some time now. Iggy losing his seat, and the liberal party decimated, it just makes this far more a possibility.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> actually, the two got significantly more than the tories. And it was noted a merger could have even stronger appeal in Quebec. Not to mention Ontario.
> 
> But we'll see how this plays out, it was something that took some time on the right, I've predicted this with friends for some time now. Iggy losing his seat, and the liberal party decimated, it just makes this far more a possibility.


So then, just how will they do that with the "majority" of seats they have? COMBINED?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> So then, just how will they do that with the "majority" of seats they have? COMBINED?


One of those hindsight things, SINC. It would require them knowing and agreeing in advance which candidates they needed to pull in order to avoid vote splitting--a simple impossibility.


----------



## dona83

Repost from my Facebook status... why does Facebook have a *420 *character limit on statuses??

Congrats Prime Minister Stephen Harper on your majority government. Although you now have the freedom to push forward your mandate on Canada, remember that your job is to serve ALL the people of Canada, not just the 40% who voted for you. I remain cynical of you but I can be thankful for three things, Jack Layton is your opposition, the Bloc Quebecois were decimated, and we won't have to vote again until Oct 2015.


----------



## Macfury

Voter turnout at 56%, lower than last election. I don't think the youth showed up in droves.


----------



## dona83

61% now. Probably will trickle off at 62%. This is the biggest disappointment of the night, bigger than the Harper majority.


----------



## Macfury

dona83 said:


> 61% now. Probably will trickle off at 62%. This is the biggest disappointment of the night, bigger than the Harper majority.


That's higher than the 58% of last election.


----------



## dona83

I was hoping for 70%.


----------



## Macfury

I would have thought so too.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Unfortunately the evil Hedy Fry will probably hold on to her riding. tptptptp


----------



## Vandave

MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately the evil Hedy Fry will probably hold on to her riding. tptptptp


Ya, sad that. Overall, we had far more victory than defeat.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Bah humbug - I'll be gone before Harpo hits the polls again....his is not a vision of Canada I share.


But for the last 5 to 6 years you have been telling us that the Conservatives and Harper did not represent Canadian values. You told us that Harper could never break through in the urban areas. You told us that Harper could never win a seat in every Province (turns out they got all plus the 3 northern seats). You told us that Harper could never win a majority of seats in Ontario.

It's time for you to acknowledge that this party does indeed represent Canadian values. This is Canada. 

DEAL WITH IT.

Well at least for once you only spoke for yourself instead on nominating yourself to speak on behalf of Canadian values, not unlike the Liberal Party.


----------



## kps

I figured the Libs would do poorly, but not this poorly. I also could not have imagined the Bloc to be decimated to such a level. I'm very content tonight.


----------



## screature

Gene B said:


> Now I know how it felt to be a Jew in Germany on the night of March 5, 1933.


What an absolutely ridiculous and appalling statement and all those who actually went through that night should shed a tear for you and your ignorance.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *All right, Screature. Apparently you can win a majority without Quebec after all.* And with the BQ decimated, Stevie won't have to worry about Quebec separatists for a while. All in all, a very interesting weekend: a royal wedding, the assassination of a terrorist, and a Canadian federal election. Now we can rest.
> 
> Well played, Mr. Harper, well-played.


Thank you for the acknowledgement fjnmusic... It wasn't expected but much appreciated... now maybe we can all get back to disagreeing about tech stuff.... and who's gonna win the cup.


----------



## Vandave

And yes, there was an overweight NDP female scrutineer. Nice lady. But the trend continues.


----------



## i-rui

Vandave said:


> And yes, there was an overweight NDP female scrutineer. Nice lady. But the trend continues.


this guy supported the cons in Toronto :










...hmmmmmm.....?????


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> And thank goodness he will. That's one of the reasons I voted for him.


and who else would you have voted for? did any other candidate even remotely reflect your views? I at least could have voted for 3 different parties. I at least have a choice (for now).

You may be fine with Harper because he pulls your party to the right, but what happens if the next leader is more centrist? You won't have the option to choose someone who more accurately reflects your view.

I'd hate to be stuck with only one option on the left.


----------



## Dr.G.

Gene B said:


> Now I know how it felt to be a Jew in Germany on the night of March 5, 1933.


A strange analogy, Gene B. Harper is no Hitler, and he is not asking the GG for the dissolution of the Parliament (i.e., Reichstag) and the arrangement of new elections. Having all of my grandmother's relatives die in the Holocaust since they did not leave Germany once Hitler took power, I find this statement inappropriate and offensive.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous and appalling statement and all those who actually went through that night should shed a tear for you and your ignorance.


I agree, screature. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## adagio

What's with Iggy not resigning? I swear, that man has zero class. Just shows what a power hungry jerk he is. The constituents in his riding always took a far back seat. He was parachuted into this riding and dumped on our laps. For a Conservative to win Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a HUGE outcome.


----------



## Ottawaman

> BREAKING NEWS In wake of Elizabeth May's historic win, party changes name to Liz Party of Canada to reflect its singular focus.


----------



## Max

Iggy may seem defiant now but if the Liberals are to rebuild they will make his life as leader of such a decimated party so miserable he will eventually have to cave. The right thing to do would be to resign from the party leadership and gracefully get on with his life; his reluctance to do so is revealing.

The Liberals are going to have plenty of time to figure out what happened and how much of it was self-inflicted.

I am in Layton's riding. There is a small section of orange in the lower-centre of the COTU today, surrounded by a vast blue camp. What a hard-won coup for the conservatives.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> So then, just how will they do that with the "majority" of seats they have? COMBINED?


for someone who trumpeted the concept of vote splitting, I guess you suddenly got amnesia.

Just how any seats do you think, would have gone liberal democrat had they not been split?

This is the same scenario as the chretein liberals getting total power with the right split. There's nothing to celebrate here.


----------



## groovetube

as a business owner, I have to say, phew. I was somewhat concerned that tax breaks and tax money was going to start going to people who clearly don't work as hard as I do. And I'm tired of sitting in a waiting room or waiting for a proceedure, that all I have to do is write a cheque for 10k or so and get ast those screaming snot nosed little kids on welfare, or ones that feel entitled to tax breaks. And hopefully the Can dollar stays up, because with that kind of womp, I'll be getting that new snazzy car in the US (not here!!) where there are better deals, and my dollar is higher than theirs.

What did you actually think I spend it here? pfffft.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> as a business owner, I have to say, phew. I was somewhat concerned that tax breaks and tax money was going to start going to people who clearly don't work as hard as I do. And I'm tired of sitting in a waiting room or waiting for a proceedure, that all I have to do is write a cheque for 10k or so and get ast those screaming snot nosed little kids on welfare, or ones that feel entitled to tax breaks. And hopefully the Can dollar stays up, because with that kind of womp, I'll be getting that new snazzy car in the US (not here!!) where there are better deals, and my dollar is higher than theirs.
> 
> What did you actually think I spend it here? pfffft.


This is the beauty of our system. Nobody tells you where to spend it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Just how any seats do you think, would have gone liberal democrat had they not been split?


Democrats? Aren't they a U.S. thing?


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> What's with Iggy not resigning? I swear, that man has zero class. Just shows what a power hungry jerk he is. The constituents in his riding always took a far back seat. He was parachuted into this riding and dumped on our laps. For a Conservative to win Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a HUGE outcome.


He wants to learn from his mistakes he says. Big learning curve ahead at his party's expense. Duceppe had the decency to resign.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This is the beauty of our system. Nobody tells you where to spend it.


I have to say it is brilliant, I hadn't thought of the implications til now. Spending the extra dough here is for stooges. I feel kinda bad for the family people having to wait til 2016 or longer and all, but I might as well enjoy this while it lasts.


----------



## SINC

Not to worry, the party will stick a fork in Iggy. He's done.


----------



## groovetube

there's no doubt Iggy will be gone. Bob Rae will be heading up the ndp lib merger talks. That will be an interesting thing to watch unfold. With a united right, it will happen despite the naysayers, because, it's all about total power. Until someone, wakes up on ditching FPTP.


----------



## adagio

My only regret with the election outcome is that Bob Rae won his seat. It would have been icing on the cake if he'd lost. If the Liberals truly want to rebuild then they must distance themselves from Rae. If they don't then the Libs are doomed to defeat again.


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> My only regret with the election outcome is that Bob Rae won his seat. It would have been icing on the cake if he'd lost. If the Liberals truly want to rebuild then they must distance themselves from Rae. If they don't then the Libs are doomed to defeat again.


Plus one. That's pretty cheeky talk from a party that's turned into a ghost of itself. Maybe the NDP will let them if it feels sorry enough.


----------



## BigDL

For the conservative Supporters who seem to feel that Prime Minister Harper got a ringing endorsement from Canadians.... well that's just spin.

The FPTP system has skewed the will of many Canadians. The riding of Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe, is a prime example. Liberal incumbent, a strong unprecedented showing by the NDP/NPD candidate and the Conservative wins.



CBCNews said:


> In Moncton, NDP supporters cast 14,053 votes, and Liberal supporters 15,244 which split the anti-Conservative vote and led to the election of Conservative Robert Goguen. Goguen received 35.73 per cent of the vote compared to a combined total of 60.13 per cent for the Liberal and NDP candidates.


Link to the full story

Did Canadians reject Liberals, did Canadians reject the Count Iggula (the Conservative construct of the man) or was the Liberal Campaign itself that was not embraced? Did Canadians embrace Jack Layton and/or finally simply listen to the NDP/NPD message.

In Quebec in particular was it Home boy Jack they voted for and/or NDP/NPD policies or was it an outright rejection of the Bloc/sovereignty movement?

In the end this election requires much study and in particular time to figure out the answers.


----------



## chasMac

With regards to the greens isn't 3.9% of the popular vote substantially less, relatively speaking, than the last election. I seem to remember it then being somewhere between 6 - 8%.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

adagio said:


> What's with Iggy not resigning? I swear, that man has zero class. Just shows what a power hungry jerk he is. The constituents in his riding always took a far back seat. He was parachuted into this riding and dumped on our laps. For a Conservative to win Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a HUGE outcome.





Max said:


> Iggy may seem defiant now but if the Liberals are to rebuild they will make his life as leader of such a decimated party so miserable he will eventually have to cave. The right thing to do would be to resign from the party leadership and gracefully get on with his life; his reluctance to do so is revealing.
> 
> The Liberals are going to have plenty of time to figure out what happened and how much of it was self-inflicted.
> 
> I am in Layton's riding. There is a small section of orange in the lower-centre of the COTU today, surrounded by a vast blue camp. What a hard-won coup for the conservatives.





Macfury said:


> He wants to learn from his mistakes he says. Big learning curve ahead at his party's expense. Duceppe had the decency to resign.


Duceppe is a million times the man that Iggy will never be.

I am not surprised at all that SOB Iggy would not resign. Despite giving the Liberals the worst defeat of all time. I always thought he was a huge opportunistic self serving scum bag. One thing about the attack ads against him. They spoke the truth. 

Before this election his actions and positions taken in parliament were always disruptive and counterproductive. At least with Layton across the table as opposition leader the intent will be to work with Harper from a much different viewpoint for the betterment of Canada. Something Iggy had no intention of ever doing at any time.

Great that enough of the public saw through Iggy's BS and canned him and his cronies. By not resigning, he has sealed his fate in the eyes of all sensible people as being unelectable at any time in the future.


----------



## Sonal

adagio said:


> My only regret with the election outcome is that Bob Rae won his seat. It would have been icing on the cake if he'd lost. If the Liberals truly want to rebuild then they must distance themselves from Rae. If they don't then the Libs are doomed to defeat again.


I'm sorry. I did what I could in not voting for him.


----------



## adagio

Sonal said:


> I'm sorry. I did what I could in not voting for him.


Thanks!


----------



## MazterCBlazter

adagio said:


> My only regret with the election outcome is that Bob Rae won his seat. It would have been icing on the cake if he'd lost. If the Liberals truly want to rebuild then they must distance themselves from Rae. If they don't then the Libs are doomed to defeat again.


I am disgusted that Hedy Fry is still among the Walking Dead too. While I am open to supporting politicians of various viewpoints. The Liberal party has more disgusting self serving corrupt scum in it than all the rest of the parties and candidates combined. 

In my riding Conservatve John Weston easily won. I like him and respect him even though I voted Green.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

chasMac said:


> With regards to the greens isn't 3.9% of the popular vote substantially less, relatively speaking, than the last election. I seem to remember it then being somewhere between 6 - 8%.


Many Green supporters voted NDP and Conservative this time around. They wanted the Liberals to be gone at all costs. Those too young to vote now, a large percentage of them will be voting and supporting the green Party when they come of voting age.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> For the conservative Supporters who seem to feel that Prime Minister Harper got a ringing endorsement from Canadians.... well that's just spin.
> 
> The FPTP system has skewed the will of many Canadians. The riding of Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe, is a prime example. Liberal incumbent, a strong unprecedented showing by the NDP/NPD candidate and the Conservative wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the full story
> 
> Did Canadians reject Liberals, did Canadians reject the Count Iggula (the Conservative construct of the man) or was the Liberal Campaign itself that was not embraced? Did Canadians embrace Jack Layton and/or finally simply listen to the NDP/NPD message.
> 
> In Quebec in particular was it Home boy Jack they voted for and/or NDP/NPD policies or was it an outright rejection of the Bloc/sovereignty movement?
> 
> In the end this election requires much study and in particular time to figure out the answers.


It's come full circle on them. I recall the deafening outrage as Chretien received majorities based on similar numbers, I never voted for him either, and didn't think it fair then either.

However, the same conservatives, will now have you believe it's a ringing endorsement. This, after the level of dishonesty, lies, scandal (I'm sure we're about to find out about more ie AG's report) and, they're ok with it.

They want us to believe they're for better government, they're against the "criminals", scandalous government spending, etc.

They're no different than the ones who supported Chretien and turned a blind eye to his adscam scandals etc. Not different, at all. They just think they are. 

As I said, if Harper couldn't keep it in his pants during a minority, just wait til we see them in action in majority where they're protected from any accountability at all! Fasten your seatbelt.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

BigDL said:


> For the conservative Supporters who seem to feel that Prime Minister Harper got a ringing endorsement from Canadians.... well that's just spin.
> 
> The FPTP system has skewed the will of many Canadians. The riding of Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe, is a prime example. Liberal incumbent, a strong unprecedented showing by the NDP/NPD candidate and the Conservative wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the full story
> 
> Did Canadians reject Liberals, did Canadians reject the Count Iggula (the Conservative construct of the man) or was the Liberal Campaign itself that was not embraced? Did Canadians embrace Jack Layton and/or finally simply listen to the NDP/NPD message.
> 
> In Quebec in particular was it Home boy Jack they voted for and/or NDP/NPD policies or was it an outright rejection of the Bloc/sovereignty movement?
> 
> In the end this election requires much study and in particular time to figure out the answers.


Excellent questions with thoughtful insight!


----------



## iphilip

Hey that is my uncle Phillippee...


----------



## FeXL

MazterCBlazter said:


> Many Green supporters voted NDP and Conservative this time around. They wanted the Liberals to be gone at all costs. Those too young to vote now, a large percentage of them will be voting and supporting the green Party when they come of voting age.


At the same time, Green also received protest votes simply because no other individuals were acceptable to voters. I know of several in our constituency.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

FeXL said:


> At the same time, Green also received protest votes simply because no other individuals were acceptable to voters. I know of several in our constituency.


True enough. Green is the party of the future, not the present.


----------



## whatiwant

sonal said:


> i'm sorry. I did what i could in not voting for him.


+1


----------



## CubaMark

*Some interesting results...*



> ...foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon (see results) was defeated by the NDP’s Mathieu Ravignat, who once ran for office as a Communist.


(Students, ex-Communist, a Cree leader and more join NDP’s swollen Quebec ranks)


----------



## KC4

CubaMark said:


> *Some interesting results...*
> 
> 
> 
> (Students, ex-Communist, a Cree leader and more join NDP’s swollen Quebec ranks)


Yeah, um, interesting...and somewhat concerning. There seems to be more than a few newbies with very little experience. Eeesh.


----------



## Vandave

KC4 said:


> Yeah, um, interesting...and somewhat concerning. There seems to be more than a few newbies with very little experience. Eeesh.


Thank god for the majority. If you think the Reform Party put it's foot in mouth at times, just wait for these NDP winners.


----------



## whatiwant

KC4 said:


> Yeah, um, interesting...and somewhat concerning. There seems to be more than a few newbies with very little experience. Eeesh.


Well, it was said by an NDP MP last night that (and I'm paraphrasing) "At some point everyone in the House was new and inexperienced." So, yes, there will be more than a few newbies, but there's a learning curve, and con supporters won't need to worry about it all that much with a Majority to push their agenda through.


----------



## Sonal

KC4 said:


> Yeah, um, interesting...and somewhat concerning. There seems to be more than a few newbies with very little experience. Eeesh.


This is my biggest concern with the NDP. Having not expected to win, and certainly not in Quebec, they have a lot of warm bodies going to Ottawa...

Jack's got 4 years to get them all learned up.... good luck to him.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Thank god for the majority. If you think the Reform Party put it's foot in mouth at times, just wait for these NDP winners.


I think this one pretty much sums it up well.


----------



## CubaMark

(Bruce Mackinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Vandave

I can't wait to dismantle the health care system and set up a police state. We can finally implement the hidden agenda.


----------



## gmark2000

Iggy is gone. He's announced his resignation.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> Many Green supporters voted NDP and Conservative this time around. They wanted the Liberals to be gone at all costs. Those too young to vote now, a large percentage of them will be voting and supporting the green Party when they come of voting age.


Just like the youth vote who didn't show up in droves yesterday?


----------



## chasMac

Perhaps some Canadian version of Michael Moore will lead an exodus of the disenchanted to the States.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Just like the youth vote who didn't show up in droves yesterday?


they didn't?

Who says, you again?


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> With regards to the greens isn't 3.9% of the popular vote substantially less, relatively speaking, than the last election. I seem to remember it then being somewhere between 6 - 8%.


Yes. Their support has halved, and what little there was was concentrated on May.


----------



## Sonal

gmark2000 said:


> Iggy is gone. He's announced his resignation.


Thank goodness!

Evidently someone clued him in that this is what you do in Canada when the leader loses his seat....


----------



## Dr.G.

Interesting when you consider that today's Harper Government Conservative Party of Canada has its roots in the populist Reform party movement, and the NDP has its roots in the populist CCF movement.

Still, strange to see the Liberals not in as the government or the official opposition. C'est la vie.


----------



## dona83

With cooler nerves, I was able to come to terms this morning.

38.5% -- the popular vote that got the Liberals a majority in 1997. That's just how our election system works. Number of times in Canadian history that the Conservatives won a majority government: 14 (including this one). Number of times the Liberals won a majority government: 17. Last time the Conservatives had a majority -- 1984 to 1993. So in the end it's just another day.

Remember we have the right to peacefully protest if Harper goes bonkers as much as we had the right to vote, this is why we are proud to be Canadians, and to the 38.6% of eligible voters who didn't vote, why didn't you?


----------



## Vandave

Iggy got off easy by losing his seat. Four years of sitting in Parliament with only 34 MPs would be suitable punishment for him. Now he gets to walk away never to be seen or heard of again


----------



## Vandave

BigDL said:


> .
> Link to the full story


And that right there is why the CBC needs to go. Shameless.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> And that right there is why the CBC needs to go. Shameless.


Agreed. What a mess of reporting the story. The NDP and Liberals aren't remotely the same party. The Conservative candidate won by attracting the most votes of any candidate.


----------



## BigDL

dona83 said:


> With cooler nerves, I was able to come to terms this morning.
> 
> 38.5% -- the popular vote that got the Liberals a majority in 1997. That's just how our election system works. Number of times in Canadian history that the Conservatives won a majority government: 14 (including this one). Number of times the Liberals won a majority government: 17. Last time the Conservatives had a majority -- 1984 to 1993. So in the end it's just another day.
> 
> Remember we have the right to peacefully protest if Harper goes bonkers as much as we had the right to vote, this is why we are proud to be Canadians, and to the 38.6% of eligible voters who didn't vote, why didn't you?


+1

Canada did survived two terms of Brian Mulroney Conservatism not without some pain but we survived. 

Now what lessons can be learned? 

Let's look at what happened to the Conservative Party after two terms of Mulroney's majorities and let's reflect on the condition of that Party post Mulroney. 

Now what do Canadians think of Mulroney today?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Now what lessons can be learned?
> 
> Let's look at what happened to the Conservative Party after two terms of Mulroney's majorities and let's reflect on the condition of that Party post Mulroney.
> 
> Now what do Canadians think of Mulroney today?


Mulroney was too far to the left. That's why Harper was able to win a majority--by skewing right.


----------



## Sonal

BigDL said:


> Now what do Canadians think of Mulroney today?


Stephen Harper: The Opera would be about the most boring musical performance in history... no thanks.


----------



## MLeh

I hope, now that Mr. Harper has his desired 'majority' that he can get back to the principles he espoused when he was in opposition: integrity, reforming the Senate to be 'equal, effective, elected', more free votes in Parliament, having more initiatives from back benchers, that sort of thing, in addition to fiscal responsibility and encouraging independent responsibility and not having the 'nanny state' style of government.

I can understand the left's concern about his dictatorial nature while running a minority government, and this is a concern of mine as well, but the nature of power is the knowledge that doing the 'right' thing sometimes means conceding that other people have good ideas too. Although the minority government accomplished a lot more than would have previously been thought.

I'd like to see a return to Preston Manning's ideals of "I don't care if the Liberals steal all my ideas, as long as it is for the good of the country." In this case it might be "well, the NDP do have some good ideas, and we should incorporate them into our policies, not because they're NDP ideas, but because they're good ideas." Not saying that I wish the conservatives to move to the NDP platform, but mostly not reject good ideas just because they come from the opposition.

I think I've made my 'small c' conservative opinions fairly well known, so I'm not upset with the overall results. I _will_ be upset if the Harper government turns this into the same 'pig at the trough' free for all that the Mulroney government made their time in office. 

I have higher expectations this time around. Time for the return of 'integrity'. Are you listening, Mr. Harper?


----------



## Macfury

MLeh said:


> I have higher expectations this time around. Time for the return of 'integrity'. Are you listening, Mr. Harper?


In every contact I had with the Conservative Party prior to the election I continued to repeat the mantra: "You spend too much. I'm voting for you as the best of the worst until you control spending."


----------



## BigDL

Sonal said:


> Stephen Harper: The Opera would be about the most boring musical performance in history... no thanks.


+1 :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

MLeh said:


> I hope, now that Mr. Harper has his desired 'majority' that he can get back to the principles he espoused when he was in opposition: integrity, reforming the Senate to be 'equal, effective, elected', more free votes in Parliament, having more initiatives from back benchers, that sort of thing, in addition to fiscal responsibility and encouraging independent responsibility and not having the 'nanny state' style of government.
> 
> I can understand the left's concern about his dictatorial nature while running a minority government, and this is a concern of mine as well, but the nature of power is the knowledge that doing the 'right' thing sometimes means conceding that other people have good ideas too. Although the minority government accomplished a lot more than would have previously been thought.
> 
> I'd like to see a return to Preston Manning's ideals of "I don't care if the Liberals steal all my ideas, as long as it is for the good of the country." In this case it might be "well, the NDP do have some good ideas, and we should incorporate them into our policies, not because they're NDP ideas, but because they're good ideas." Not saying that I wish the conservatives to move to the NDP platform, but mostly not reject good ideas just because they come from the opposition.
> I think I've made my 'small c' conservative opinions fairly well known, so I'm not upset with the overall results. I _will_ be upset if the Harper government turns this into the same 'pig at the trough' free for all that the Mulroney government made their time in office.
> 
> I have higher expectations this time around. Time for the return of 'integrity'. Are you listening, Mr. Harper?


We shall see, MLeh. I voted for PM Harper once because I thought that he stood for this sense of integrity. I like your notion of not rejecting "... good ideas just because they come from the opposition." :clap: We shall see.


----------



## MLeh

I've always believed that people will live to the expectations you have of them. I prefer to ask people to live _up_ to my expectations rather than living _down_ to my expectations. It's an attitude I bring to politics as well as the work place, and of course home life. It's also important to acknowledge what people have done right instead of just pointing out what they have done wrong.

Called 'positive reinforcement'. So, let's all look for the positives instead of just harping on the negatives.

My daughter says the most crushing words she can hear from me are 'I'm very disappointed in you'. I hope the same goes for PM Harper, because I will let him know if I'm 'very disappointed in him'. 

PS: 

Dear Mr. Harper: 

I'm very disappointed in you over the some of the decisions you have made in the past regarding integrity and taking responsibility for decisions made by your cabinet minsters. I expect better of you now. Lead by example. Read some Locke.

Best regards,
MLeh


----------



## Kosh

gmark2000 said:


> Iggy is gone. He's announced his resignation.


I think I saw that coming yesterday. Frankly, when Dion was in charge of the Liberal party, I couldn't see who would be stupid enough to be party leader for the next few years. I just don't see the Liberals going anywhere, UNTIL they have someone that people can get behind, someone who will make an impression, someone who will get the party excited again. Does Chretian have a son in politics? :lmao:


I see that Gilles Duceppe has also resigned. Saw that coming too when they only got 4 seats.


----------



## eMacMan

Noticed one Green candidate carrying the moniker "Attila" Not sure the two are compatible but hey it's still a free society unless Harpo unleashes a Canadianized version of the Homeland Gestapo.


----------



## MLeh

Kosh said:


> I think I saw that coming yesterday. Frankly, when Dion was in charge of the Liberal party, I couldn't see who would be stupid enough to be party leader for the next few years. I just don't see the Liberals going anywhere, UNTIL they have someone that people can get behind, someone who will make an impression, someone who will get the party excited again. Does Chretian have a son in politics? :lmao:


No, but Trudeau does ...



> I see that Gilles Duceppe has also resigned. Saw that coming too when they only got 4 seats.


Gilles had way more class than Ignatieff.


----------



## dona83

My wife got annoyed of Ignatieff pretty quickly.

TSX down 1.13% so far, I thought a Conservative majority was supposed to be good for business?


----------



## Gene B

With his coveted majority and now completely unimpeded by any pesky democracy, it won't be long before Canada's own, 'Enabling Act', slithers up from under a rock.
Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enabling Bill

May 2, 2011. The day that became the beginning of the end of Canada, as I knew it.


----------



## MLeh

Gene B said:


> With his coveted majority and now completely unimpeded by any pesky democracy, it won't be long before Canada's own, 'Enabling Act', slithers up from under a rock.
> Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Enabling Bill
> 
> May 2, 2011. The day that became the beginning of the end of Canada, as I knew it.


Oh, puleeeeeze.


----------



## Macfury

MLeh said:


> Oh, puleeeeeze.


I guess this is the part where Canada raises a huge army and attacks...uh... Greenland... with a fleet of Lunenberg Schooners?

Javolt!

What an embarrassment these Nazi posts are becoming.


----------



## MannyP Design

Boy, I thought things would go back to normal after the election… I guess not. Clearly the Mayans were wrong… the end of times is now. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Gene B said:


> May 2, 2011. The day that became the beginning of the end of Canada, as I knew it.





MacDoc said:


> Bah humbug - I'll be gone before Harpo hits the polls again....his is not a vision of Canada I share.


I think you & MacDoc both need to go take a permanent vacation together.

In South Africa.

Or Australia.

Or Norway.

Or someplace.

Just...go.


----------



## dona83

FeXL said:


> I think you & MacDoc both need to go take a permanent vacation together.
> 
> In South Africa.
> 
> Or Australia.
> 
> Or Norway.
> 
> Or someplace.
> 
> Just...go.


How is this not a personal attack? Did they hurt your feelings?


----------



## Max

You read it here first, folks. The New Canada has no room for dissenters! It's time to secure the borders and start the cleansing in earnest.


----------



## chasMac

Max said:


> You read it here first, folks. The New Canada has no room for dissenters! It's time to secure the borders and start the cleansing in earnest.


If he believes he's now living under a National Socialist dictatorship, advising him to leave is saving his life.


----------



## Macfury

dona83 said:


> How is this not a personal attack? Did they hurt your feelings?


In MacDoc's case, based entirely on his earlier comments to people that if they did not like the direction the country was taking, they should leave. Then his subsequent comment that he was going to emigrate to Oz.


----------



## dona83

Hm I may have recalled that. Oh well.

Democracy took its course. Harper's judgement will come four years from now. Until then, let's get to work Canada.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> I think you & MacDoc both need to go take a permanent vacation together.
> 
> In South Africa.
> 
> Or Australia.
> 
> Or Norway.
> 
> Or someplace.
> 
> Just...go.


Fail! Loses! The inability to attack ideas and resorting to attacking people put the attacker on the Lihoo hisser List

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kz7YUdy-Cg


----------



## i-rui

dona83 said:


> TSX down 1.13% so far, I thought a Conservative majority was supposed to be good for business?


psssh...the dollar is also down. 

Don't tell the conservatives.


----------



## MLeh

Gotta love the two headlines on two different 'news' websites.

CTV: "Hard work ahead to earn trust of Canadians: PM" 

CBC: In the 'breaking news feed' on the top of the CBC Home page it reads "Harper: Staff made me guzzle champagne out of a bottle" which links to this story.

No spin. None at all.


----------



## Kosh

MLeh said:


> No, but Trudeau does ...
> 
> 
> 
> Gilles had way more class than Ignatieff.


 
I agree with both of these statements.

The only thing is I don't see Trudeau taking over the reins just yet. It's not the right time for him, yet. Give him a few more years.


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> I agree with both of these statements.
> 
> The only thing is I don't see Trudeau taking over the reins just yet. It's not the right time for him, yet. Give him a few more years.


I have met the fellow. Nice guy, but I don't get leadership vibes from him.


----------



## BigDL

MLeh said:


> No, but Trudeau does ...
> 
> 
> 
> Gilles had way more class than Ignatieff.





Kosh said:


> I agree with both of these statements.
> 
> The only thing is I don't see Trudeau taking over the reins just yet. It's not the right time for him, yet. Give him a few more years.





Macfury said:


> I have met the fellow. Nice guy, but I don't get leadership vibes from him.


Looking for somebody's kid to take the Leadership of the Liberals Former Governor General, Cabinet Minister Romeo LeBlanc's boy Dominic LeBlanc.

"But BigDL he's from down home and won't stand a chance" you say. Well Dominc grew up in the Ottawa area and summered in Shediac. He is well connected in Ottawa circles.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Looking for somebody's kid to take the Leadership of the Liberals Former Governor General, Cabinet Minister Romeo LeBlanc's boy Dominic LeBlanc.
> 
> "But BigDL he's from down home and won't stand a chance" you say. Well Dominc grew up in the Ottawa area and summered in Shediac. He is well connected in Ottawa circles.


The fact that anybody is somebody's kid may get them connected, but they need the stuff to make it happen. Just sayin'.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> The fact that anybody is somebody's kid may get them connected, but they need the stuff to make it happen. Just sayin'.


True .......... just so long that they are not a teacher. That disqualifies them from striving for higher office, especially without a MSoA.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> True .......... just so long that they are not a teacher. That disqualifies them from striving for higher office, especially without a MSoA.


Justin Trudeau is already on dangerous ground in this respect.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Justin Trudeau is already on dangerous ground in this respect.


I would have thought that JT's name and beliefs would disqualify him in your opinion. This is why the MSoA is so "coveted" -- too few people are able to qualify to be able to say "I have earned my Macfury Seal of Approval for a lifetime of working outside of anything academic, and staying away from the abyss of liberalism and the depths of socialism."


----------



## Macfury

Liberals are always handy cannon fodder to fend off socialists, so even Justin Trudeau might have some use in a strategic sense.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Liberals are always handy cannon fodder to fend off socialists, so even Justin Trudeau might have some use in a strategic sense.


True ........... but would you run the risk of bringing forth another era of Trudeaumania, when Canada flourished and came out of the cloistered confines of the shadow of the US (i.e, Nixon hated Trudeau)? Are you one of those closet Trudeaumaniac waiting for rebirth??????????????? Wow!!!! Maybe you are my twin brother. Welcome home!!!


----------



## Kosh

Macfury said:


> I have met the fellow. Nice guy, but I don't get leadership vibes from him.


 
Yes, I think he needs some more political experience under his belt.

He seems to be a good communicator, I guess something he's gained from being a TV person. The name certainly helps.

Unlike you, I've never met him, and like you, I'm not sure of his leadership skills.


----------



## MacDoc

> Had to pay to park so I could vote. A 75-cent sacrifice but one I was willing to make to exercise my right.


you mean the "right" granted by society .....fancy that. Social largess and MF dives right in.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> The fact that anybody is somebody's kid may get them connected, but they need the stuff to make it happen. Just sayin'.


Well those in denial sometimes have to find their bottom before they try to recover.

Is this the time for the LP I certainly would not know the Party, well enough, to comment. I do believe though we are seeing the end game of the Chretien and Martin (I don't even know what to call that foolishness) thing and those in the Party that took sides are seeing the final fall out from that.

Maybe the Party will sort things out, maybe the Party finally fall apart and find new homes.

The Greens may have some talented well connected folks take a look at them and cozy up.

Just because the Liberal Party liberally (no pun intended) borrowed from the NDP/NPD platform regularly doesn't necessarily indicate compatibility between the Parties. In my experience, I have found, Liberal that have tried on the Socialist mantle didn't like the fit.

So our time have become interesting. We shall see how this all shakes down over time.


----------



## Kosh

Let's also not forget that the Conservative Party was where the Liberals are, just 10-15 years. In the 1993 election the Conservatives got 2 seats. In the 2000 election, the Conservatives got 12 seats. (P.S. Wikipedia is great, I couldn't remember which election the Cons went down to 2 seats, and there it is List of Canadian federal general elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

If the Liberal party can shake this off, regroup, with a decent platform,.... then who knows...


----------



## FeXL

dona83 said:


> How is this not a personal attack? Did they hurt your feelings?


Hurt my feelings? Sounds like they're the ones with hurt feelings.

How is this a personal attack? They've both indicated their discontent with the situation.

All I'm saying is, this is a free country. Ain't nobody got a leash around their neck. If the political/socio/economic/whatever conditions are so deplorable, there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the backside on the way out.

If anybody thinks the current Canadian political scene is so crappy, mebbe they need to see a bit of the world, garner some perspective.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Fail! Loses! The inability to attack ideas and resorting to attacking people put the attacker on the Lihoo hisser List


On the contrary, I agree with the idea. I'm encouraging them to indulge themselves...


----------



## FeXL

Max said:


> You read it here first, folks. The New Canada has no room for dissenters! It's time to secure the borders and start the cleansing in earnest.


Dissent away. I brook no issue with that. Dissension can actually yield discourse & solutions.

I'm just not very good at sitting down & listening to complainers. 

"Oh, my life is ruined because so & so got voted in or so & so didn't. Wah..."

Call it a character flaw...


----------



## MLeh

FeXL said:


> Dissent away. I brook no issue with that. Dissension can actually yield discourse & solutions.
> 
> I'm just not very good at sitting down & listening to complainers.
> 
> "Oh, my life is ruined because so & so got voted in or so & so didn't. Wah..."
> 
> Call it a character flaw...


They're making it VERY difficult to be graceful winners, certainly. 

(I'm sick of the whining too.)


----------



## Max

FeXL said:


> Dissent away. I brook no issue with that. Dissension can actually yield discourse & solutions.
> 
> I'm just not very good at sitting down & listening to complainers.
> 
> "Oh, my life is ruined because so & so got voted in or so & so didn't. Wah..."
> 
> Call it a character flaw...


Fexl: OK, it's a character flaw. But I'm cool with that.

I'm always amused when people complain about complainers and fail to see the continuity of, like, negativity, dewd.


----------



## dona83

Aren't we free to do so, so long as we were part of the democratic process?

IMO the ones who didn't vote also gave up their right to whine and complain. 

I'm not one to complain just yet, just giving mild warnings of where I see this government going. I'll save the complaining for later if need be.


----------



## bryanc

I'm already dissatisfied with the Harper Regime because he dropped the line "Now witness the power of this fully operational battle station!" from his victory speech.


----------



## FeXL

Max said:


> Fexl: OK, it's a character flaw. But I'm cool with that.
> 
> I'm always amused when people complain about complainers and fail to see the continuity of, like, negativity, dewd.


I wasn't complaining.

I was merely trying to be neighborly and offer a solution in their hour of need.

It's a Western thing...


----------



## groovetube

I don't think it's a "western thing". No one I know out west feels that way.


----------



## Sonal

Kosh said:


> If the Liberal party can shake this off, regroup, with a decent platform,.... then who knows...


And hopefully they have now have received the message that they have to do so.

Party of complacency.


----------



## MLeh

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's a "western thing". No one I know out west feels that way.


I guess he doesn't know us, FeXL ...


----------



## SINC

MLeh said:


> I guess he doesn't know us, FeXL ...


Nope, not at all.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's a "western thing". No one I know out west feels that way.


Feels what way?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm already dissatisfied with the Harper Regime because he dropped the line "Now witness the power of this fully operational battle station!" from his victory speech.


That's because it isn't quite ready yet--there's a small unguarded section where even a minuscule explosive charge could blow the whole thing ot Kingdom Come.

PBO says it will come in at twice the cost if it's over-engineered, though.


----------



## Low-gun

CubaMark said:


> As of 11:50 EST, Elections Canada's website has voter turnout at 46%.... or am I misreading something?
> 
> Elections Canada - National





Macfury said:


> Says 48.4 here.


As of today, may 3rd, Elections Canada is reporting voter turnout was 61.4% up from 58.8% in 2008.

Elections Canada - National


----------



## Max

FeXL said:


> I wasn't complaining.
> 
> I was merely trying to be neighborly and offer a solution in their hour of need.
> 
> It's a Western thing...



Oh! Cool. I read your angry swipe at angry complainers and simply took it for what it was. Hey, I guess it's a COTU thang.


----------



## Max

An improvement is great, but that voter turnout percentage is still abysmal. I wonder how it fares compared to other Western democracies.

My theory is that voter turnout stays fairly dismal because most people take the democratic system for granted and are easily jaded.


----------



## FeXL

Max said:


> Oh! Cool. I read your angry swipe at angry complainers and simply took it for what it was. Hey, I guess it's a COTU thang.


Dewd, chill. I wasn't angry.

As a matter of fact, I was LMFAO.


----------



## Dr.G.

One good outcome from this election -- There will be more women in the House of Commons following Monday's federal election that saw 76 women elected, the highest number of women ever.


----------



## BigDL

Max said:


> An improvement is great, but that voter turnout percentage is still abysmal. I wonder how it fares compared to other Western democracies.
> 
> My theory is that voter turnout stays fairly dismal because most people take the democratic system for granted and are easily jaded.


It has been my experience that a goodly number of people do want to be faced with a decision like voting.

These people are happy if they have an unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited right to belly ache and bemoan their lot in life. They don't take democracy for granted, they understand it and reject it. It's too over whelming for them.

Would nearly 40% be too high a percentage? Maybe!


----------



## SINC

Why not do us all a favour and kill this thread too, along with the sore losers who are perpetuating it?


----------



## groovetube

in the spirit of what I'm hearing from 'it's a western thing', you could just go somewhere else (another thread?) if you don't like it.


----------



## Ottawaman

SINC said:


> Why not do us all a favour and kill this thread too, along with the sore losers who are perpetuating it?


Wow, guess democracy is dead?


----------



## i-rui

not sure if this has been posted yet, but just in case :

Canadians cheated again by voting system says Fair Vote Canada | Fair Vote Canada

I do think we should probably merge the different threads into one, just so it's easier to follow.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> not sure if this has been posted yet, but just in case :
> 
> Canadians cheated again by voting system says Fair Vote Canada | Fair Vote Canada
> 
> I do think we should probably merge the different threads into one, just so it's easier to follow.


yep.



> According to these results, the Conservatives have won 54.22% of the seats with only 39.62% of the votes, *one of the least legitimate majorities in Canadian history.*


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> but would you run the risk of bringing forth another era of Trudeaumania


If you think the Liberals did poorly out West yesterday, you should see what would happen if Trudeau were to run. :lmao:

Will he try to bankrupt the nation like his father?


----------



## chasMac

^^

Be almost worth it to see the reaction to Trudeau lawn signs in Alberta. You know maybe that long-gun registry isn't such a bad idea after all.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> yep.


That's our system. There is nothing unfair about that. Nobody is cheating anybody. That's democracy. Deal with it.


----------



## Ottawaman

Some interesting stats posted on the Agenda's website...



> 1. layton did better than harper did in 2004 (seats and vote%)
> 2. harper actually got 48% in ROC
> 3. quebec has never given governing party this little support
> 4. "orange wave" was only 26% in ROC
> 5. only nineteen seats is what kept the NDP and the liberals from holding a combined majority in the House. In thirteen ridings across the country, the liberals lost to the conservatives by less than three points. in six ridings, the NDP lost to the conservatives by less than three points.
> 6. only 12 seats would have prevented a conservative majority. in ontario alone, the conservatives won twelve seats by less than 5 points where either the NDP (in two ridings) or the liberals (in ten) would have taken it with the other's support.
> 7. harper got 24 more seats with only 2% more of the popular vote. see: #5, 6
> 8. polling had harper at 36-38%, liberals at 20-22% day before election. harper's 2% came from fiscally conservative liberals who voted strategically.


The Agenda - The Agenda Blogs - The Inside Agenda


----------



## dona83

> According to these results, the Conservatives have won 54.22% of the seats with only 39.62% of the votes, one of the least legitimate majorities in Canadian history.


In 1997, the Liberals won 51.5% of the seats with 38.5% of the popular vote.


----------



## groovetube

I find it amusing, that conservatives are so smug with their, "deal with it" attitude when it went their way, but boy I sure recall the outrage of Chretien's majorities. 

I have felt for a long time, it isn't the right way. Even with the liberal majorities. 

But it's the conservative 'shut up, deal with it' sort of attitude, that worries me about this government. It was likely one of the most secretive governments in recent memory, in minority, the hell with you attitude, and scandals that started coming out, and now, a majority! And their supporters can only muster... "deal with it"

Well of course, "I'll deal with it". What choice do I have? 

My choice is to begin to get far more active politically. There are quite a few groups that have been building and beginning to emerge with some clout that focuses on political change, not the sort you may assume it is, y'know, the usual, us against them lefties stuff. Party against party, nyah nyah, blah blah. But as social media has begun to change the way we communicate, and share ideas in a much much different way, there is an emerging and growing number of people sick of our political system, I can smell change. I don't think it's incidental to see such a huge swing over to the NDP. It may be, a long 4 years, but it'll be interesting to see things really change over the 4 years. I'm thinking, it won't just be Harper changing things.

It will be interesting. And yes, I'll deal with it. Thanks.


----------



## groovetube

dona83 said:


> In 1997, the Liberals won 51.5% of the seats with 38.5% of the popular vote.


yes, and I recall the outrage, quite clearly. But now, oh it's ok now.

Conservatives, are simply no better than liberals. Period.


----------



## Ottawaman

> MONTREAL - Nineteen-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault planned to work a summer job at a golf course if his foray into federal politics didn't work out.
> He can forget the links.
> The teenage longshot is now headed to Ottawa as the youngest member to ever sit in Canada's federal Parliament, joining dozens of other New Democrats in Quebec who scored unlikely victories on Monday night.
> Instead of working his way around the green fairways, he will learn his way around the green parquet of the House of Commons as the new MP for Sherbrooke. His new starting salary is $157,731.


19-year-old sets record as youngest MP; NDPer planned summer job at golf course - Yahoo! News

Nice wage for a 19 year old.


----------



## Max

FeXL said:


> Dewd, chill. I wasn't angry.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was LMFAO.


Oh, I be chill. You just didn't get the memo.

But hey, glad you're laughing.

Sinc: you sure sound sour for a man whose party just swept into a firm majority. I don't get the disgruntlement. If you don't like the so-called "losers," stop reading their posts. You might live longer.


----------



## ehMax

With the election over and a few people upset and other happy, I'm going to close this thread and I've started a new ehMac Canadian Politics thread *here*.

A few posts were getting on the tad grumpy and personal side, so rather than trying to edit, let's call this one a day. 

This thread was going really well pretty much the whole election. Let's please keep the new thread civil.


----------

