# Poll: if the election were today, how would you vote?



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Just what the question says - if the election were right now how would you vote?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Are you going to add the poll itself?


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

rgray said:


> Just what the question says - if the election were right now how would you vote?


Where do I mark my selection?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Are you going to add the poll itself?





jamesB said:


> Where do I mark my selection?


Right at the top... Man you guys are fast!  Must be a slow day....  

Or I need another cuppa Joe.....


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

Not voting right now - not conservative although I think they are doing an ok job and I dislike the leader of the liberal party. We need an Obama-like candidate...will that be Justin Trudeau?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"We need an Obama-like candidate...will that be Justin Trudeau?" This would be great. I never did get a chance to vote for a Tuudeau. We shall see.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Liberal, but it feels very much like a default vote.

Harper's been okay in the minority government, but it's not the party I'd like to have in. 

Dion is rather less than inspiring, though. 

Truly, it feels like a case of same old, same old. In contrast, there is a lot of excitement in the US elections... they are on the cusp of change. We're kind of stuck in place.

Ah well... there are definitely advantages to living in a politically boring country.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "We need an Obama-like candidate...will that be Justin Trudeau?" This would be great. I never did get a chance to vote for a Tuudeau. We shall see.


That is most excellent, as you can state truthfully that you are unsullied by voting for that hatemonger. Trudeau attempted to destroy this nation, and we continue to live with his policies of balkanization and intolerance to this day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Evan, I guess we have a different view of Trudeau.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would also consider Trudeau the most harmful politician to disgrace the office of the Prime Minister.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, we too disagree. Still, your comment was far more civil than the one by Evan. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I too believe that PET did more damage to Canada and Canadians than any single PM in history. Another Trudeau, who even shared a tiny piece of PET's vision would be a travesty.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, you and I disagree as well. Still, you and Macfury are at least keeping these discussions on a higher plane so that disagreement is possible. I was not in Canada for the National Energy Plan, and from what my wife tells me (she is an Albertan who likes Trudeau, just not his NEP), it was well-intentioned, but not practical/logical.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., there is no shame in disagreement, but as you note one should do so civilly.

Yes, the NEP crushed Alberta and 25 of my employees I had to lay off in a single day from a staff of 80. I shall never forget that day as long as I live. The lives I had a hand in destroying due to PET were never the same for many of those employees.

Still I harbour more resentment for PET for his ill thought out social changes. Changes that changed the very fabric of life in this country and not for the better.

It was certainly NOT just the NEP.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

There have been a couple of comments I'd like to respond to.

First, was the comment about how the US elections are more 'exciting' than our own, and I think that says a lot about the dominance of emotionalism in our society today.

Emotionalism is where people will ignore the rational argument and go with the emotional manipulations whether or not they are true. Instead of looking at the truth: ie: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - they listen to the rhetoric and base their decisions upon emotional reactions. Watching the sway of emotionalism over the masses in the US - look at the public opinion polls regarding the war in Iraq over the years - makes me glad that our elections are NOT as emotionally based. I was very disappointed in Paul Martin in the last election when he swung from rational discussions to vilifying the opposition via emotional manipulation: he lowered himself to the 'but don't they SCARE you?' level of appealing to emotions.

Secondly: PET and Justin Trudeau. PET was very much a product of his time. I do not agree with his policies at the time, but I can understand them. PET was a very intelligent individual who was capable of figuring out how to keep central Canada happy. Keeping central Canada happy is the key to winning elections. He did not win a lot of friends in Western Canada, but the name of the game is not to win friends but to win power, which he did. I personally think Joe Clark had better policies but did not understand the game of manipulating the masses.

Preston Manning was another leader who did not have the charisma necessary to charm the masses emotionally. But his attitude was "whatever is best for the country", of which Chretien took full advantage. 'Campaign like a liberal but govern like a conservative' .

I did have the opportunity to vote against the candidate running for the Liberals in the area where I lived when both PET & Chretien were leader of the Liberal party. Very few of us actually have the opportunity to vote for the leader. We usually vote for the party, and not the candidate, unless the candidate has enough things for or against them to override party loyalties. Those candidates are few and far between however.

When I vote, it will probably be for the party/candidate which I feel has the best long term interests of the country at heart, and not because of some emotional reaction to personality (or perceived lack thereof) of the leader or local candidate, nor because of party policies which appeal to emotionalism but have no basis in reality.

And, as Forrest Gump would say in the movie, "that's all I have to say about that".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I rather admired Trudeau. He wasn't afraid to p!ss people off when he took a stand. That said, I'm no fan of dynasties for their own sake... so I'm not waiting for Justin to get into politics.

I voted green in this poll, feeling that neither the conservatives nor the liberals have any new ideas at this point... they're counterfeit sides of the same thin, dirty dime. And the NDP, under Jack? Sorry... next!

The Greens numbers in this poll are a bit higher than I had expected. I figure we might as well give them a chance.... heck, almost everyone else has had a kick at the cat.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

We have had Prime Ministers that worked to build the nation: MacDonald, Thompson, Laurier, Borden and King.

We have had caretakers who didn't have a chance to leave much if any legacy, at least as Prime Minister: Tupper, Meighen, Pearson, and Campbell.

We had a few that were inconsequential in the long run, but are stumpers for Trivial Pursuit: Abbott, Bowell and Clark.

We had a glad hander that engaged in various acts of corruption, hatred and class warfare, and who put together the worst mob of fools for the Cabinet: Chretien.

We had two doozies who mounted coup d'etats against the rightfully elected leader of the nation, in addition to the various acts of corruption, hatred and class warfare that they revelled in: St. Laurent and Martin.

We had someone who sold the nation for a dime, gave us the scandal of the day, but did force through a great deal of legislation that keeps the courts busy: Mulroney.

We has the one that yearned for greatness but did not have the heart to fire the inept, who was a genuine renegade who was not easily pigeon holed, and who worried about popularity and politics while at the same time, becoming unpopular and muddling the politics: Diefenbaker.

The greatest medieval mind since the actual middle ages (and may even astonish Machiavelli himself): Harper.

And if I am not leaving anyone else, we have Trudeau, who was the main engineer of the years of hope and anger, when we gained maulticulturalism at the cost of institutionalized discrimination and bigotry, when we gained the rights to easy treatment as criminals but lost much hope at obtaining democracy, when we at one were wealthy but poor, and whom brought into vogue the hatred of Nixon while engaging in the same slimeball methods in our own nation...

Sad thing is, all of the greats were gone pretty much a hundred years ago, and the mediocre were extinct fifty years ago, leaving us with a choice of Harper, Dion, Layton, Duceppe and May. That has to be the worst casting of all times, and no wonder why Layton scored high, I mean, how can one do bad?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, the social programs of Trudeau were some of the things I felt were good about his time as PM.

One of Trudeau's most enduring legacies is the 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution, including a domestic amending formula and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was something that I supported in advancing civil rights and liberties for all Canadians, and it represented Trudeau's liberal vision of a fully independent and nationalist Canada based on fundamental human rights and the protection of individual freedoms as well as those of linguistic and cultural minorities. 

His economic policies left much to be desired, as the Canadian national debt spiraled upwards.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

War Measures Act.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

War Measures Act. No, I would not accept that as a plus for PET.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> One of Trudeau's most enduring legacies is the 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution, including a domestic amending formula and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was something that I supported in advancing civil rights and liberties for all Canadians, and it represented Trudeau's liberal vision of a fully independent and nationalist Canada based on fundamental human rights and the protection of individual freedoms as well as those of linguistic and cultural minorities.


Too bad he achieved none of those lofty goals - notwithstanding. We do have a constitution but lack basic rights to property (rights to property were never included) and even to language, because as we all know, one can not have a sign in English in Quebec - notwithstanding; while at the same time, treating the First Nations with the greatest degree of denigration possible, by simply ignoring them altogether.

Trudeau was all about creating the facade of a legacy, but one that had no substance behind it. He got tough on the FLQ, bringing invoking the War Measures
Act (which no one thought he'd do), and then letting the FLQ go, as well as being withy-washy on all of the traitors because they were from his home province.

His economic policy brought about long lasting damage to Canada, and had more voodoo in it that anything in Reagan's most fanciful dreams. The NEP was an unmitigated disaster all around, then he trotted out the Crow's Nest Pass agreement and attempted to alienate everyone in the West even more than imagined. He toppled Clark, then went to town on the nation, implementing many of Clark's own policies but with a Fiberal "spin", lying directly into the camera when he made his phony pledges, and herding all of his cronies up to the trough for a good feed, a pig out that didn't stop until his successor finally lost power in disgrace. He also stiffed us with garbage like the Young Offenders Act, and got rid of Capital Punishment because frankly, he thought and knew he could win the votes of the criminals.

The only thing that made his "patriation" of the constitution look good was the despicable acts that Mulroney attempted to foist upon the nation, with both the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown - profane acts of hatred and discrimination against the people. We were fortunate that Meech was entirely derailed by an honourable member of the First Nations, a man who truly embodies the greatest achievement in service to both the nation and to basic human rights possible; and Charlottetown was shot down by the good taste of the citizens that turned out to turf that garbage once and for all.

The words are harsh only because these men did step forward with the goal of being deified, but only left a legacy of their profane actions and bitter hatreds that they attempted to foist upon the people of this nation.

As for Justin Trudeau, who knows what his policies would be, but if he even had one shred of the hatred of Canada that his father had, he is entirely unworthy of any consideration.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Ok folks tell us what you _really_ feel about PET....

I've voted Liberal for the past 36 years but this time no. I don't think much of Dion as a leader much less a PM. Though I'm not a Tory and haven't voted that way in the past I have to say Harper hasn't done a bad job and so it would be down to the person running in our area. Otherwise I would vote green.

If Justin Trudeau was the liberal leader that might make things interesting, I really doubt he would follow in his fathers footsteps. 

And nobody wants to talk about Mulroney? Hmmm


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Niteshooter said:


> And nobody wants to talk about Mulroney? Hmmm


If I even _think_ about Mulroney my head explodes. Talking? Incoherent mutterings are all that emanate, and my husband goes and gets me the nice long sleeved jacket that has a built in hug.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If I even think about Mulroney my head explodes." I am somewhat similar, MLeh. However, I then use an old Zen mantra and Zen koan. "GST ......... GST ............... GST ................. GST ..............." breathe in ........ breathe out ...................... 

The Zen koan is far more complex. "Does NAFTA have a Budda Nature?" A possible answer is "The cypress tree is in front of the hall."


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Dr.G.
Not to be ganging up on Sinc... (I think he and I have reached an understanding as to how we each feel about Trudeau and I respect him for it), however I find politically you and I pretty much agree. 
I was in Alberta for the NEP and as your wife I like Trudeau, if not the NEP. I have however mentioned before that THAT period of time produced the 2 politicians I respect the most and represents the ONLY time I ever voted Conservative. On a provincial level I voted for Peter Lougheed. It's my understanding that Trudeau and Lougheed spent significant time together in discussions to "taylor" NEP into something that would not be completely unpalatable... I'm comfortable still that Lougheed succeeded at doing his best. The truly unfortunate thing was the global wide "tanking" of the oil industry in the early '80's.

Anyway... enough history lesson... 

I would love it if you all might consider reading this article:

The Walrus » The Man Behind Stephen Harper » Tom Flanagan » politics

Yes, it is a loooongg one... but explains so much about Harper and the people he surrounds himself with. Whether you leave comments re: the article or not is totally up to you, I'm not asking for any, not to be chastised for it, given directions to constructing a foil hat, nor given kudos for pointing it out.

All I know is having known some of these people either by directly meeting them or phone/mail correspondence and various other research is that when it came to having Harper as Canadian PM I could not reconcile that with myself in any way, shape or form. Not just because I'm not a Conservative generally, but because it was clear to me this was not a vote for Harper alone as PM... this was a vote for Harper AND his group from the "Calgary School" with all the American style baggage involved that came with him. The ones that matter are still with him, nothing has changed... I strongly suspect it will manifest itself in the event of a majority gov. 

One has every reason to be somewhat frightened IMH(umble)O.




Dr.G. said:


> Sinc, you and I disagree as well. Still, you and Macfury are at least keeping these discussions on a higher plane so that disagreement is possible. I was not in Canada for the National Energy Plan, and from what my wife tells me (she is an Albertan who likes Trudeau, just not his NEP), it was well-intentioned, but not practical/logical.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreambird, I only wish this were true:



> In a torrent of academic treatises and no-holds -barred commentaries in the media, they have given intellectual heft to a rambunctious, Rocky Mountain brand of libertarianism


But it isn't.

What part of the article did you find the most worrisome?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The current status of this poll represents my greatest worry about the upcoming election (and, I suspect, Harper's intent in calling it before the Liberals get organized enough to make a better showing).

While it's obvious that the majority here don't like the conservatives, because the left is split among the liberals, NDP, and Greens, the Conservatives have the most votes.

In the past, the Liberals enjoyed and took advantage of a similar situation when the PCs and the Reform/Alliance parties were splitting the right.

So, from the point of view of a typical dishonest, manipulative politician doing whatever it takes to gain power even when it clearly does not represent a mandate from the governed, Harper's timing for this is perfect.

Cheers

(edit: I should add that I voted Green in the poll, so I'm part of the cause of this problem, and it's enough to make me hold my nose and vote Liberal in the election, despite my utter disgust with the Liberal party)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you brought up an interesting thing. Last election people were angry at the liberals, the scandal, Martin dithering, people waned change. So liberals who didn't want to vote for the conservatives, voted ndp or green, or not at all. This election, could prove to be different.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not only that, but the "Green Shift" has proved such a liability that voters actually have a reason to cast ballots _against_ the Liberals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you might want to re read what I posted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> you brought up an interesting thing. Last election people were angry at the liberals, the scandal, Martin dithering, people waned change. So liberals who didn't want to vote for the conservatives, voted ndp or green, or not at all. This election, could prove to be different.


Different? How?

Even this small sampling of a poll shows Cons with 50% more supporters than the Liberals and no other party has a snowball's chance in hell of forming a government.

That difference might just evolve as a Conservative majority if enough people vote Green and NDP. Sometimes those kinds of "protest votes" for marginal parties transfer into power for the poll leading Conservatives.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the difference sinc is that this time round, there isn't quite the level of anger towards the liberal party that there was in the last election. Many liberal voters voted against the liberals. There may still be people who vote against the liberals certainly. But I would bet there are more that want to vote against the conservatives this time round as well. I know quite a few people stung by the income trust lie that are pretty pissed off, as only one example.

Dion would need to really drop the ball for Harper to get a majority, which is certainly quite possible. After watching him speak yesterday, if he stays on message, Harper could have a nice fight on his hands.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> (edit: I should add that I voted Green in the poll, so I'm part of the cause of this problem, and it's enough to make me hold my nose and vote Liberal in the election, despite my utter disgust with the Liberal party)


I feel the same. Fundamentally I'm in favour of the Liberals but currently the party is too fractured and directionless. That being said, a vote for them is a vote against the Conservatives. I hope that when push comes to shove, Canadians realize this also. Polls, especially casual ones like this, lack finality.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> The current status of this poll represents my greatest worry about the upcoming election (and, I suspect, Harper's intent in calling it before the Liberals get organized enough to make a better showing).
> 
> While it's obvious that the majority here don't like the conservatives, because the left is split among the liberals, NDP, and Greens, the Conservatives have the most votes.
> 
> ...


I agree with your points except for the Liberal shortcoming being a lack of organization. I think the problem isn't organization as much as it is leadership. I'm still amazed Dion got the nod at the last leadership convention given the other more marketable options they had. It was the greatest gift the Conservatives could ever get. Had they chosen pretty much any of the other candidates I think they'd be polling way higher.
I pretty near spit my coffee the other morning when I read the left wing Toronto Star poll showing Steven Harper was the most popular leader and now the Conservatives are polling well on left-wing dominated ehmac. :yikes: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Dion would need to really drop the ball for Harper to get a majority, which is certainly quite possible. After watching him speak yesterday, if he stays on message, Harper could have a nice fight on his hands.


Unfortunately Dion dropped the ball with the Green Shift thing. What he has to do is claw back a little to avoid freaking out more voters. It's a daunting (yet I believe necessary) prospect to begin with that was delivered in a terribly unclear way. Harper on the other hand is a used car salesman ready to sell us a creampuff filled with bondo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The fact remains however, that about half of Canadians polled consider Harper the better man for the job over Layton and a very distant Dion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe the Green Shift is prefectly clear in its objectives and Dion has done an excellent job explaining it--and that's why Canadians have rejected it outright.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> The fact remains however, that about half of Canadians polled consider Harper the better man for the job over Layton and a very distant Dion.


Which poll are you referring to?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I believe the Green Shift is prefectly clear in its objectives and Dion has done an excellent job explaining it--and that's why Canadians have rejected it outright.


Have Canadians rejected it outright or are you projecting again?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Which poll are you referring to?


The Angus-Reid poll conducted in late August:

Harper seen as better leader


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Have Canadians rejected it outright or are you projecting again?


As the details become clear, support is dropping. 

Support for the Liberals' Green Shift dropping: Poll


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "We need an Obama-like candidate...will that be Justin Trudeau?" This would be great. I never did get a chance to vote for a Tuudeau. We shall see.


Oh my go Dr. G. you gotta be kidding, Justin is about as deep as a rain puddle.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Which poll are you referring to?


This would be the poll I referred to mrjimmy. 

It’s also interesting to note that the environment is not a bigger issue to Canadians any longer and the Liberals hanging their campaign on this issue is questionable.

Here’s the story:



> Harper Canada's Favoured Leader
> 
> Dion comes in third, behind NDP's Jack Layton
> 
> ...


Harper Canada's favoured leader


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Seniors and those on low fixed incomes have Dion's number. How do you get a tax credit if you don't pay income taxes? No wonder the older crowd are staying away from this tax scheme. There are numerous people barely hanging onto their homes as is. Many are still in debt from last years heating bills and the Libs want them to pay more? Is he out of his ever loving mind?

I know a few retired folks who will be holding their noses and voting Conservative for the first time.

Dion himself is simply lame. What were the Libs thinking of electing him as their leader. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd put a check beside that goofs name.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here in NL, we have three MPs who are Conservative, with the Fisheries minister as one of these MPs. Two of the Conservative MPs, the current Fisheries minister as one of them, are not running for reelection. There have been a few people who were thought to have wanted to run, but even with these two MPs making it totally clear that they would not be running anymore, no one has come forward to run in these two St.John's ridings. Interesting.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

HA!

I voted Bloc, though in all reality they won't run a candidate here, I *think* it's time (like that lazy, lay about, kid, that refuses to go to school, or get a job) that they "fish, or cut bait". I could live in (or stand) a Canada without that money sink-hole called Quebec, though I would have to apply for citizenship, having had the mis-fortune of being born there.

Though one wonders what an "independent Quebec" would look like? I *suspect* that it would only include those bits that can potentially generate income, leaving the rest for Canada to look after, the way we are doing so now.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

My only hope this next election is for another minority government. Having either one of these ninnies in power with a majority makes me shudder.

Although I'm shuddering much much more with the secretive and power mad Harper. At least with Dion you know what you're going to get.

Watch out when Harper's free marketeers run ruff shod over this fine land of ours.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I fear any government more than any one company. Most of the power invested in companies is the result of government collusion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Or government inaction! That's always a good route.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I can't vote, but if I could, I'd write-in Peter Mansbridge but ONLY if Rex Murphy was his press secretary.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Or government inaction! That's always a good route.


Almost all of the corporate power is invested in corporations through government. Monopolies and markets with limited competition are created by government. Special protection to limit liabilities against companies are created by government. And of course, government keeps many of them alive through corporate welfare.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Problem is, the two are more or less the same... we like to talk of government and of the corporate world but they interface extensively; Practically speaking, they don't exist in isolation but are very much entwined and interdependent. There is much cozy overlap amongst the influential magnates & titans of industry, board of director types (who, not infrequently, land patronage plums from their venerable old cronies in government), their lobbyists on the hill and in the media, politican bought and paid for by secret corporate slush funds, etc.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Harpo gives $80mil of your money to Ford*

Freaking Cons! First they rape us with NAFTA, effectively chasing jobs out of the country. Now they take the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians still working and bribe Ford to stay in Canada (a little longer)....    

Talk about getting screwed coming AND going!  

Harpo and his Cons (in many senses of the word 'con) have got to go....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Problem is, the two are more or less the same... we like to talk of government and of the corporate world but they interface extensively; Practically speaking, they don't exist in isolation but are very much entwined and interdependent. There is much cozy overlap amongst the influential magnates & titans of industry, board of director types (who, not infrequently, land patronage plums from their venerable old cronies in government), their lobbyists on the hill and in the media, politican bought and paid for by secret corporate slush funds, etc.


I agree with much of what you say however, the part where you say "politician bought and paid for by secret corporate slush funds", is in fact very rare. 

In most cases it doesn't take this degree of "kickback" in order to sway a politicians mind. Most politicians are happy just keeping their jobs and so the "kickback" that they seek most is maintaining or expanding their voting base as well as party/campaign supporters, i.e. those who are willing to donate money to their "cause".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Harpo gives $80mil of your money to Ford." rgray, Ford needs the money, the Conservative government knows that there is more taxpayer money where that came from, and there are votes to be had in Ontario. It's a win/win/win scenario ................... except for the taxpayers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For what it's worth, I don't believe in the Ford grant. I don't agree with any corporate welfare including grants for emerging technology. If a company thinks it can gain an advantage by developing new technology, it should do so on its own. Similarly, pathetic job guarantees are also a joke. The company only pays a small penalty when it leaves ahead of time.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

chas_m said:


> I can't vote, but if I could, I'd write-in Peter Mansbridge but ONLY if Rex Murphy was his press secretary.


My brothers and I were in the same Sea Scout Troop as Mansbridge as kids. He seems to have managed to learn to read now, but I'm not sure you'd want him leading anything....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

adagio said:


> How do you get a tax credit if you don't pay income taxes?


That's how the government cashes in. It is like those special GST rebate cheques everyone was supposed to get - and how quickly people forgot and how quickly the government stopped bothering.

The Fiberal plan is just a con job, saying they are going to "do something" about the environment, then collecting all kinds of tax money that they can spend on their little pet projects so they can get reelected. It's all about the pork barrel and sidling up to the trough.

And think about it, they were opposed to the reduction to the GST, even though the government was scoring so much extra cash from that cow that they were becoming embarrassed by the filthy lucre.



> I know a few retired folks who will be holding their noses and voting Conservative for the first time.


I have no idea why people are so turned off by the Conservatives - while I could not explain how thoroughly frozen over hell would have to be until I'd ever vote for a Fiberal.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> I agree with much of what you say however, the part where you say "politician bought and paid for by secret corporate slush funds", is in fact very rare.


Actually, it not only happens all of the time, it has been happening since the beginning.

Pacific Scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Don't kid yourself, governments do not operate as they appear. Power, influence, insider trading, favouritism, nepotism, connections, back door deals, slush funds, etc. have been propelling governments since they were invented. Mr. Desmarais has himself hand selected the government that we "elected". There are perhaps a hundred people in this country who make the decisions, all ensconced in their leather wing chairs in the old smokey clubs, sipping scotch and making their deals. The purchase of politicians is just an expense, and only rarely, and normally because an insider decides to backstab, are these schemes revealed.

In AdScam, we saw a few low level people trotted out, and a handful of fall guys slapped on the wrists - but the point was that influence was purchased with about $1.5 Billion dollars of taxpayers money, an expenditure that was not approved by Parliament, was not indicated in any budget documents, with payouts to a variety of players with rather odious connections to organized crime, and for the express purpose of promoting and establishing an even thicker layer of racial intolerance, hatred and class warfare within this nation.

Such scams lead to scandals, like the bribery, nepotism and influence peddling engaged in under the Ministry of Borden (when soldiers were slaughtered by the Germans because they ended up with inferior rifles because of a profit making scam); the scandal that lead to the King-Byng Affair; government collusion with Corporate America during the debacle of the Asbestos Strike (where Sauve and Trudeau first scored their points by defending the basic dignity and rights of the worker) in opposition to St. Laurent and his "alliance" with the Union Nationale; and I won't even mention the corruption that engulfed the Ministry of Mulroney because I don't even think Wikipedia has enough server space for a description of that graft and corruption...



> Most politicians are happy just keeping their jobs and so the "kickback" that they seek most is maintaining or expanding their voting base as well as party/campaign supporters, i.e. those who are willing to donate money to their "cause".


Your funny! Really, you don't live anywhere near Burlington, do you? It is home of two of the biggest glad handling steak consuming machines known - the former Minister of Finance Garth Turner (who got caught with tax evasion as well as being a one man bovine holocaust machine), and his counterpart Mayor Cam Jackson, who is well known to all ranchers and cattlemen in Alberta as a "big customer".

Then we had a number of other creepazoids, people so creepy that it make Shiela Copps look "honourable" because she just pandered for her votes, much to the delight of half of the Ti-Cats football team...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> At least with Dion you know what you're going to get.


Yeah, a bumbling fool who has been a member of every political party imaginable over the years, and a big friend to the separatists and other hate mongers...


----------



## slicecom (Jun 13, 2008)

I'll be voting NDP again. The Liberals need a new leader badly and hopefully when they lose the election, that's what will happen.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Yeah, a bumbling fool who has been a member of every political party imaginable over the years, and a big friend to the separatists and other hate mongers...


As opposed to Harper who is lying in wait for all the 'still smartin' from the Fiberals' voters. Those who are merely voting against a party. I like to call them simply Jethro.

Also, separatists as hate mongers? _Reaalllly..._ You should save the big name calling for those more deserving.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Your funny! Really, you don't live anywhere near Burlington, do you? It is home of two of the biggest glad handling steak consuming machines known - the former Minister of Finance Garth Turner (who got caught with tax evasion as well as being a one man bovine holocaust machine), and his counterpart Mayor Cam Jackson, who is well known to all ranchers and cattlemen in Alberta as a "big customer".


Can't wait to vote Garth Turncoat Turner out. :clap: I sent him a nice email about the invitation he sent to his constituents when Dion was in town, it arrived 2 days after the presentation! Obvious where the real invitations went, Liberal supporters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> As opposed to Harper who is lying in wait for all the 'still smartin' from the Fiberals' voters. Those who are merely voting against a party. I like to call them simply Jethro



?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Those who are merely voting against a party. I like to call them simply Jethro.


Jethro Tull was cool - Aqualung for Prime Minister!



> Also, separatists as hate mongers? _Reaalllly..._ You should save the big name calling for those more deserving.


You seem to think they aren't hate mongers? Funny, seeing that you probably think that white people that live in the South and would prefer to retain their own culture and race by excluding Blacks, Catholics, or whoever, are hate mongers. I do not carry such a distinction in my definition.

In my book, any government that supports segregation is a hate mongering government that promotes hate mongering policies. The Quebec Language Law is no different than old Jim Crow, and as Jim Crow was disguised as "States Rights", Quebec laws are disguised as "Protecting Our Culture".

Immigrants to Quebec do not enjoy the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution, notwithstanding! Yes, if you move to Quebec, your children will be forced to go to French Only schools, and will be treated like second class trash. And not only that, a business owner is not allowed to post the signs they want because of official racial discrimination. This kind of malarkey does not happen in Toronto, where business owners can and do post whatever signs, a trip on the Danforth will yield Greek signs - a people and language that are entirely illegal in Quebec.

Hate monger is a strong word, and Canadians better get off their high horse because our advocacy of multiculturalism is a nasty bit of hypocrisy, when we have long allowed policies of hate mongering ans outright treason to exist, notwithstanding!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Can't wait to vote Garth Turncoat Turner out. :clap: I sent him a nice email about the invitation he sent to his constituents when Dion was in town, it arrived 2 days after the presentation! Obvious where the real invitations went, Liberal supporters.


He did that so he could access more snacks, you know, load up before heading over to the Lord Nelson in his effort to cut back on global methane emissions by eating as many cattle as he can...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Jethro Tull was cool - Aqualung for Prime Minister!


*Aqualung* was an album I loved perhaps more than many others of its time. Alao an image I tended to cultivate...  









Re Jethro Tull:


> It is a common myth that Tull invented the seed drill, a device for sowing seeds effectively, but he only refined the invention in 1701 while living in Crowmarsh Gifford. In fact, the Sumerians used primitive single-tube seed drills around 1,500 BCE, and multi-tube seed drills were invented by the Chinese in the 2nd century BCE. The first known European seed drill was invented by Camillo Torello and patented by the Venetian Senate in 1566, possibly influenced by Chinese contact, and a seed drill with a detailed description is known from Tadeo Cavalina of Bologna in 1602.
> Tull also advocated the use of horses over oxen, invented a horse-drawn hoe for clearing weeds, and made changes to the design of the plough which are still visible in modern versions. His interest in ploughing derived from his interest in weed control, and his belief that fertilizing was unnecessary, on the basis that nutrients locked up in soil could be released through pulverization. Although he was incorrect in his belief that plants obtained nourishment exclusively from such nutrients, he was aware that horse manure carried weed seeds, and hoped to avoid using it as fertilizer by pulverizing the soil to enhance the availability of plant nutrients.
> Tull's inventions were sometimes considered controversial and were not widely adopted for many years. However, on the whole he introduced innovations which contributed to the foundation of productive modern agriculture.
> Tull published his famous book, The New Horse-Houghing [Horse-Hoeing] Husbandry, c.1731, with the sub-title "an Essay on the Principles of Tillage and Nutrition"
> Tull died in Shalbourne, Berkshire (now Wiltshire), and is buried in the churchyard of St Bartholomew's Church, Lower Basildon, Berkshire.


Home of Jethro:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Macfury:


> Dreambird, I only wish this were true:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


It might be a little simplistic but accurate to say that "in a nutshell" what you find attractive is what I loathe. I am decidedly NOT a Libertarian type of person and shudder at the thought of a "laissez-faire" free market economy a la Milton Friedman. 

I can't stand these "new" Conservatives while I could tolerate the old Red Tories.
Harper has not been what he advertises himself as over and over ad nauseum even before an election is declared here... he has been secretive, non-communicative and certainly in no way accountable. 
Just the fact that he is so very unwilling to even discuss the Green Shift matter with Dion brings me back in my memory to a project I worked on here in Alberta circa 1994/95 and the pleasure of trying to deal with one of Harper's favourite boys, a Calgary MP, Rob Anders. One could not talk with this man... he was over riding, over bearing... stifling me immediately so much a syllable left my lips. It's like a true flash back... these people do not communicate.

I don't care to go into the whole Harper as president of the National Citizen's Coalition thing here, however I do have a 1.2mb .pdf file explaining all that better if anyone wants it... PM me with an email address.

I haven't voted in this board's poll yet... I'm likely to vote Liberal. In my riding though I can pretty much do what I want... it will go Conservative... I'm so angry with having this election SHOVED down my throat I've entertained the idea of spoiling my ballot and writing in Gilles Duceppes. 

IMHO Quebec haters may leave the room... the province is part of my Canada and I hope it stays that way.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting, but with less than 6 weeks to go before the federal election, there is not a single declared candidate here in St.John's East.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, but with less than 6 weeks to go before the federal election, there is not a single declared candidate here in St.John's East.


Your opportunity for a career change?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Laugh if you will, rgray, but if my financial situation was different, I would be running for the Green Party or the NDP. However, even though an MP makes more than twice what I do now, I am not in the position financially to move from here to Ottawa, and I can't afford two homes.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh... someone asked how Dion was to handle an income tax rebate for seniors and low/fixed income earners who fall into the no income tax category?

Why not a rebate similar to the GST rebate based on one's income? There's always an answer...


----------



## Kestral (Mar 14, 2001)

ruffdeezy said:


> Not voting right now - not conservative although I think they are doing an ok job and I dislike the leader of the liberal party. We need an Obama-like candidate...will that be Justin Trudeau?


What is the logic behind this? What makes Justin Trudeau qualified to be Prime Minister, other than being the son of one? Nepotism is not a sound basis for a government.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

Dreambird said:


> IMHO Quebec haters may leave the room... the province is part of my Canada and I hope it stays that way.


There is no one here that "hates Quebec", though I hazard a *guess* that there might be some that *think* that there should not be one group of people in this country that merits "special consideration" defined by the language they choose to speak, and customs they choose to practice, and might just resent paying for this "special consideration" that a very small percentage of the population demands by holding the rest of us hostage to their BS.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacFury has it right. There is no Tull in my label, only Bodine.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Hate monger is a strong word, and Canadians better get off their high horse because our advocacy of multiculturalism is a nasty bit of hypocrisy, when we have long allowed policies of hate mongering ans outright treason to exist, notwithstanding!


Are you sitting in the sun? If so, please move to the shade.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

I caught the new "I'm voting for Stephen Harper" ad today... it put me off my breakfast. XX)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No ads here yet, either on TV, radio, newspaper, etc. No candidates means no campaign signs as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Laugh if you will, rgray, but if my financial situation was different, I would be running for the Green Party or the NDP. However, even though an MP makes more than twice what I do now, I am not in the position financially to move from here to Ottawa, and I can't afford two homes.


Not to worry Dr. G if you ran for those parties you wouldn't be elected any way.  

Burt seriously though, if you would otherwise be thinking of throwing your hat in the ring and the only thing holding you back is the thought of moving to Ottawa, then go ahead and run for a nomination.

You don't have to move to Ottawa to be an MP. Years ago I worked for an MP from BC as a Special Assistant in Ottawa. He flew back and forth weekly and spent the weekends in the riding (Friday through Sunday - working). The flights are covered by your travel allowance.

Additionally MPs have a generous housing allowance that you could use to pay for rented accommodation's. What many MPs do is, if they have the funds, they put a down payment on a condo and then flip it when their federal political career is finished. Many of them even turn a dollar in the process.

If you truly have the conviction to bring about change (whatever that may mean for you) and have the stomach for a public life, having to live 4 or 5 days a week in Ottawa shouldn't stop you. There are always ways to be able to afford it. Hell I even knew an MP who lived with one of his staffers while he was in Ottawa (obviously he paid him to do so) so that he could afford to "get the job done".

By the way the MP I worked for was approaching 70 and the one who shared accommodation's in Ottawa with his staffer was in his 70's so don't think necessarily that the life style is only for the young.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Laugh if you will, rgray, but if my financial situation was different, I would be running for the Green Party or the NDP. However, even though an MP makes more than twice what I do now, I am not in the position financially to move from here to Ottawa, and I can't afford two homes.


Your avatar said something once about it not being the things you did that you regret, but rather the things you didn't do. I encourage you to consider this far more seriously.

If you run and loose, you've stood up for some principles that desperately need espousing. If you run and win... resources you haven't considered will almost certainly be available to you, and I'm sure a man of your sagacity could make it work.

If you don't run, well, you remain like the rest of us... complaining ineffectually on the sidelines.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Not to worry Dr. G if you ran for those parties you wouldn't be elected any way." Screature, you don't know my campaigning abilities. I also believe that you fight hardest for the lost causes.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If you don't run, well, you remain like the rest of us... complaining ineffectually on the sidelines." Bryanc, sad, but all too true. Still, I have a voice and I have a vote, and I shall use both. We shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "Not to worry Dr. G if you ran for those parties you wouldn't be elected any way." Screature, you don't know my campaigning abilities. I also believe that you fight hardest for the lost causes.


All very true. That is why I used the  emoticon, I wasn't really being serious. What I was serious about was the rest of the post, don't let the need for housing in Ottawa stop you, there are ways and means available to house you that would make being an MP not cost prohibitive.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Not voting for Cons because:
1. They ran on a platform of "Accountability" but then proceeded to:
- make a former defense contractor lobbyist the Minister of Defence
- break laws for party campaign funding
- try to slip an anti-abortion law into a "crime against pregnant women" bill
- prohibiting his cabinet from speaking to the press.
- tried to sneak an immigration bil that allows the minister to be able to ignore or fast track certain categories of immigrants.
2. Continue to allow corporations pollute the environment claiming "it will cost too many jobs." By jobs he really means "corporate execs will lay off employees instead of accepting a few billion dollars less in profits." Seems to me a law controlling emissions would create a whole new industry in pollution control and create even more jobs. 
3. Continue the "mission" in Afghanistan. Hmmm... missions usually involve measurable an articulated goals.
4. Calling an election the day after a holiday knowing full well that it will negatively impact voter turnout.
5. Gave tax cuts to upper class. The liberals were going to cut income tax at all levels. Harper bought off the public with a GST cut. Guess who spends more GST - rich people. Poor people use all of their income on things like rent and food - things that aren't charged GST. What we ended up with is a tax cut that proportionally favours higher incomes.

I could go on. Personally I'd rather lose a few million to a Liberal sponsorship scandal than what the Conservatives are trying to do.

I'd threaten to move to the US if the Conservatives win a majority, but then again, if they win a majority, Canada will become just like the US.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not voting for Liberals because:
1. Dion
2. Dion
3. Dion
4. Dion
5. Dion


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC, don't forget:

a) The Green Shaft, and
b) Dion.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Not voting for Cons because:
> 1. They ran on a platform of "Accountability" but then proceeded to:
> - make a former defense contractor lobbyist the Minister of Defence
> - break laws for party campaign funding
> ...


Excellent post hayesk.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We'll let you both know when the Conservative majoriy is over so you can rent a truck to move your things back home.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> We'll let you both know when the Conservative majoriy is over so you can rent a truck to move your things back home.


Won't home be simply North America at that point? Governed by the former Americans? Or will North America simply become America?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Won't home be simply North America at that point? Governed by the former Americans? Or will North America simply become America?


mrjimmy, I said I'd send you a note when the Conservatives were out of power--not FedEx you a treatise on North American geopolitics.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks for the support, Screature. We shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Excellent post hayesk.


Not really it is full of inaccuracies and opinion not fact.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Not really it is full of inaccuracies and opinion not fact.


like?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I keep getting the impression that groovetube's wellbeing relies on government contracts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I keep getting the impression that groovetube's wellbeing relies on government contracts.


Considering your beliefs I can understand why you would think that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> like?


“- break laws for party campaign funding”

No laws were broken. Even if you believe they made illegitimate claims (which is still to be proven). They made claims for expenses that were rejected by Elections Canada. It is no different than you making a claim for a deduction on your tax return that was rejected by Revenue Canada. Again no law was broken.

“- try to slip an anti-abortion law into a "crime against pregnant women" bill”

Not at all true, Bill C-484 is a Private Members Bill not a Government Bill . 
The announcement on August 25 by the Justice Minister regarding legislation to be brought forward in the fall (which will not happen now) to “strengthen significantly the criminal law response to violence against pregnant women”, was to counter the ground swell that was beginning to form around Bill C-484. 

The Minister felt that C-484 went too far in ascribing “personhood” to the unborn. The new Bill would expand the list of aggravating factors to be considered by a sentencing judge to include the fact of a woman's pregnancy. The Bill would not open the door to fetal rights.


“- prohibiting his cabinet from speaking to the press.”

Totally wrong. No such prohibition exists


“- tried to sneak an immigration bill that allows the minister to be able to ignore or fast track certain categories of immigrants.”

Totally wrong. There was no “sneaking” the Bill was brought before the House in the usual manner and had full scrutiny in the House and Committee. The intention of the ministerial instructions on prioritizing and processing immigration applications was to identify priority occupations based on input from provinces and territories, the Bank of Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, employers and organized labour. 

It is intended to complement commitments made in Advantage Canada, to align the immigration system with labour market needs. The Minister instructions would obviously still have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prevents discrimination based on factors such as race, country of origin and religion.

“Continue to allow corporations pollute the environment claiming "it will cost too many jobs...”

In fact unlike the Liberals before them who did nothing, they actually began to make corporations reduce emissions. You can criticize them for not going far enough, but at least they did something .

“Continue the "mission" in Afghanistan. Hmmm... missions usually involve measurable an articulated goals.”

This was in fact agreed upon by the Liberals as well.

“Calling an election the day after a holiday knowing full well that it will negatively impact voter turnout.”

Speculation as to voter turn out, not a fact.

“Gave tax cuts to upper class. The liberals were going to cut income tax at all levels. Harper bought off the public with a GST cut. Guess who spends more GST - rich people. Poor people use all of their income on things like rent and food - things that aren't charged GST. What we ended up with is a tax cut that proportionally favours higher incomes.”

The GST reduction was only one of many tax reduction measures.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> “
> The GST reduction was only one of many tax reduction measures.


And a tax reduction that benefits even those who pay no income tax.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> “- break laws for party campaign funding”
> 
> No laws were broken. Even if you believe they made illegitimate claims (which is still to be proven). They made claims for expenses that were rejected by Elections Canada. It is no different than you making a claim for a deduction on your tax return that was rejected by Revenue Canada. Again no law was broken.
> *really. Well why don't you go set them straight. Because if you look at what is alleged, they knowingly tried to circumvent the election rules to get more 'deductions'. Last time I checked, it is an offense to knowly send in a fraudulent tax return.*
> ...


..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And a tax reduction that benefits even those who pay no income tax.


really? I would think those not making enough to pay income tax are going to spending on food and shelter, none of which is taxed by gst.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Yes and the Liberals were also going to give us national daycare too after 12 years of promises.  They could have easily rescinded the tax cut offer as they did with retracting the gst promise and the national daycare promise. Too little too late groovetube.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> really? I would think those not making enough to pay income tax are going to spending on food and shelter, none of which is taxed by gst.


Many common household items are subject to GST--and even the poor eat out once in a while.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

which basically says the poor get next to nothing in tax savings.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes and the Liberals were also going to give us national daycare too after 12 years of promises.  They could have easily rescinded the tax cut offer as they did with retracting the gst promise and the national daycare promise. Too little too late groovetube.


it wasn't an offer.

But nice try at deflecting why Harper raised that tax.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> it wasn't an offer.


Right, so how much did you save?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> ..


More opinion, conjecture and speculation no facts, why is it that liberals and their supporters are so long on fabrication and so short on facts.

Oh I know because they don't like the truth to get in the way of a good story.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> More opinion, conjecture and speculation no facts, why is it that liberals and their supporters are so long on fabrication and so short on facts.
> 
> Oh I know because they don't like the truth to get in the way of a good story.


right, and yours wasn't?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Right, so how much did you save?


you righteous righties are quite fond of evading a question and trying to attack someone personally. First macfury, now you.

With the almost 80 grand in house renovations we did recently (actually working from home today my foundation is being dug up), I saved a fair amount in gst. Did I really need it? Nope. I'd rather the tax cut went to help lower income earners.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> you righteous righties are quite fond of evading a question and trying to attack someone personally. First macfury, now you.


What, you said it wasn't an offer, so it must have been in place and you must have saved something. I know I didn't.



groovetube said:


> With the almost 80 grand in house renovations we did recently (actually working from home today my foundation is being dug up), I saved a fair amount in gst. Did I really need it? Nope. I'd rather the tax cut went to help lower income earners.


So donate it to a local food bank and get over it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> right, and yours wasn't?


Facts brother facts, do a little research.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> What, you said it wasn't an offer, so it must have been in place and you must have saved something. I know I didn't.
> 
> So donate it to a local food bank and get over it.


always evading eh JJ? The tax cut that was to go to lower income earners. Why was it raised and then used as a tax cut announcement later. Keep your eye on the ball.

And I do donate to charities as anyone should who can. But I demand better. Sorry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Facts brother facts, do a little research.


I did, I think you're wrong. Anyone that would say Harper's cabinet isn't muzzled and tries to pass that off as fact is suspect right there.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
With those retards, Harper has to muzzle them. For example, Mr. Lunn who was hell bent on causing a nuclear disaster, Mr. Bernier who let the Romanians photocopy top secret documents while he was sleeping with the Hell's Angels and who was promising to rent Russian aircraft for use in Burma, Mr. Day who doesn't believe in fossils or dinosaurs, and any number of other retards who would say the most ridiculous things.

With the Liberal press, he has to keep them from saying anything. Remember, the press in this country is so hell bent on Liberals, they even loved Shiela Copps, while they gave very short shrift to the high quality people like Lincoln Alexander...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I did, I think you're wrong. Anyone that would say Harper's cabinet isn't muzzled and tries to pass that off as fact is suspect right there.


Absolutely. Where exactly is this information coming from? Can we have a link to better illustrate these opinions?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The tax cut that was to go to lower income earners.


What do you mean was? You mean it didn't actually happen under their watch? And had they won the election it would have actually happened? Keep dreaming. 

So now your $1600 can go to the charity of your liking, instead of being a part of a federal slush fund that may or may not have gone to low income earners. You would think the bleeding hearts would be happy about this. Or did it really go towards that nice facet you had you eyes on?:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes it did indeed 'happen under their watch'.

now who is dreaming?


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I truly don't understand why Canadians seem to want a Conservative government. This is the government that has taken us from a $13.2 billion surplus to hovering on the brink of a deficit, that cut the GST (putting but a few cents back in each of our pockets, but leaving the government over $12B short in revenue), reduced corporate income tax (putting yet more of the burden on you and me), increased military spending, has cut funding to the arts and environment and has refused to partner with municipalities to shore up their infrastructure, creating attractive investment opportunities - despite the fact that over 80% of Canadians actually live and work in those municipalities. And oh yes - the same government that secretly proposed to hand over much of the responsibility of monitoring food safety in the meat packing industry to the industry itself - just like the US, which has a horrible record in this realm. (Nothing like having the fox guard the hen house!)

Sure, not all of our economic woes can be blamed on the Conservatives as we are, after all, part of a global economy which hasn't been doing too well lately, but many of their actions have made things much worse. And of course, one of these days we're going to have to realize that this planet has finite resources and an ever-expanding economy will eventually hit a brick wall.

But in the mean time, let's not keep repeating the same mistakes, hoping for a different outcome.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never congratulate the government that collects far more money than it spends. Most of the items on that list sound good to me: cut the GST, reduce corporate taxes, cut funding to arts, refusing to partner with (suckle) municipalities, increase military spending. In a nutshell, that's a pretty good record. I'm not sure about the food monitoring part--I never saw the complete details of the program.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Well, on some of this, I guess we'll just have to disagree, MF...(increased military spending is anathema to me, as is cutting arts spending, which is pathetic in this country already)

As for the rest of it...so what exactly is YOUR solution to fixing the crumbling infrastructure in our municipalities? Higher property taxes so nobody can afford to live or conduct business in the city?? Or how about a municipal income tax? Tolls at every intersection?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

these tory types haven't quite figured out there's only one pocket on taxpayers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paddy said:


> As for the rest of it...so what exactly is YOUR solution to fixing the crumbling infrastructure in our municipalities?


The municipalities will have to pay for their crumbling infrastructure themselves. User pay where possible. Public private partnerships to stretch financing over long terms. Sale or lease of such assets as Gardiner Expressway. 

The crumbling municipal infrastructure is a deliberate choice made by municipal governments to put off improvements and repairs to the next administration. If people choose to leave the cities because of this, so be it. Who else is going to pay for it--the minority who lives in the rural areas? Other cities?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and who is going to buy the gardiner expressway? 

Where's a tory provincial government to sell it off at bargain prices when you need one...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"these tory types haven't quite figured out there's only one pocket on taxpayers." Groovetube, they don't go for just the money in your pocket.


YouTube - knee in my package


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> and who is going to buy the gardiner expressway?


The same people who bought the Chicago Skyway for $1.8 billion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Don't forget the "Big Dig" in Boston.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Don't forget the "Big Dig" in Boston.


I attended a presentation by its chief of construction--largely a case of public mishandling.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> and who is going to buy the gardiner expressway?
> 
> Where's a tory provincial government to sell it off at bargain prices when you need one...


Someone who wants to collect relics and ruins...


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Conservatives all the way. They certainly aren't perfect, but at least their policies wouldn't make a complete mess of this country. 

And- why are so many championing Obama? He's the one who wants to terminate NAFTA and screw us over by doing so.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Someone who wants to collect relics and ruins...


What's wrong with the Gardiner? The "eyesore" that the decaying road deck creates is nothing compared to the nightmare we'd have to endure if everyone was funneled onto Lakeshore Boulevard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

broken_g3 said:


> What's wrong with the Gardiner? The "eyesore" that the decaying road deck creates is nothing compared to the nightmare we'd have to endure if everyone was funneled onto Lakeshore Boulevard.


I agree--all this talk of how the Gardiner blocks off Lake Ontario, and then zoning wall-to-wall high rises on the lakeshore so we can't even see the lake.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I agree--all this talk of how the Gardiner blocks off Lake Ontario, and then zoning wall-to-wall high rises on the lakeshore so we can't even see the lake.


Exactly. If anything, the Gardiner makes the waterfront better- it separates vehicle traffic from us pedestrians. Condos take up precious space that could be used for parkland. Why do so many people support the latter?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Boston put it underground.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Boston put it underground.


Yes they did. Monstrous cost over-runs, misjudgments and a cost of almost $US15 billion for less than 8 miles of highway. When completed, more than 70 per cent of Bostonians said the project wasn't worth it.


----------



## candan9019 (Jul 22, 2008)

broken_g3 said:


> And- why are so many championing Obama? He's the one who wants to terminate NAFTA and screw us over by doing so.


What difference would it make, the Americans rarely honor NAFTA anyways.

I might vote Green or just not vote. Dion is no leader, the liberals certainly weren't thinking when they chose him. I don't mind Steven Harper, although I disagree with his views, I just wish that he would control the childish and unprofessional behavior of some conservative MP's. My current MP is one of those and I refuse to vote for him.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

broken_g3 said:


> What's wrong with the Gardiner? The "eyesore" that the decaying road deck creates is nothing compared to the nightmare we'd have to endure if everyone was funneled onto Lakeshore Boulevard.


I don't think one needs to post an engineering report - just take a drive down there and watch the big chunks of concrete falling off. And what is with the east end of the Gardiner? They never did finish it because even while they were building it, they knew it sucked. But then, they are always driving on it to get everywhere in that FlashPoint show.

The Condos are perhaps the ugliest future-slums ever to grace this land. In comparison, Regent's Park is far more architechually pleasing. People support them because, well, many people are just brain damaged and would prefer to pay full price for something they don't own rather than paying rent.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

candan9019 said:


> What difference would it make, the Americans rarely honor NAFTA anyways.
> 
> I might vote Green or just not vote. Dion is no leader, the liberals certainly weren't thinking when they chose him. I don't mind Steven Harper, although I disagree with his views, I just wish that he would control the childish and unprofessional behavior of some conservative MP's. My current MP is one of those and I refuse to vote for him.


Everyone should get out an vote. Defeatists attitudes simply show the politicians that they can get away with anything. If you do not like your incumbent, vote Green and make your voice heard.

Even though by nature I am a social conservative, especially when it comes to law and order kinds of things; I have never voted Conservative (though I would have definitely voted for Lincoln Alexander if I had been of age when he was running).

This time around, I am kind of split between voting for our incumbent, who has a proven track record of fighting for this city and for sticking up for the rights of workers; or the Green Party candidate who has a proven track record of actually living a Green lifestyle in his use of recycling, reusing, repurposing, and attempting to limit his own use of fossil fuels. Both candidates do practice what they preach, so both are worthy.

As for the Liberals, they are still looking for someone. In the last election, they fronted a candidate that hates civilization and detests women's rights, which served him no good when it came to grabbing votes. Sure, the Taleban loved him all to bits.

The Conservatives had yet another no name candidate, just as they have had ever since Lincoln Alexander retired from Federal politics, though one did get in Provincally with her policies of selling influence and panhandling.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> I don't think one needs to post an engineering report - just take a drive down there and watch the big chunks of concrete falling off. And what is with the east end of the Gardiner? They never did finish it because even while they were building it, they knew it sucked. But then, they are always driving on it to get everywhere in that FlashPoint show.


You make it sound like the Gardiner is a Roman ruin, collapsing into oblivion because of its age. Though it would be cool to have an elevated highway held up by Corinthian columns, the fact of the matter is the Gardiner is decaying because Mayor Miller is an idiot and would rather waste money paying the TTC and city workers way more than they are worth as appose to infusing some money into infrastructure. And the east end of the gardiner was finished- brought all the way to Leslie Street as planned. It's just that the moronic Torontonians had that ripped down, so now it is no longer as functional as it was meant to be. 

And it's not just the Gardiner. Most of the city's streetcar tracks are nearly 100 years old- the wooden ties underneath are rotting. And has anyone gotten a look at Steeles Avenue? I've actually damaged my car driving along there because there are so many potholes. 

Anyways, I'll start a Gardiner-only thread later. This one is meant to discuss politics, not expressways.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Quick correction before going back to politics; actually, the Gardiner was never intended to stop at Leslie and serve as an unceremonious entranceway to the Beach - it was phase one of a plan to build a 400-series expressway cutting through Scarborough on a diagonal and link up to the 401. Said expressway never materialized. The resultant "Gardiner stump" saw only a fraction of the traffic that the main body of the highway sees - yet, being also elevated and exposed to the elements, cost a fortune to maintain year after year.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Max said:


> Quick correction before going back to politics; actually, the Gardiner was never intended to stop at Leslie and serve as an unceremonious entranceway to the Beach - it was phase one of a plan to build a 400-series expressway cutting through Scarborough on a diagonal and link up to the 401.


Yes; this was to be called the Scarborough Expressway. It was intended to be municipal, not 400-series. And it was only to be elevated up to Victoria Park Avenue; after that, there was a right-of-way ready to build it on. I drive by this vacant expressway corridor every time I visit my parents. 



Max said:


> Said expressway never materialized.


Because the city of Scarborough was afraid that the province would step in and cancel it, much like the Spadina Expressway. The difference between the two: the Spadina Expressway would have been a mistake, the Scarborough Expressway would have helped the East End in more ways than anyone could imagine. 



Max said:


> The resultant "Gardiner stump" saw only a fraction of the traffic that the main body of the highway sees - yet, being also elevated and exposed to the elements, cost a fortune to maintain year after year.


I don't know about that. When I used to live in the Beaches, I remember inching along either the Gardiner or Lakeshore boulevard every single bloody morning. And it cost 4 times as much to demolish it as appose to simply fixing it up a bit. Remember, this thing was built in the 1960s; it has not received any major maintenance since.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Everyone should get out an vote. Defeatists attitudes simply show the politicians that they can get away with anything. If you do not like your incumbent, vote Green and make your voice heard." An excellent point, Evan. On this, we are in total agreement.


----------



## candan9019 (Jul 22, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Everyone should get out an vote. Defeatists attitudes simply show the politicians that they can get away with anything.


Since moving back to Canada I have always made sure to vote, I suppose I'm just a bit disappointed in the lack of any real leadership in this country at present. Your right though it's not good to take on that attitude.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

broken_g3 said:


> You make it sound like the Gardiner is a Roman ruin, collapsing into oblivion because of its age.


Every time I am in Hogtown, some chunky bits are falling off of it, or they have lanes closed because they are trying to glue it back together. Not only because of age, but it was garbage from the day it was built. They built a similar monstrosity in Hamilton, but it never really went anywhere, and all of the traffic it was supposed to cope with vapourized when all of the industry flew the coop or went bankrupt.



> the fact of the matter is the Gardiner is decaying because Mayor Miller is an idiot and would rather waste money paying the TTC and city workers way more than they are worth as appose to infusing some money into infrastructure.


I doubt that Mayor Miller really had much to do with it, considering that it was falling apart in the 80's when I was driving to Hogtown on service calls. Nor do the Mayors make the decisions, that is left to the City Council, and it is they who should be blamed.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Every time I am in Hogtown, some chunky bits are falling off of it, or they have lanes closed because they are trying to glue it back together.


Personally, I've driven along the Gardiner since the day I got my license. I've noticed it's in bad shape, but I have never seen anything that could violate the structural integrity of the expressway. 



EvanPitts said:


> I doubt that Mayor Miller really had much to do with it, considering that it was falling apart in the 80's when I was driving to Hogtown on service calls. Nor do the Mayors make the decisions, that is left to the City Council, and it is they who should be blamed.


Yes, it was falling apart in the 80s, but it's gotten considerably worse (along with the rest of Toronto's roadways) since Mr. Miller took office. And you are completely right: City council should also receive some blame, but Mr. Miller is the lead voice in city council, and the majority of them do as he wishes, because the majority of them see his ideas as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Meanwhile, we have streetcar tracks that are warping, roads that are falling into severe disrepair, and an iconic expressway that is collapsing underneath our tires.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Dr. G,

I'm hearing rumours that Jack Harris might be running out your way.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Dr. G,
> 
> I'm hearing rumours that Jack Harris might be running out your way.


Pardon my ignorance, but who is Jack Harris? Mike's brother?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Paul, Jack Harris, former leader of the NL Provincial NDP Party, might win here in St.John's East if he runs. He won here once before in a by-election and would have my vote. We shall see.


----------

