# Ontario Election October 10 - How Are You Voting?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

A week from today, Ontarians are heading to the polls. How are you voting?*

*(if you live in Ontario - all you non-Ontarions, find your own thread)

P.S. When is ehMac going to fix the issue with constant time-outs when trying to post new threads? This is attempt #3.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> P.S. When is ehMac going to fix the issue with constant time-outs when trying to post new threads? This is attempt #3.


Sorry to get off from the main topic. ehMac.ca runs on a program called vBulletin. There is an add-on called vbSEO, which is a very effective search engine optimization program. Its suspected that this is slowing things down. 

I just read this information off of the vbSEO website:



> Big-Board Forums - Beta testers needed
> Hello all,
> 
> Yesterday we released the very first non-encrypted vBSEO build to our pre-release team members.
> ...


I have applied to be a beta tester, and hopefully with vbSEO updated, things will speed up again. 

My apologies for this problem over the past couple of months.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

This will be my first time voting since I just became a citizen a year and a half ago. I was really looking forward eagerly to this.

Unfortunately I have no idea whom to vote for since there does not seem to be any active canvassing or candidates trying to meet their voters. 

All they do is send pamphlets home which say pretty much nothing, or say how the other parties ****ed up. TV commercials or Radio advertisements also seem to be of the same kind.

I tried to watch the debate on TV, but then again, as usual the questions were never properly answered, the candidates always kept saying whatever they wanted irrespective of what the question really pertained to.

Well, at least party leaders debated on TV. The local candidates - all got from them was one pamphlet each. I of d=course do not expect them to come door-to-door asking for votes, but couldn't their office at least start calling their constituents and asking for their inputs or votes or something?

If that is also expecting too much, at least a schedule of their public appearances so that I can actually go myself and listen to them or ask a couple of questions myself or whatever... No, even that option is not there.

Don't the candidates really care at all? I know they just expect to sit on their arses and rake it in after they win, but do they just expect to sit on their arses and expect that the votes will roll in?

I am so confused and feeling a little sad that come election day, my vote is not going to mean much because it may as well be a case of eenie-meenie-mynie-moe and choosing whatever comes up.

Cheers


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

www.YourBigDecision.ca

www.votredecision.ca


----------



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

I intend to vote on Oct. 9th.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The election is just a few days away and I haven't received anything from anybody except a visit from the incumbent's canvasser about three weeks ago. You would figure it would be the wannabes who would be stuffing my mailbox and knocking on my door. Absolutely pathetic. What's worse, I didn't even know the other candidates running in this riding until I made the effort myself to look them up on the ElectionsOntario site.

All I can say is that Dalt 'the Dud' McGuinty has to go. We did well the last time in this riding by turfing the Lib and installing an NDP candidate. I think Tory deserves a chance this time around to lead the province, but in my riding the Cons don't stand a chance. I'll vote for the NDP again, just to keep the Liberals out.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

kps said:


> I think Tory deserves a chance...


to flip-flop on issues?

to leach money to private religions?

to slash and burn services?

Just asking....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> to flip-flop on issues?
> 
> to slash and burn services?


Par for the course for any candidate, or did you miss the last 4 years?



guytoronto said:


> to leach money to private religions?


I guess Catholic is a public religion now?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Par for the course for any candidate, or did you miss the last 4 years?


some of us still remember the mike harrris and ernie eaves "common sense revolution" which decimated Ontario

we're still paying for that one and I notice that mike and ernie are nowhere to be seen along side john "flip flop" tory

little conservative birds tell me that the best thing that could have happened to the Liberals in ON is Tory's flip flop on the public funding for private schools issue

yippe ka-yay mother.... (you know the rest)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I separate Ernie from Mike entirely. Ernie Eaves was just another hard-spending politician. I would be happy to vote for Mike Harris again if he were running.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I guess Catholic is a public religion now?


Dalton could earn a little credit by having a free vote on whether to continue supporting Catholic education. I would pressure my MPP to vote no.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Dalton could earn a little credit by having a free vote on whether to continue supporting Catholic education. I would pressure my MPP to vote no.


That would mean he would have to start paying extra for his kids education.  Not like he can't afford it with the nice pay hike he voted himself.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I opted for "I'm not voting for some lame reason."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> some of us still remember the mike harrris and ernie eaves "common sense revolution" which decimated Ontario
> 
> we're still paying for that one and I notice that mike and ernie are nowhere to be seen along side john "flip flop" tory
> 
> ...


You criticize him for supporting it, then you criticize him for changing his mind, which is what you wanted. And if you are going to call anyone flip flop, Mr.McGuinty has been a fish out of water for 4 years.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> I opted for "I'm not voting for some lame reason."


So...what's your lame reason?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> So...what's your lame reason?


I can't vote in Ontario. beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> some of us still remember the mike harrris and ernie eaves "common sense revolution" which decimated Ontario


I don't know about decimation? They did pull us out on the tempestuous years of Bob Rae's government, who, for the record, only enacted one fair law in four years, and that was to ban scabs during strikes. Rae gave us the bankrupcy of Ontario Hydro, and a host of other ills, not to mention all of the jobs that went AWOL in those years.

What I did not like about "the Common Sense Revolution" is that it did not go far enough, and the welfare slobs across the street still do not have to contribute to society (though they do contribute to their drug dealers and the the LCBO).

Dalton lied to us, and lied to us so well that he even bragged about it a number of times. He lied to us over 200 times, and that was out of the 250 promises that he made. Then he allowed his carpetbagger free reign to plunder cash money for the "good of the party". His government is probably the most inane government put together and has done so very little for the people that, yes, they will probably be reelected because John Tory committed the gaff of a lifetime. But it will be amusing because the Six Nations will be on the news for the next few years, until we elect someone with an actual brain cell or two to sort out the situation.



> little conservative birds tell me that the best thing that could have happened to the Liberals in ON is Tory's flip flop on the public funding for private schools issue


It was. The Fiberals loose on all counts; but Tory made his wishes quite clear. He wants to reopen the Constitution and bring the country into yet another referendum-crisis, in order to buy the votes of those who want to set up Al Qaida madrassas. He wants to attack the Catholics who compose one third of the population, probably because he is a Catholic-baiter trying to win the Klan vote. And he wants to see the creation of a morasse of corrupt and corruptable school boards that would not operate under the aegis of the Ministry of Education, in order to buy even more votes.

So the Fiberals, with their lies, corruption and acts of class warfare, win out over Tory who, in the pursuit of buying the pocket votes; looses the large block of Catholic voters, looses the large block of those who want a real education, and even looses the traditional voting base of the Heritage Front / KKK / Nazi right-wing nutcases. I bet that even the Heritage Front is voting Green this time!

As for me, I based my vote (which I cast at the Advance Poll already) on who I thought may actually stand up and speak out for The Hammer. The City suffered for too many years without representation, and the three dullards of the Fiberals did so very little for The City that none of them are running again, knowing that they would be wiped out at the polls on the 10th.

Where is Willie Davis when we need him??? (Or even better, Leslie Frost, the last Premier that was any good at his job).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I don't know about decimation? They did pull us out on the tempestuous years of Bob Rae's government


gee, I thought Peterson was in there for a few years between Rae and Harris


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Easy breakdown:

Conservatives - when you're broke, and don't know what to do
Liberals - when you have money, and want it spent
NDP - when you're broke, and want more money spent


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, I thought Peterson was in there for a few years between Rae and Harris


Where on Earth did you get that idea? I'd provide a link showing that Peterson preceded Rae but you'd probably try to discredit the source.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, I thought Peterson was in there for a few years between Rae and Harris


No... Davis retired, and Miller became the interim Premier. He lost the election in a minority situation, and for two years a Liberal-NDP coalition retained power under a binding agreement. Then Peterson won a mandate, but the situation in the province deteriorated significantly. People were pretty angry, mostly at Mr. Mulroney, but also angry in general. The Tories had put Grossman in as leader because of internal politics and the need to repay old political debts; so the NDP were unexpectly swept into power in probably the biggest protest vote yet.

Rae bungled his way because his party was not prepared to jockey the Big Blue Machine that is the Ontario Government. An early fatality was Peter Koromos who was (and is) the most popular member of the NDP. Rae made this mistake a number of times, ejecting much of the braintrust of the party in the first year; then having to create a Cabinet out of the dross of the back benches.

Also, a number of scandals, the bankruptcy of Ontario Hydro, and a number of maladies derailed his ministry. Lets say that the main problem was Rae himself, who was good at dishing it out to the government when he was in opposition; but who was too much of a renegade and could not gain control over the administration.

Harris was an outsider who took over the Tory machinery because the old guard had all been destroyed in the years of infighting, and some broadsided by the scandals of Mulroney. He had a chance to start with a clean slate, and did so, recruiting any numbr of talented people. His Common Sense Revolution did work in so many ways; but it also brought out all of the defects into plain sight; and a number of important fights were lost in the process. That leads us to his early retirement, and the interim government of Eves, who was not as committed a Conservative as Harris was. I think that the friction between Harris and Eves propelled the Cabinet in those first two terms, and that the retirement of Eves left Harris without a sounding board. So when Harris retired and Eves took over, Eves was afflicted with the same loss of a sounding board. He lost to the Liberals because the Liberals put out their platform (of which they mostly have not accomplished any of it) and the Liberals found a source of money not controlled by the Toronto Club.

So it was Davis - Miller - Peterson (Lib-NDP Coalition) - Peterson (Mandate) - Rae - Harris - Eves - McGuinty, for the record.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

Mr. Tory is not all he seems to be. Be very careful! Many forget the recent Mayor's race here in TO.

Sometimes your better off with the devil you know. 

My local liberal candidate is thick as a brick. If I don't decline my ballot this time I'll be holding my nose as I cast my ballot. 

As they say "If it's not Broten don't fix it"


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

dwp said:


> Mr. Tory is not all he seems to be. Be very careful! Many forget the recent Mayor's race here in TO.


Didn't we hear this fear mongering with Stephen Harper? 

And do you really think Tory wouldn't be doing a better job than Miller time? Can't wait for Torontonians to vote Miller in for the 3-peat and for the city to go bankrupt.:lmao:


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

Sadly I'm voting for Dalton. Tory and his flip flop on school funding (not that I supported that, but if he held his ground he would have had my respect) sort of turned me off of him.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Didn't we hear this fear mongering with Stephen Harper?


Yes we did and he got a minority government which was perfect.





JumboJones said:


> And do you really think Tory wouldn't be doing a better job than Miller time? Can't wait for Torontonians to vote Miller in for the 3-peat and for the city to go bankrupt.:lmao:


A three year tax freeze in Toronto courtesy of the appliance salesman didn't help matters any, but it sure helped Mel Lastman get elected now didn't it! And we're paying for it now along with the silly Sheppard subway line that leads straight to the heart of Melsville. Who ever allowed that to happen should pay for that mistake personally.

Do you think Tory would run the province any differently than he ran Rogers? That's just what Ontario needs is the Rogers Management Style! And people thought Mike Harris was rotten. It would be interesting though to see him layoff a province if they don't turn a profit in three months.

I just wonder if John Tory loses the election and his seat will he try running federally? Tory for the Tories! Now there's a campaign slogan!:yawn:

I'm sure Stephen Harper is losing sleep over that threat.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

8127972 said:


> Sadly I'm voting for Dalton. Tory and his flip flop on school funding (not that I supported that, but if he held his ground he would have had my respect) sort of turned me off of him.


Tory flip-flopped on wearing glasses! He looked far more intelligent when he had glasses, but then, Bob Rae did, and look at what that donkey was like...

I think a vote for Dalton is a sign of support for lies and deceit, and the further destruction of this province. He panders to any special interest that puts cash in his pocket. It is a crime that he allowed over $140 Million to be spent in Caledonia. We could have just given that cash directly to the First Nations as a bribe, it would have been more honourable that giving it to the scalawags that follow Dalton's carpetbagger around.

I think the more ethical vote is to vote for the Green Party, because at least they have some concerns. No real plans, just concerns mind you. Or perhaps the NDP because maybe, just maybe, they would bring back the only good and progressive piece of legislation, that eliminating scabs during strikes. It is my opinion that if a place is so poorly run and morraly corrupt that the workers would rather walk a picket line for $50 a week - the company and it's owners deserve the punishment. Besides, it made for a pretty interesting situation in Baseball when the Jays did not field a team.

Voting for Tory is a sin, but voting for Dalton is voting for sin. Better to be on the top when fournicating with the devil.

Besides, Tory running Federally??? He'd be eaten alive my the Western Reformers and the Atlantic Tory Machine, not to mention the remaining Social Creditistes in Quebec. The only thing he had going for him is his name, and if he decided to cross the house, he'd have to change his name to Grit or Commie...


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I think a vote for Dalton is a sign of support for lies and deceit, and the further destruction of this province. He panders to any special interest that puts cash in his pocket.


If you think the Liberals have a monopoly on bending the truth or chasing what you call "special interests," then brother give your head a shake. Read some books. Politics 'aint pretty. And that's just the way it has always been. Otherwise, we'd all be reading in the Classics section about some golden age when politics were ethical and pure, lead by men of impeccable character. 

Politics is the art of the possible. And the best we can hope for in this world is that we elect people who try to do the right thing. Sure, sometimes doing that right thing can be easy and popular. Like, say, cutting taxes. But eventually the easy choices are overtaken by difficult ones. And that's when the mettle of ideas are really tested. 

I'm not saying that the Tories have it all wrong. But I do think that to earn the privilege of governing, a party needs to do a whole lot more than be disingenuous with the notion that they are somehow more principled than their opponent, or that their solution to problems is to simply not do what the other guy has been doing.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't care if we change the party in power ever 4 years until someone gets it right. Personally I don't think anyone should reward the Liberals with their vote for their continual disreguard of us tax payers. If we can't hold them accountable during their reign then we have to do it at election time.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> to flip-flop on issues?
> 
> to leach money to private religions?
> 
> ...


How is offering a free vote in parliament a "flip-flop"? Believe me Guy, I would prefer one funding formula and that being _public_ in the true sense of the word. No Catholic, no Jewish, no Islamic, no religious schools...period. 

McGuinty is a liar, a thief and a hypocrite. Tory may be too, but we wont know this until he's elected.:lmao:


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I enjoy a good exchange of ideas about politics, but when I see opinions erroneously being portrayed as facts, I kinda feel obligated to speak up...



EvanPitts said:


> Then Peterson won a mandate, but the situation in the province deteriorated significantly.


Really? That's funny. Because the facts tell us that Ontario was registering a respectable 3.9 GDP growth during that period of minority rule. Some economists contend that the roots of the 1990-1991 worldwide recession were in place as far back as 1987, but you're kidding yourself if you think that Ontario's troubles--which really kicked in in 1990--were just limited to this province. 




EvanPitts said:


> The Tories had put Grossman in as leader because of internal politics and the need to repay old political debts; so the NDP were unexpectly swept into power in probably the biggest protest vote yet.


Grossman was defeated in 1987 after seeing his party cratered by a -69.2% drop in seats. Ontario general election, 1987 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andy Brandt was the party's interim leader until a leadership election was held in 1990, at which time Mike Harris took over. 

In the 1990 campaign, what started as a supposed shoo-in for the Liberals ended up being a total train wreck for that party. Among the most common reasons cited at the time were: Meech Lake, the Patti Starr scandal, and Peterson's unbelievable arrogance. Re-ascension of Conservatives was not a factor. Yet.




EvanPitts said:


> Rae bungled his way because his party was not prepared to jockey the Big Blue Machine that is the Ontario Government.


The Big Blue Machine was a moniker given to describe the Ontario Conservative Party's election strategists and grassoots team. It is not a synonym for the Ontario public service.



EvanPitts said:


> An early fatality was Peter Koromos who was (and is) the most popular member of the NDP. Rae made this mistake a number of times, ejecting much of the braintrust of the party in the first year; then having to create a Cabinet out of the dross of the back benches.


Kormos was a Friday afternoon sideshow. The real trouble for Rae started as soon as he started governing--recognizing that given the lengthy list of promises he had campaigned on he'd never be able be able to deliver. And so began the backslide...public auto insurance...labour reform...anti-poverty initiatives...inherent right to self-government for First Nations...the list goes on and on...



EvanPitts said:


> His Common Sense Revolution did work in so many ways; but it also brought out all of the defects into plain sight; and a number of important fights were lost in the process. That leads us to his early retirement, and the interim government of Eves, who was not as committed a Conservative as Harris was.


Harris resigned because he recognized that his polarizing politics made him a likely loser at the polls. He knew it and was smart enough to hand the sorry mess to a successor.

Here's what polling firm Ipsos-Reid was reporting back in 2003:

"In June 2003, Ipso-Reid released a poll indicating a large lead in support for the Liberal Party, with the Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats in second and third place, respectively. The following are some of the results from that poll."

Party Support
Liberals
48%
Progressive Conservatives
35%
New Democrats
14%

That successor, Ernie Eves, did all he could to distance himself from Harris and the so-called Common Sense Revolution because the wheels had completely fallen off that political vehicle. After years of tax cuts at the expense of public services (and at the expense of...let's face it...common sense), the chickens came home to roost in the form of a blistering multi-billion deficit that was amassed when (pop quiz!) who was Minister of Finance? Ding! Ernie Eves (Jun 1995 - Feb 2001). 

Here's Ernie in 2000, claiming to have cut the deficit to $1 billion:
Provincial deficit reduced again

Fast forward a few years to this:
"...in 2003, an independent review of Ontario’s finances concluded 
that the Province was on track to post a significant deficit in 2003–04, which has since been confirmed to have been $5.5 billion."
http://www.ontariobudget.ca/english/pdf/chpt2.pdf

Either a 4.5 billion deficit was generated in less than 36 months, or somebody wasn't being straight with the numbers.


----------



## UnleashedLive (Aug 9, 2004)

There's an election?....whaaaa.....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

(( p g )) said:


> Really? That's funny. Because the facts tell us that Ontario was registering a respectable 3.9 GDP growth during that period of minority rule. Some economists contend that the roots of the 1990-1991 worldwide recession were in place as far back as 1987, but you're kidding yourself if you think that Ontario's troubles--which really kicked in in 1990--were just limited to this province.


GDP was respectable during the Coalition, but unravelled during Peterson's Mandate. By the time Rae got in, the boat was already sinking. Our problems were rooted in the 1980-81 Recession; from which The Hammer never has recovered from. Stelco went on strike and is now practicaly defunct; and the bus service went on strike, and is only now making a bit of a recovery. Our problems in this City were certainly more severe than in the province; and this province was more severely hit than the other provinces. It is then that we went from being a "have" to a "have not" province. Peterson and Rae certainly did not help things, as they scared the boys at Bay and Richmond. It also helped that Mulroney attempted to put the province out of business.



> Grossman was defeated in 1987 after seeing his party cratered by a -69.2% drop in seats.


I stand corrected. I thought that Grossman survived until the Rae election. He was too "red" for the party.



> In the 1990 campaign, what started as a supposed shoo-in for the Liberals ended up being a total train wreck for that party. Among the most common reasons cited at the time were: Meech Lake, the Patti Starr scandal, and Peterson's unbelievable arrogance. Re-ascension of Conservatives was not a factor. Yet.


Peterson caved in to Mulroney at Meech Lake, and even tried to give away our Senate seats. He wasn't too popular with the APEC people in Brockville, as I recall. And I clear forgot about Patti Starr - that was quite the scandal, even bigger than the Clitheroe scandal.



> The Big Blue Machine was a moniker given to describe the Ontario Conservative Party's election strategists and grassoots team. It is not a synonym for the Ontario public service.


No, but since Geroge Drew devised the Machine, and it reigned for 42 years - the public service was, at least at the upper echelons, Big and Blue. I don't think that the Liberals and NDP were able to clear it all out. The Liberals had a single term and Peterson was too dim to figure it out; while the NDP lacked the connections to talent and face it, Rae got Maurice Strong in to "fix" Ontario Hydro, which is now completely and utterly defunct. Well, except for the money we owe on its bankrupcy. Adam Beck would have vomited at what they did. They ate at least a billion dollars of luncheon sandwiches...



> Harris resigned because he recognized that his polarizing politics made him a likely loser at the polls. He knew it and was smart enough to hand the sorry mess to a successor.


I think it was more basic and primal than that - I think he wanted to score with his girlfriend, who was the Chairman of TVO. At least to get a few good years of scorin in until the Viagra Years. I think he got tired of all of the whiners and figured that ten years was good enough. Some leaders are like that, Diocletian retired as Emperor of Rome to settle down and farm lettice in Yugoslavia...

There was a mess; but it was because Harris decided not to stick to his guns. He went up against the Teacher's Federation and somehow lost. When Reagan took on an out of control union - he decertified them and fired the lot. Now we are stuck with the craziest education system ever conceived. But at least they got rid of Grade 13 again; now many students get two years of Grade 12...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I wish David Suzuki created his own party and would run for office.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACinist said:


> I wish David Suzuki created his own party and would run for office.


Why? So he can promote more energy-saving lightbulbs?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I saw a tv ad yesterday that stated something like ( I paraphrase from memory ); "John Tory and his neo conservatives.."

Does that make the ad anti-semitic?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I saw a tv ad yesterday that stated something like ( I paraphrase from memory ); "John Tory and his neo conservatives.."
> 
> Does that make the ad anti-semitic?


Good god, who can I slap about all the "oooo....that could be anti-semitic" crap.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Good god, who can I slap about all the "oooo....that could be anti-semitic" crap.


Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Why? So he can promote more energy-saving lightbulbs?


.. it wouldn't hurt but if you listened to what he actually talks about, I'm more referring to his stance that ecological and economical goals should complement each other in order to have truly sustainable development, when in fact it seems to be more a case of ecology vs. economy at the moment.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Don't feed the trolls.


Can I slap them?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I won't respond to Spec's trolling.

MACinist: That looks roughly like the Ontario Green Party platform, which I very much like and could support--if it weren't for its emphasis on the environment.


----------



## pictor (Jan 29, 2007)

I am voting for McGuinty in part because, well, I am in Ottawa South, he's my liberal candidate. Ultimately, whatever party lines I support, I think it's important for a party to have their leader in the caucus. If I were not in Ottawa South, I would not be sure if I favour the liberals, or the NDP. I lean NDP ethically, but I don't think they would make a good government. What I would prefer, is an NDP opposition, and a fiscally prudent liberal government.....if I could pick.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

pictor said:


> I am voting for McGuinty in part because, well, I am in Ottawa South, he's my liberal candidate.


So if he gets in by one vote, we can blame you! A vote against him and his defeat in his home riding would send the strongest message - that the Citizens will hold the leader accountable. Not that McGuinty went too far out of the way to engage in acts of corruption, but he did have the power, the power to eject Sorbara from the Cabinet and from the Government. It is this one act that proves that Dalton has absolutely no integrity. Sure, Sorbara got off, found "not guilty" by the courts; but then again, we know exactly what the courts in this country do... Not guilty just means that the judge was purchased by the defence team, and it is not so different from the same crummy system that put innocent people in jail, and puts murderers back into the community. Dalton had the choice, and he chose to engage in sinning against the people that he swore an oath to defend and protect.



> I think it's important for a party to have their leader in the caucus.


But the President of the Liberal Party is not an elected official sitting as an MPP, but rather, a functionary elected by the party...



> government. What I would prefer, is an NDP opposition, and a fiscally prudent liberal government.....if I could pick.


Fiscally prudent Liberal??? Sounds like you want a Red Tory government like Bill Davis had. I think that would work: abolish the Fiberals altogether; and have the NDP as the official opposition to the Conservatives. Works in England, well, sort of... Why do we have so many parties anyways???


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Why do we have so many parties anyways???


better to have one party like in the former USSR?
I'm sure the boys and girls at the Fraser Institute and the current PMO would love that idea, as it appears you do as well

dozvidanya tovarich !!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I would rather we had three or more parties than the polarizing weirdness of two main parties and nothing but fringe stuff on the sidelines. Democraps and Rethuglicans - well, we almost have it just as bad here... so what's the diff? So... maybe I have to try and rank it all somehow.

OK - one party is really bad.

Just two parties is terrible.

So many parties you can't keep track of who's running for what is terrible.

Hmmm... I am depressing myself.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Democraps and Rethuglicans... so what's the diff?


I guess I got through to you, huh Max?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Don't flatter yourself, MF. By the way... your ego is showing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> By the way... your ego is showing.


So it is...a fine sight, really.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Only a few days to go now. Still waiting for the Mensa party to sweep into power and introduce Pon Far legislation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "outraged citizen" ads produced by the Conesrvativeshave really got me laughing,


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GT, please explain what in the heck "Pon Far" means. Don't make me google it. It's Sunday morning and I've not finished my java yet.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> ...introduce _Pon Far_ legislation.


Tsk tsk. He didn't spell it correctly.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

[asked suspiciously]

Is this some kind of Star Trek reference?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: well, now that you've gotten this far...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Max said:


> [asked suspiciously]
> 
> Is this some kind of Star Trek reference?


*** TANGENT ALERT ***



> Pon farr
> Main article: Pon farr
> 
> Periodically every seven years for males and bonded females, Vulcans experience an overpowering mating drive known as pon farr. Once triggered, Vulcans must have sexual contact with someone, preferably their mate, or else face insanity and death.
> ...


pon far star trek - Google Search


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Now I remember... T'pau and the whole battle scene... yeah, great scoring, as I recall.

Allow me a few more hours to determine the connection between that and the upcoming election.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Here's why I didn't vote for the Conservatives
- negative campaigning - that really bugs me. The Liberals ran a relatively clean campaign this time. Maybe because they're the incumbent party, who knows? Whenever a party campaigns with attack ads, it tells me they are covering up their own lack of vision.
- The Tories keep assuming that McGuinty's broken promises are important. I wouldn't vote for a party because they promise trivial things like "no new taxes". I want a government that runs the province effectively - if tax increases are necessary to run the province effectively, then they are necessary. It doesn't matter that McGuinty promised no taxes and then introduced the health premium - especially since that promise was based on the previous "surplus" that the Conservatives lied about. Politicians promise a lot of things - it's up to us to think for ourselves what promise matters and what doesn't. I don't care if a politician breaks a promise like that.
- Tory promised $1.5 billion in new health care funding, but then said he'll get rid of the health premium. So he's taking money out of the health care system, and then will magically provide $1.5 billion in new funding. The problem is he has no idea where this money will come from. If Tory said, I'll take the health premium away and integrate in our provincial income taxe, then he'd score more points with me.
- Tory tried to distract us with stupid things like beer in convenience stores. Does he think this is an important issue? It's an insult to my intelligence if he thinks I'm going to get excited about something so trivial.
- The faith based schools nonsense. He did absolutely no research into this. He assumed that everyone would go for this without even knowing for sure. I think we should get rid of the Catholic school board too, but no politician has the guts to take that on. Having two publically funded school systems is a waste, let alone more. Not to mention that religion has no place in a pubicly funded school system.

The conservatives either haven't said what they really want to do in government, or have made irrelevant promises or promises with no information that we can judge whether they are realistic.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hayesk said:


> Here's why I didn't vote for the Conservatives
> - negative campaigning - that really bugs me. The Liberals ran a relatively clean campaign this time.


I guess you missed the Liberal attack ads, they don't even show McGuinty's face in the new ones, must be hard fitting two faces on the screen.



hayesk said:


> The Tories keep assuming that McGuinty's broken promises are important. I wouldn't vote for a party because they promise trivial things like "no new taxes".


I'm glad you have money.



hayesk said:


> I want a government that runs the province effectively - if tax increases are necessary to run the province effectively, then they are necessary. It doesn't matter that McGuinty promised no taxes and then introduced the health premium


I guess you missed how they wasted money on things like fighting autistic kids parents in court, or fighting the 407 lost cause how about the Ontario logo redesign? Real effective.



hayesk said:


> especially since that promise was based on the previous "surplus" that the Conservatives lied about.


He signed his pledge AFTER he saw the results of an audit that shown the deficit. 



hayesk said:


> Politicians promise a lot of things - it's up to us to think for ourselves what promise matters and what doesn't. I don't care if a politician breaks a promise like that.


A promise, try over 200.



hayesk said:


> Tory promised $1.5 billion in new health care funding, but then said he'll get rid of the health premium. So he's taking money out of the health care system, and then will magically provide $1.5 billion in new funding. The problem is he has no idea where this money will come from. If Tory said, I'll take the health premium away and integrate in our provincial income taxe, then he'd score more points with me.


More than likely the tax would stay, but I'm sure he is spending the current surplus money on this one.



hayesk said:


> The faith based schools nonsense. He did absolutely no research into this. He assumed that everyone would go for this without even knowing for sure. I think we should get rid of the Catholic school board too, but no politician has the guts to take that on. Having two publically funded school systems is a waste, let alone more. Not to mention that religion has no place in a pubicly funded school system.


So then why continue with the current system if it isn't fair? Why can't other faith based schools become as productive and respected as our catholic system? A system that McGuinty himself used and still uses for his children.



hayesk said:


> The conservatives either haven't said what they really want to do in government, or have made irrelevant promises or promises with no information that we can judge whether they are realistic.


Go to their website and read. Unfortunately TV ads that say what you are going to do don't work, people need shock and awe to sway decisions. 

I still don't see how anyone thinks rewarding McDouchbag with another term in office is the right thing. I'd like a job where I can F*%k up, vote myself a raise and still come back to it for another 4 years. I guess I should find a job in Parlement, or be a part of a union.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Here's why I didn't vote for the Conservatives
> - negative campaigning - that really bugs me.


I think negative campagning makes it all the more interesting. I recall the brutality of the Chuck Schumer ads and thought that we really do need that kond of campaign here. I would like to be more informed about the corruption, back room deals and payola that McGuilty and his carpetbaggers have engaged in. I would like to know how their government saw fit to grant land titles on land they did not own; and I would like to know where the $140 Million has dissappeared to in Caledonia. Either their should be more mudslinging, or a "Big Brother" style election system...



> Whenever a party campaigns with attack ads, it tells me they are covering up their own lack of vision.


The Fiberal ads all make Dalton look like a retard. He is still promising to abolish coal fired power plants but can not say what they will do to provide enough power to the province. Perhaps he and his scalawags think that cold fusion is the answer. But then again, the John Tory ads show him with a purplisn hue, though perhaps it is just the local TV station with their colours all screwed up. Attack ads rule; and perhaps instead of a debate, they should have a duel, like the one Kirk got into on Star Trek...



> The Tories keep assuming that McGuinty's broken promises are important. I wouldn't vote for a party because they promise trivial things like "no new taxes". I want a government that runs the province effectively - if tax increases are necessary to run the province effectively, then they are necessary. It doesn't matter that McGuinty promised no taxes and then introduced the health premium


And then they stole all of the money from the Municipalities in order to hide their real deficit. If the Fiberals are reelected, it proves that the citizens of this province do not really care about corruption; and it will be a free reign of the developers paving over all of the remaining farmland.



> Tory promised $1.5 billion in new health care funding...


No one ever addressed the real problem of health care - the official corruption that sees hospital CEOs loot the treasury while patients suffer on stretchers in hallways. Perhaps it is not a province-wide phenomenon, but in The Hammer, this kind of corruption has been going on for far too long. And the same looting goes on in HydroOne and the other boondoggles in this province. No wonder why it is bankrupt, and no matter what is promised and what money is pumped into the system, the people that need the help will never get help because it will simply be siphoned off into corruption.



> He assumed that everyone would go for this without even knowing for sure. I think we should get rid of the Catholic school board too, but no politician has the guts to take that on. Having two publically funded school systems is a waste, let alone more. Not to mention that religion has no place in a pubicly funded school system.


So you are an advocate of deporting Catholics? Since you are such a strong advocate of not letting Catholics have an education; do you think that they should be an ignorant and enslaved people? Or perhaps a system of special labour camps to reeducate the Catholics?

This province does not need to dabble in the school board system. They already tinkered with it and ruined it. We used to have two public school boards in this county; they merged it and now it is a colossal empire of corruption. Bigger school boards were supposed to be cheaper to run and better. Instead, they cost far more, are far more corrupt, and are yet another boondoggle. Same with their other schemes, like the cash wasted at HydroOne... 

We have, in this country, a Constitutional Instrument that guarantees the rights of the citizen, and the abolition of the Separate school system would be against the rights so guaranteed. But the powers that be could invoke the Notwithstanding Clause, and allow a full one third of the population of this province to be denied the right of education. I would say that that is indeed and act of segregation and apartheid; which are policies that are denied under our Charter protection, notwithstanding.

As Canadians, we point fingers at other nations for discrimination; then attempt to practice it in our own back yard. Perhaps we can learn from the Swiss, who are now reconsidering their own "liberal democracy".


----------



## Crewser (Jun 12, 2007)

kps said:


> I think Tory deserves a chance this time


I suppose you may be to young to remember how badly the Tories cut services. Of course all three major parties have had a chance and well depending on your point of view, all fouled things up.

I think the important aspect of this election is the Referendum. We now get a chance to either say yes we want to change how the elections are run, or say no we like the current system just fine.

I certainly will be casting a ballot for the Referendum and provincial election.

Steve


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

Crewser said:


> I suppose you may be to young to remember how badly the Tories cut services.


I thought that was the Liberals job? 

I am voting conservative because I have friends and some family members who work in the medical field and have said since McGuinty and his sh*t eating party came 2 light our healthcare has gotten worse. Many students were pretty pissed off to find out that clown deiced it was a good idea to lift the tuition freeze. I guess he accidentally gave the cricket club an additional $1 million when they only asked for $150,00 instead of spending it on more important things


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This is interesting information and it certainly changes my voting inclinations. I had no idea McGinty and his entire party consumed fecal matter. This revelation changes everything.


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

Max said:


> This is interesting information and it certainly changes my voting inclinations. I had no idea McGinty and his entire party consumed fecal matter. This revelation changes everything.


You learn something new everyday!


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> pon far star trek - Google Search


Just when I'm about to give up on this thread, someone comes along and restores my faith in the power of geekery. Thank you for this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> This is interesting information and it certainly changes my voting inclinations. I had no idea McGinty and his entire party consumed fecal matter. This revelation changes everything.


If they could prove they do this, then our problem with biosolids would be solved. They could have my vote!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, and wouldn't _that_ be a special day! For its rarity alone it could be an entry in the Guiness Book of Records.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Any guesses to how well this poll will compare to actual results?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Any guesses to how well this poll will compare to actual results?


I kept hearing the words... "Minority government"...all day...I dunno...It's possible,
What are the odds in having two minority governments.

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not what the polls are indicating..had Tory not face planted so badly indeed I would have guessed minority but polls certainly indicate a majority for McGuinty tho not of the Danny Williams calibre.  70%










I'm more curious if the referendum will pass or how close. My guess is it won't 

I figured the Libs had lots of votes in my area and the Green guy is okay here so I gave them my vote this time.

Four parties does make for interesting times.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was talking to an industry colleague the other night. He said that the best thing that could happen in the two weeks prior to an election would be to make polling (or more importantly, broadcasting of poll results) illegal. I think that's a stimulating idea. Man, there's a lot of noise to signal in the weeks and days leading up to a day like today.

Almost voted green myself. Voted NDP because our guy here has done a not half-bad job representing our area. Couldn't stomach the notion of rewarding the libs for all those broken promises and general lameness, and couldn't vote for the conservatives thanks to their religious funding stance and the can of worms that would open up. Not many positive reasons to vote for anything, I know. But I was glad to vote all the same.

Voted against in the referendum. I feel it was very poorly explained and I didn't dig how it would probably result in yet another layer of administrative fat in our system.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'm more curious if the referendum will pass or how close. My guess is it won't


Probably not. Most people oppose change. MMP was a tough sell. Confusing to the average drone. Oh well, maybe they'll try again in 4 years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I was talking to an industry colleague the other night. He said that the best thing that could happen in the two weeks prior to an election would be to make polling (or more importantly, broadcasting of poll results) illegal. I think that's a stimulating idea.


why.....little too much herd instinct in the genes there Max?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Don't understand the jab, MD. Please clarify.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Max said:


> I was talking to an industry colleague the other night. He said that the best thing that could happen in the two weeks prior to an election would be to make polling (or more importantly, broadcasting of poll results) illegal.


I disagree. The best thing that could happen would be to bar idiots from voting. How many times have you heard "My family always votes NDP, so I do to" or "I don't know who to vote for, so I just check off the first name".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think we're actually on the same side. I am talking precisely about people who vote without thinking, or who vote because they're in a fever pitch over some perceived horse race. I think if you were to dampen all of the pointless speculation (and the spectacle it plays up as) it might actually encourage Joe and Josephine Q. Voter to actually think before they vote - as opposed to blandly parking it where dear old daddy habitually did.

Or maybe not. But as far as I'm concerned it's still an experiment worthy of being conducted.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow fast call



> CTV projects Liberal win in Ontario election
> 
> Updated Wed. Oct. 10 2007 9:26 PM ET
> 
> ...


••

Just asking you to defend your little frisson there Max.


----------



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

Are the NDP gaining in seats or voter percentage? I think the proportional representation vote referendum is going to go down to defeat. Here in NL, in yesterday's election, the PC's won 90% of the seats with 70% of the vote.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Voter percentage - Greens and NDP are up ( so far )

Libs down a bit and Conservatives well down - again so far.

I think perhaps a number did as I did - voted Green or perhaps NDP in safe Liberal ridings.

Tory may not win his seat - he is trailing tho not by much and very few polls.

Tory lost this election the Libs did not win it, they just did not do anything wrong.

Currently Lib leading in 65  versus 26 for PC,

••
Referendum sunk big time ....65% against.

••

72 to 24.....opening up now.

and ANOTHER provincial election announced ........ Saskatchewan for Nov 7th..........


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Good grief, the PCs really screwed up this election. Not only did they manage to alienate a massive percentage of voters, they actually drove people into the arms of the Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

John Tory lost his seat bid as well.

Interesting that we have some regional mandates ( tho not in Quebec ) with a minority Fed.

Now about Toronto........


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The voters have endorsed the many lies of McGuinty and his sham artists; now hopefully the voters will pitch out the MMP voting garbage before McGuilty's carpetbaggers can contrive some diabolical system, once and for all.

This province will suffer in the next four years. All of those many issues that were not handled by the Fiberals will come to the forefront, and we will all say "why did we vote them back in?" The clock is counting until: we run out of hydro, heath care is privatized, taxes are raised significantly, every child is transported to school right from the hospital of their birth, more traffic on the roads, gridlock, road deaths with no punishments for the criminals who commit road murders, and Caledonia is in flames. It should be a pretty entertaining four years.

So now I am considering the pros and cons of moving to Newfoundland. So far a long list of pros, and only two cons, cold rainy weather and fog...

From what they are saying on the radio, the retards in The Hammer have decided to only return one worthy candidate to the Legislature - the rest of the ragga-muffs will follow the sorry footsteps of their predecessors in doing absolutely nothing. Well, one of them did sing a little ditty from Gilbert & Sullivan.

Toronto is right - Hamilton should just be bombed. Time to get it over with, because McGuinty will do absolutely everything in his power to ruin what is left of The Hammer.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The voters have endorsed the many lies of McGuinty and his sham artists; now hopefully the voters will pitch out the MMP voting garbage before McGuilty's carpetbaggers can contrive some diabolical system, once and for all.
> 
> This province will suffer in the next four years. All of those many issues that were not handled by the Fiberals will come to the forefront, and we will all say "why did we vote them back in?" The clock is counting until: we run out of hydro, heath care is privatized, taxes are raised significantly, every child is transported to school right from the hospital of their birth, more traffic on the roads, gridlock, road deaths with no punishments for the criminals who commit road murders, and Caledonia is in flames. It should be a pretty entertaining four years.
> 
> ...


no, the voters saw thru tory and his stupidity on his stance and then flip flop on the public funding for faith based school issue

he lost his bid to be mayor of the hawg and now his bid to become MPP and premier of Ontario

stick a fork in him, he's done

lots of money has been spent on Tory's dream of attaining public office

obviously the people don't want him to lead


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Tory had this one coming--I would have gladly voted for him except for that one stupid education issue he promoted over the advice of his caucus. McGuinty didn't get my vote either. Painful, strategic voting.

Glad to see MMP going down in rich flames.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Tory and his advisors made a huge blunder, alright... in many ways I think it was his election to lose. I mean, it's not as if the majority of Ontarians actually _like_ McGuinty and his record. I actually have a lot of respect for Tory as he has been quite calmly consistent and deliberate in his policies. But this was the decision which may be the one to cost him any more great strides in his political career.

As for MMP, if there's impetus to actually change the system, the question will come back. Perhaps they have to better make the case. Tough job, given the voter apathy in this province.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Max said:


> Tory and his advisors made a huge blunder, alright... in many ways I think it was his election to lose. I mean, it's not as if the majority of Ontarians actually _like_ McGuinty and his record. I actually have a lot of respect for Tory as he has been quite calmly consistent and deliberate in his policies. But this was the decision which may be the one to cost him any more great strides in his political career.


Consistent? For all his yammering about broken promises, Tory broke his main (if stupid) promise before the campaign was over. This is not "consistency" - this is going whichever way the wind blows. He had his defeat, party and personal, coming.



Max said:


> As for MMP, if there's impetus to actually change the system, the question will come back. Perhaps they have to better make the case. Tough job, given the voter apathy in this province.


Agreed. To me the main failure of the offered MMP plan was that is actually *increased* the number of politicians like a contagious disease.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I still think he has been, on the main, consistent. What sunk him was his disastrous decision to be hugely inconsistent on one rather glaring and controversial subject.

Ah well. Already no doubt the long knives are being sharpened. Heard on the CBC this morning as I was doing my exercises that there'll be a move from the right side of the conservatives to ditch Tory and replace him with someone more deeply blue so as to better differentiate that politico from the middling masses who huddle around the liberals. But of course it _was_ the CBC doing the speculation, so...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> no, the voters saw thru tory and his stupidity on his stance and then flip flop on the public funding for faith based school issue


In these parts, the voters were mostly retards. At least we have one representative of the citizens elected; but that will do little to counteract the two carpetbaggers, that is, if the one Fiberal scalawag managed to beat out the NDP. The Hammer needed a voice, and I am sure that the NDP will be busy trying to do some good for this town. Guaranteed the Fiberals will do nothing, as they have done nothing for forty years. Did you know that the Studebaker Plant in Hamilton is still available!!!

Tory blundered and I would not be surprised to see him gone in short order. He couldn't even win his riding (over a lame duck who is the tool of the teacher's federation). He was sure that he wanted to attack the Catholics with his brand of bigotry, and he was sure to attack those in this province who have a patriotic zeal and sent the message that they do not want the Constitution to be tampered with. Those were his votes to loose, and loose he did. But then again, I thought that with a socialist like him, the voters and party would reject his brand of Red Toryism. We need a real Conservative, if only Leslie Frost could be brought back from the grave.



> lots of money has been spent on Tory's dream of attaining public office
> obviously the people don't want him to lead


Tory himself does not want to lead. When someone spouts off such flim-flam as to show his cards: his bigotted attacks on Catholics; his attacks on patriotism; and even his attacks on Conservatism. No wonder why the Big Blue Machine chose to toss him to the dogs.

Unfortunately, I do not think that The Hammer can actually survive four or five more years of McGuinty's Carpetbaggers. Available - Cheap - a Studebaker Factory...


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Toronto is the biggest loser today. John Tory loves the city and he did have some plans to help things out. McSquinty? Yeah, won't be holding my breath waiting for him to do something concrete. By the time he's finished his term Toronto will be bankrupt or empty as businesses close or flee.

I was all set to vote against Tory. When he said he'd allow a free vote on the religious school issue I said okay. I figure there's no way that would ever go through. As for Tory being a flipper before the election, fine by me. I'd rather that than being told bold faced lies to get elected then doing the opposite once in.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

adagio said:


> Toronto is the biggest loser today. John Tory loves the city and he did have some plans to help things out. McSquinty? Yeah, won't be holding my breath waiting for him to do something concrete. By the time he's finished his term Toronto will be bankrupt or empty as businesses close or flee.


That's for sure, did you hear Miller Time this morning? Raising taxes = votes. He truly believes that the people of TO want to pay more taxes and a vote for McGuinty is supporting his cause.



adagio said:


> I was all set to vote against Tory. When he said he'd allow a free vote on the religious school issue I said okay. I figure there's no way that would ever go through. As for Tory being a flipper before the election, fine by me. I'd rather that than being told bold faced lies to get elected then doing the opposite once in.


I agree, and there were far more important things to be focused on. I find this is quite the slap in the face to our multicultural reputation. You can come to Canada, but leave your religion at the door please.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Good news for Toronto!

Since Dalton won, that means no extra money/coddling for Miller and his flakes.

That means in the next four years, major blunders will happen at city hall. Miller and most of his incompentant boobs will be tossed out, so by 2010, we might get a real government in this city.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: I do think you should leave your religion at the door of the _public_ school in Canada. No slap in the face, Tory's bad idea was rejected by many of the faithful as well.

Guy: I'm also pumped about McGuinty leaving Miller to stew in his own fetid juices. No extra cash for Toronto is the best thing to come out of a McGuinty majority.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Clearly Dalton McGuinty's provincial liberals will now pump funding into Toronto the likes of which has never been seen.

Remember, upon election they are the Opposite Party. Welcome back, Opposite Days, it will be just like 2003-04.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All Toronto wants is a percentage of the GST...and an extra billion dollars or so. Won't someone give sweet li'l Toronto some money? Look, it's wagging its tail!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

double post


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Tory had this one coming--I would have gladly voted for him except for that one stupid education issue he promoted over the advice of his caucus. McGuinty didn't get my vote either. Painful, strategic voting.
> 
> Glad to see MMP going down in rich flames.


but as Peter Schurman, now new con MPP of Thornhill, ex CFRB on air hack, pointed out it was a very important issue to him and his riding

well there ya go John Tory, you win ONE riding with that stupid idea, then reversal

way to cave in to a special interest group


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Jumbo: I do think you should leave your religion at the door of the _public_ school in Canada. No slap in the face, Tory's bad idea was rejected by many of the faithful as well.


I totally agree, problem being of course that public funds fuel the Catholic system. We'll see how proud McGuinty is of the public system, time to grow a set and abolish this funding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> I totally agree, problem being of course that public funds fuel the Catholic system. We'll see how proud McGuinty is of the public system, time to grow a set and abolish this funding.


Agreed. 

It was interesting to see how Tory managed to make that one issue work against him twice. First by angering those who didn't support the idea, then by alienating those who did support it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps some of you do not realize how integrated the Catholic system is.
The issue is not that the Catholic system is in any way flawed - in some respects having different management helps.

The issue is the Catholics having their own designated schools - even tho for all intents and purposes they are part of the public system while others do not. You certainly do not have to be Catholic to attend.

It's one reason I was not dead set against Tory on this as I understand where he was coming from......inside the system and adhering to the same rules as the secular system to get their funding brings the edge dwellers into close enough synch to blunt any real damage.

Leaving them outside allows drifting to more fundamentalist regions.

I'm as rabid as any against religion imposed in education -yet my son goes to Catholic school as does McGuinty's kids......it's a toothless dog with some historic roots not much different than calling a park after some dead British general.

If you think about it -both French school boards and Catholic schools boards are cultural.
The French school board is mandated as part of Canada's dual languages- you don't see pressure for Cantonese school boards.

Still I'm glad there is a decent mandate for McGuinty....he's not a great politician and that's a compliment.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You certainly do not have to be Catholic to attend.


My niece and her mother both had to be baptized or confirmed (maybe both) in order to go to her Catholic school. Maybe it works differently in each respective school boards, I don't know. 

As well, my friend that is a teacher in Mississauga had to be catholic in order to teach at her school. I'll confirm with her about the students at her school.

As for McGuinty, it's going to be a rough 4 years for him not having the Harris/Eves crutch to fall on. I expect more lies, more taxes and more scandals and I can't wait until he falls flat on his long nose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That may apply to primary not to secondary and also there might be a bit of zealotry at work.

••••

Yay :clap:



> Holiday on the way: McGuinty
> JONATHAN HAYWARD/CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> Oct 11, 2007 11:27 AM
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I see this in no way as even a small mandate. Just a disappointed drift of voters away from Tory. I know Conservative voters who voted Liberal for the first time in their lives.

The religion issue opened a hornet's nest. I predict increasing pressure to abolish the Catholic school system. In the small town in which I grew up there were two schools--one Catholic and one not--operating side by side. Whether the Catholic school system is an inoffensive cultural remnant or not, eliminating that sort of duplication and selling off the properties would net an immediate cash windfall and a future operating budget bonus.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Still I'm glad there is a decent mandate for McGuinty....he's not a great politician and that's a compliment.


The only mandate I see from this election is to NOT fund "faith" schools. He won't have many promises to break this time because Tory put up such a lame campaign McGuinty didn't have to make any. I don't see this as a positive result. I would have much preferred a minority gov't.

MMP was killed by not publicizing what MMP is and by the Toronto Star crusade against it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: I see this in no way as even a small mandate. Just a disappointed drift of voters away from Tory. I know Conservative voters who voted Liberal for the first time in their lives.
> 
> The religion issue opened a hornet's nest. I predict increasing pressure to abolish the Catholic school system. In the small town in which I grew up there were two schools--one Catholic and one not--operating side by side. Whether the Catholic school system is an inoffensive cultural remnant or not, eliminating that sort of duplication and selling off the properties would net an immediate cash windfall and a future operating budget bonus.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The religion issue opened a hornet's nest. I predict increasing pressure to abolish the Catholic school system. In the small town in which I grew up there were two schools--one Catholic and one not--operating side by side. Whether the Catholic school system is an inoffensive cultural remnant or not, eliminating that sort of duplication and selling off the properties would net an immediate cash windfall and a future operating budget bonus.


I am not sure how things work today, but in the small city of Swift Current when I was growing up in Saskatchewan, there was a mixture of both types of schools, but with a twist.

Saskatchewan has two types of schools known as Elementry school and high school. Elementary school consisted of grades one through eight. High school was grades 9 through 12 which was known a s senior matric in those days.

The interesting thing was that the elementary schools were divided into catholic and public, but that ended with the eighth grade. All of us went to high school together under the public system.

Perhaps even this might be a compromise or starting point in some other provinces to end separate school boards entirely over a period of years?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> Holiday on the way: McGuinty
> JONATHAN HAYWARD/CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> Oct 11, 2007 11:27 AM
> ...


Now, if they would only set the last Saturday in October as Halloween.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Perhaps even this might be a compromise or starting point in some other provinces to end separate school boards entirely over a period of years?


I'm an opinionated person and I'd like to see the immediate ending of Catholic school funding. That said I think your idea is far more realistic. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Since Dalton won, that means no extra money/coddling for Miller and his flakes. That means in the next four years, major blunders will happen at city hall. Miller and most of his incompentant boobs will be tossed out, so by 2010, we might get a real government in this city.


That's what happens when you elect a Mayor that is named after the beer the parental units were imbibing in the back of the Buick when he was conceived.

It really isn't that bad. You complain about Miller, but those who live in The Hammer really wish we could get a Mayor that was a quarter as good and perhaps only ten times more corrupt. The new guy now is really trying to do some good, but the odds are competely against him as the City Council is filled with a variety of retards and baboons. (The 'New' City Hall is now the old Eaton's store in town...)


----------

