# Looks like there might be a Spring election



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

With NDP's leader, Jack Layton, saying that there was not enough in the new budget to gain his support, and with the Liberals and Bloc leaders already saying that they would not support this budget, it appears that we might be headed for a Spring election.

It should prove to be an interesting time for many across Canada. We shall see. 

Remember, voting is one of the four responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. Thus, vote, and the choice is partly yours ............. don't vote, and the vote if fully in the hands of others. 

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the opposition forces an election that far too many Canadians don't want right now, they will very likely hand the Conservatives a majority.


----------



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

SINC said:


> If the opposition forces an election that far too many Canadians don't want right now, they will very likely hand the Conservatives a majority.


We shall see, Sinc. We shall see. What is your federal riding?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> If the opposition forces an election that far too many Canadians don't want right now, they will very likely hand the Conservatives a majority.


How many times have ween been to the polls in the last 7-10 years? 

Far too many. 

I have a feeling SINC will be right on this one. Make us do another election yet again, and the Conservatives might get the majority they've been looking for.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Conservative and has been for many moons.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Four times in seven years.


----------



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

ehMax said:


> How many times have ween been to the polls in the last 7-10 years?
> 
> Far too many.
> 
> I have a feeling SINC will be right on this one. Make us do another election yet again, and the Conservatives might get the majority they've been looking for.


I dislike the costs of federal elections, but I cannot say that I dislike voting. For too many years, before I became a citizen, all I could do was voice my opinions, support a candidate by helping her/his campaign, or contributing to a political party. Now I have the vote and I enjoy being able to have my say at the ballot box.

Thus, we shall see, Mr. Mayor. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'll be voting for the minority party again,
Damn that Prime Minister Flaherty, Er...Harper.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Harper wants an election and designed a budget that he knew would not be acceptable to the other parties.


----------



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

dolawren said:


> I'll be voting for the minority party again,
> Damn that Prime Minister Flaherty, Er...Harper.


What is your federal riding, Dave?

I am in St.John's East, which has gone to the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP ever since NL joined Canadian Confederation on April 1st, 1949. It is a riding that the Conservatives would love to regain. We shall see.


----------



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

Ottawaman said:


> Harper wants an election and designed a budget that he knew would not be acceptable to the other parties.


I would have to agree with you there, O-man. Sounded more like a political budget than a financial budget. Still, I was surprised when Jack Layton declared his not being able to support the budget so soon after it was tabled. I thought that for sure he would wait until tomorrow and announce the support or rejection of this budget.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> What is your federal riding, Dave?
> 
> I am in St.John's East, which has gone to the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP ever since NL joined Canadian Confederation on April 1st, 1949. It is a riding that the Conservatives would love to regain. We shall see.


Beaches - East York


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I predict all parties will sink to new lows in their ceaseless grasping for power. The Conservatives may have been censured for holding parliament in contempt, but sometimes I think parliament holds the country in contempt.

Reminder to all politicos: you're supposed working for the betterment of my country, not for your own personal glorification.


----------



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

dolawren said:


> Beaches - East York


From what little I have heard about MP Maria Minna, she sounds like a good person in the House.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If that budget went through...
Then seniors would get a bag of rice and a can of beans a week.

Didn't think Jack would support that.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> From what little I have heard about MP Maria Minna, she sounds like a good person in the House.


Yes, She's quite a lady, Been voting for her since the beginning,
I guess I have my upbringing with Liberal parents to thank for that.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

A shame that the Conservatives will likely gain a majority with an election. But - then they will bear the full responsibility for all economic / social / political progress (or lack thereof) for the next term.

But even greater, a shame that we have so little real *democracy*, just the illusion of such. The participation of Canadian society in political activity is woefully inadequate. One one hand we have voter apathy, on the other, structures that don't facilitate popular participation in policymaking / governance.

We believe we are democratic because we cast a vote every few years. That ain't democracy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> A shame that the Conservatives will likely gain a majority with an election. But - then they will bear the full responsibility for all economic / social / political progress (or lack thereof) for the next term.
> 
> But even greater, a shame that we have so little real *democracy*, just the illusion of such. The participation of Canadian society in political activity is woefully inadequate. One one hand we have voter apathy, on the other, structures that don't facilitate *popular participation in policymaking* / governance.
> 
> We believe we are democratic because we cast a vote every few years. *That ain't democracy.*


Democracy is an active model if you don't participate you have no one to blame but yourself.

Your *participation *has been limited in recent years due to your chosen location of residence... I would suggest that you have little reason to complain about as did Iggy before he "decided" to come home. Comment all you like but unless you are active in the system your criticism are only so many words. Democracy = Active Participation.

The Opposition MPs have certainly been active and have had their voices heard... Remember they just voted that the Government is in contempt of Parliament. What is anti-democratic about that???


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I predict all parties will sink to new lows in their ceaseless grasping for power. The Conservatives may have been censured for holding parliament in contempt, but sometimes I think parliament holds the country in contempt.
> 
> Reminder to all politicos: you're supposed working for the betterment of my country, not for your own personal glorification.


The Conservatives and Liberals want many to stop being interested in how the Government operates.

The fewer that pay attention to them, the fewer they shall have to pander to, and the fat cats can once again chow down with as little effort as possible, thereby claiming greater efficiency and better productivity of governing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> A shame that the Conservatives will likely gain a majority with an election.


Would you prefer a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition?

I am personally tired of all the jockeying going on and the amount that it costs the taxpayers in having to bribe the three other parties.

Give Harper a chance and let's see what they can do.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

oh well, get ready for the attack ads.....





+
YouTube Video









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


----------



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

dolawren said:


> Yes, She's quite a lady, Been voting for her since the beginning,
> I guess I have my upbringing with Liberal parents to thank for that.


Yes, I guess I am a product of my upbringing as well. My grandfather was a socialist, my grandmother was just glad to be in America and away from the Czar's pogroms against the Jewish people there, my mother was very liberal (she ran for office as a reform Democrat in New York City), my father was an Archie Bunker-like voter, and I was an FDR/Truman/JFK/LBJ Democrat growing up. 

Since I have been in Canada, I have voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP in federal elections.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Democracy is an active model if you don't participate you have no one to blame but yourself.
> 
> Your *participation *has been limited in recent years due to your chosen location of residence... I would suggest that you have little reason to complain about as did Iggy before he "decided" to come home. Comment all you like but unless you are active in the system your criticism are only so many words. Democracy = Active Participation.
> 
> The Opposition MPs have certainly been active and have had their voices heard... what is anti-democratic about that???


The government has not been responsible to parliament and thereby the people, something first realised after Joseph Howe won at trail and thereafter the Governor in Council became responsible to the tax payers via the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia over 250 years ago.

Glad some people are so in favour of the Family Compact style of governance or perhaps it's the style of "democracy" (term being used very loosely here) incorporated by the Corporate Elite has won the admiration of some.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I also agree with SINC--I don't think the country overall is ready for an election, it's highly doubtful that the NDP will lead, no one seems particularly enamoured with Igniateff and the country has not fallen apart under Harper... I think he could pull off a Conservative majority this time around.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The government has not been responsible to parliament and thereby the people, something first realised after Joseph Howe won at trail and thereafter the Governor in Council became responsible to the tax payers via the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia over 250 years ago.
> 
> Glad some people are so in favour of the Family Compact style of governance or perhaps it's the style of "democracy" (term being used very loosely here) incorporated by the Corporate Elite has won the admiration of some.


How has the process failed? Where..? The Speaker ruled... it went to committee, the government provided the data that was supposedly missing and the Opposition (who have the majority vote in committee in a minority government) found the government in contempt of Parliament. Where has democracy in Canada failed?

If the result of a non-confidence motion results in a fall of the government and an election ensues and the government is re-elected (or otherwise) where has democracy in Canada failed???? 

As Chantel Hebert stated in her article recently, Parliament (i.e. the Opposition in a minority Parliament) has been directing the priorities of the people as opposed to the people telling Parliament what their priorities are and then when the Opposition brings down the government, if they are re-elected the government where has there been a failure of democracy???? 

It would simply mean the people are telling the Opposition that they have got it wrong in terms of what matters to them.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems the Parliamentary Budget Officer also had difficulties finding information from the Government to base a conclusion of the costs of Government Programs. 

I guess some people are comfortable signing blank cheques and have complete faith they will not pay more than they were told by the selling party.

Good luck with that in the future.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Seems the Parliamentary Budget Officer also had difficulties finding information from the Government to base a conclusion of the costs of Government Programs.
> 
> I guess some people are comfortable signing blank cheques and have complete faith they will not pay more than they were told by the selling party.
> 
> Good luck with that in the future.


Again where has democracy failed if the government is ousted based on the findings of the PBO...? A position which the current government created?

Do tell?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> oh well, get ready for the attack ads.....


How soon we forget the fun that was made of Preston Manning by both the media and the government of the day of Preston Manning.... Like this is something new created by the CPC. They took their lessons from the Chretien Liberals and the CBC not the Republican party in the US.

Rick can be very funny but when it comes to politics he wears his partisanship on his sleeve and "rants" like like this amount to blowing smoke out of his ass.... it can catch your attention but there is very little substance.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, judging how little respect Harper and crew have had for Canadians in general, as shown with a minority, one could just imagine, 4 years with a majority will bring the full on screw you style of politic, and it will -only-, be 4 years.

Which is what I've been saying for some time, perhaps they should have had their majority to get that out of the way sooner than later.

But, I wouldn't count on the majority just yet, the recent scandals of the "Harper government" is just starting to have an effect on the polls. I wouldn't count on Harper being able to saddle the opposition with the full responsibility of the election.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Again where has democracy failed if the government is ousted based on the findings of the PBO...? A position which the current government created?
> 
> Do tell?


The fail is the Harper Conservatives to understand the money they spend is your money, his money, her money, my money.

The Harper Conservatives act as if it's Harper, Flaherty & Co's money. My point remains the government is responsible to the people. 

Some folks just like to go off following bunny tracks when out hunting elephants. 

Good luck hunting.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I predict more of the same. Harper has done nothing special to win the hearts of the majority. Also, the drums have been beating long enough about this 'surprise' election to negate the backlash effect he needs to trick people into giving him his majority.

I'll be happy to seem both he and Iggy fade off into the sunset. Harper of course will be kicking and screaming all the way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I predict more of the same. Harper has done nothing special to win the hearts of the majority. Also, the drums have been beating long enough about this 'surprise' election to have the backlash effect he needs to trick people into giving him his majority.
> 
> I'll be happy to seem both he and Iggy fade off into the sunset. Harper of course will be kicking and screaming all the way.


Iggy doesn't get it. Jack doesn't get it. And ____(insert name here) ____ on this board doesn't get it.

The electorate WILL punish the opposition for four elections in seven years if they force one. The result will be a Conservative majority.

Watch it happen if the writ falls.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Harper wants this election. He wants it to be about the budget and not about contempt of Parliament. Layton stated he couldn't support the current budget without adjustments, minutes later Jim Flaherty said there will be no adjustments, this isn't collective bargaining.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Iggy doesn't get it. Jack doesn't get it. And ____(insert name here) ____ on this board doesn't get it.
> 
> The electorate WILL punish the opposition for four elections in seven years if they force one. The result will be a Conservative majority.
> 
> Watch it happen if the writ falls.


We shall see SINC, we shall see.

BTW, dig the thinly veiled, blustery attempt at an insult. You can do better, non?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I feel that the Eastern Shores have no real input on the outcome of an election. 

I shall be interested to see if NL will give a Con a chance now that Danny's ABC campaign is not there to influence the population.

Other than that I don't see much changing. I don't see the Cons have any shot in Quebec.

Ontario seems to hold the cards for a majority government.I do not know how cranky folks are as they seemed to have taken the $h!tkicking usually reserved for the Atlantic Region in an economic down turn.

Perhaps BC may have enough swing votes to make a contribution to a majority government, however it will be interesting to see if there is any HST anger left over to be vented on Con candidate.

It will also be interesting should an unexpected issue arise. You never know when a beer and popcorn moment will arise.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I predict more of the same. Harper has done nothing special to win the hearts of the majority. Also, the drums have been beating long enough about this 'surprise' election to have the backlash effect he needs to trick people into giving him his majority.
> 
> I'll be happy to seem both he and Iggy fade off into the sunset. Harper of course will be kicking and screaming all the way.


If Harper can't get a majority government out an election then it shall be interesting when his team fires the coach.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

SINC said:


> Iggy doesn't get it. Jack doesn't get it. And ____(insert name here) ____ on this board doesn't get it.
> 
> The electorate WILL punish the opposition for four elections in seven years if they force one. The result will be a Conservative majority.
> 
> Watch it happen if the writ falls.


The thing is you really can only blame ONE of those elections on the current opposition parties... (the 2008 one), 2006 was triggered by the conservatives, while 2004 was called by the then majority liberals and at 4 years after the previous election was arguably within the normal timeframe for an election...

As for this particular minority parliament it's going on 2.5 years old, which is almost a full year more than the average for a minority parliament in this country.

Anecdotally the mood here in Ottawa has been that an election this spring was almost a forgone conclusion since mid-february. All of the major federal parties want one, though they are all loath to admit it. The NDP are polling strongly and hope to benefit from a weak liberal party, the Conservatives are polling very well and with a well run campaign are within majority territory, while the liberals are polling like crap if they can't win now with the current scandals (contempt of parliament, et al.) they never will with Iggy...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> We shall see SINC, we shall see.
> 
> BTW, dig the thinly veiled, blustery attempt at an insult. You can do better, non?


yeah yeah yeah. ha ha.

gee who's fault was the last election? (and the one before?)

It just astounds me how people remember things. Was it not Harper that brought on the last election?

I'm going to guess, and I'm thinking, it's a pretty solid guess, Iggy ain't gonna sit back like Dion did this time round. So, if Harpie didn't get a majority with Dion fluttering in the wind, just how will he fare with Iggy?

Not to mention the amount of ammo iggy will have this time round.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Looks like there might be a spring erection...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Paul82 said:


> The thing is you really can only blame ONE of those elections on the current opposition parties... (the 2008 one), 2006 was triggered by the conservatives, while 2004 was called by the then majority liberals and at 4 years after the previous election was arguably within the normal timeframe for an election...
> 
> As for this particular minority parliament it's going on 2.5 years old, which is almost a full year more than the average for a minority parliament in this country.
> 
> Anecdotally the mood here in Ottawa has been that an election this spring was almost a forgone conclusion since mid-february. All of the major federal parties want one, though they are all loath to admit it. The NDP are polling strongly and hope to benefit from a weak liberal party, the Conservatives are polling very well and with a well run campaign are within majority territory, while the liberals are polling like crap if they can't win now with the current scandals (contempt of parliament, et al.) they never will with Iggy...


wasn't it Harper that brought on the 2008 election with some excuse that parliament wasn't working (to his satisfaction)?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^^^
A prefect non-graph for financial illiterates!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Ontario seems to hold the cards for a majority government.I do not know how cranky folks are as they seemed to have taken the $h!tkicking usually reserved for the Atlantic Region in an economic down turn.


If Dalton McGuinty tries to stump for Iggy, I see a Conservative landslide in Ontario.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha ha ha ha.

yeah. There's plenty of intelligence on these sorts of things all round.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> How soon we forget the fun that was made of Preston Manning by both the media and the government of the day of Preston Manning.... Like this is something new created by the CPC. They took their lessons from the Chretien Liberals and the CBC not the Republican party in the US.
> 
> Rick can be very funny but when it comes to politics he wears his partisanship on his sleeve and "rants" like like this amount to blowing smoke out of his ass.... it can catch your attention but there is very little substance.


Rick quite willingly lampoons every party at every opportunity and all have been more than willing to provide said opportunities.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*4 responsibilities?*



Dr.G.;1074981...voting is one of the four responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. ....[/QUOTE said:


> Four, eh? Okay, there's voting, buying a daily coffee at Tim Horton's, and shovelling the snow off the sidewalk in front of your house before 11 am.... I guess the 4th one must be something to do with hockey?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

SINC said:


> ...The electorate WILL punish the opposition for four elections in seven years if they force one. The result will be a Conservative majority./QUOTE]
> 
> I like to hear this theme of the right wing. Let's not have any elections, they instruct us, that is way too much of that expensive democracy stuff.I like to hear the right wing express their contempt for actual democracy so openly.
> 
> ...


----------



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

Dr T said:


> Four, eh? Okay, there's voting, buying a daily coffee at Tim Horton's, and shovelling the snow off the sidewalk in front of your house before 11 am.... I guess the 4th one must be something to do with hockey?


Actually, citizenship tests now have six responsibilities for all Canadian citizens. When I became a citizen, there were not the clauses of "working to help others in the community, eliminating discrimination and injustice".

The responsibilities of Canadian citizenship include obeying Canada’s laws, voting in elections, expressing opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others, working to help others in the community, eliminating discrimination and injustice, and caring for and protecting Canada’s heritage and environment.

You can show responsibility by participating in your community through membership in a community group such as an environmental group, by helping your neighbours, by working with others to solve problems in your community, by volunteering to work on an election campaign for a candidate of your choice or becoming a candidate in an election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr T said:


> SINC said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, let's not have too much democracy..
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Boy it must be hard to live with so much pent up hatred. My post mentioned nothing about a lack of democracy. What a stretch.


+1 Clearly, SINC, you want to see an end to all elections.

Typically, I hear such comments when the left wing of the country feels a bit of misplaced hope that such a hideous aberration as a Conservative government will be vanquished form the Earth! 

"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed."


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Just got back after a week away from Canada and I'm hoping we go to a vote. Time to flush the toilet and get rid of the stench (Cons flatulence) that has engrossed Parliament the last several years. My bet is we'll be reshuffling the deck and minority status will continue, but with some new brokering. I'm pretty happy about this.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'd certainly be happy with another minority. Even better would be a coalition government. Unfortunately, it does seem likely that the Cons have succeeded in engineering an election at the nadir of the Liberal Party, and may therefore be able to eek a majority from the rubes at the poles.

That would be bad, in that 4 the Cons can do a lot of damage. But I'll predict that a Conservative majority will yeild a one-term government.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Just got back after a week away from Canada and I'm hoping we go to a vote. Time to flush the toilet and get rid of the stench (Cons flatulence) that has engrossed Parliament the last several years. My bet is we'll be reshuffling the deck and minority status will continue, but with some new brokering. I'm pretty happy about this.


I agree. I will be voting quite strategically against Tsar Harpo. He wants to turn Canada in to the US, and I have no interest in that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...eek a majority from the rubes at the poles.


Just to get it straight. They'd still be rubes if your party of choice was elected, correct?



Adrian. said:


> I agree. I will be voting quite strategically against Tsar Harpo. He wants to turn Canada in to the US, and I have no interest in that.


For once we are in agreement. Obama is running the U.S. like a Czar.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I saw this on twitter, pretty bang on.

This is how we can expect the election campaign will be like:





+
YouTube Video









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


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*The Sky is falling*

"The sky is falling" Li'l Peety said.


> Federal election to freeze Atlantic projects: MacKay
> Election would delay financing of Lower Churchill project


Li'l Peety said

So it now it begins


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> "The sky is falling" Li'l Peety said.
> 
> 
> Li'l Peety said
> ...


Why would the sky be falling just because Atlantic provinces projects would be stopped? Sounds good to me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> For once we are in agreement. Obama is running the U.S. like a Czar.


Not quite, he has not resorted to executive orders to the same extent that Dummy, Scummy and Rummy used when they blazed the path.

However he has also failed to shutdown Homeland Security, the TSA and the NSA. So the USofA does continue its relentless goose-stepping march towards fascism.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Just to get it straight. They'd still be rubes if your party of choice was elected, correct?


Well, no. But close. I don't have a party of choice, so they'd be non-existant.

Whoever has the best chance of beating the conservative candidate in my riding will get my vote, whatever political stripe they wear. I expect that will probably be the Liberal, but I'd vote for a parasitic nematode if I thought they had the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.

However, when the Conservative candidate comes round and knocks on my door, I'll invite him in for tea, and waste as much of his time as possible by playing the 'on the fence' voter.

Cheers


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Why would the sky be falling just because Atlantic provinces projects would be stopped? Sounds good to me.


Sky is not falling, but the GTA could have used this hydroelectric power comes the hot summer days when everyone is using their air conditioner.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> .. *I'd vote for a parasitic nematode* if I thought they had the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate....
> 
> 
> Cheers


Lucky for you!!! I hear the Oppostion are going to be running a few of those....


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MF, no Bush et al turned turned the Whitehouse into Petersburg, 1916. Obama is trying to stop some of that, but as it were the neocon cronies have not left and are preventing change.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> However, when the Conservative candidate comes round and knocks on my door, I'll invite him in for tea, and waste as much of his time as possible by playing the 'on the fence' voter.


Rather than, say, sitting down & actually, constructively & maturely, discussing issues with him?

"Yer one of them there Conservative type guys, ain'tcha. Wul, jes' so's ya know, my lot in life is to deconstuctively take up as much of yer time as I can & not vote for ya anyway, jes' 'cause of that there stripe on yer sleeve..."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why would the sky be falling just because Atlantic provinces projects would be stopped? Sounds good to me.





Dr.G. said:


> Sky is not falling, but the GTA could have used this hydroelectric power comes the hot summer days when everyone is using their air conditioner.


 It's kinda sad when one of* those people* from a have not province are upset by progress in another region.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> ...Whoever has the best chance of beating the conservative candidate in my riding will get my vote, whatever political stripe they wear. I expect that will probably be the Liberal, but I'd vote for a parasitic nematode if I thought they had the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.
> 
> However, when the Conservative candidate comes round and knocks on my door, I'll invite him in for tea, and waste as much of his time as possible by playing the 'on the fence' voter.
> 
> Cheers


Now that sounds like a grand plan!

My riding is Fundy Royal where any parasitic nematode wearing a blue banner can win  see here. 



Wikipedia said:


> The riding has been one of the most supportive of the Conservatives in the country, returning a member of that party or its predecessors in every election, except for 1993 when Liberal Paul Zed won. (former representative for the riding of Saint John). Another member, John Herron, switched to the Liberals in 2003, but was defeated in the 2004 federal election.


As an aside Paul Zed is a brother-in-law to the Irvings ...yes those Irvings.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Now that sounds like a grand plan!
> 
> My riding is Fundy Royal where any parasitic nematode wearing a blue banner can win  see here.
> 
> As an aside Paul Zed is a brother-in-law to the Irvings ...yes those Irvings.


Sounds like my riding, Hull-Aylmer, where any parasitic nematode wearing a red banner can win and for the last 12 years has been represented by the same parasitic nematode by the name of Marcel Proulx.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Guess the question is; what the critical Parasitic Nematode mass is in the Canadian Parliamentary system.

Could this be the election here it tops 300?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I live in the biggest parasitic's riding... Iggy the goofus. No worries, he will be reelected. If Bozo the clown were running for the Libs here he would win. Heck, if Harper were to cross the floor to the Liberals and run in this riding he'd get elected.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Sounds like my riding, Hull-Aylmer, where any parasitic nematode wearing a red banner can win and for the last 12 years has been represented by the same parasitic nematode by the name of Marcel Proulx.


In Albert County (part of Fundy Royal where I live) provincially the Blue banner place on another parasitic nematode is a conservative coronation. But I digress.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You guys are all ruled by parasitic nematodes?

Luxury.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm in Bob Rae's riding. I'm pretty sure he's not going anywhere.

Interestingly enough, I'm sandwiched between the husband-and-wife team Jack Layton and Olivia Chow....


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I'm in Bob Rae's riding. I'm pretty sure he's not going anywhere.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I'm sandwiched between the husband-and-wife team Jack Layton and Olivia Chow....


I've read talk if the Liberals win that Bob Rae will be finance minister. I shudder to even contemplate it. I hope your riding at least votes for the NDP candidate so that won't happen.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> I've read talk if the Liberals win that Bob Rae will be finance minister. I shudder to even contemplate it. I hope your riding at least votes for the NDP candidate so that won't happen.


It's a strange riding in that in encompasses some of the greatest wealth (Rosedale) and greatest poverty (Regent Park) in the city, plus Canada's largest gay community, so while the Liberals have been strong here for the last while, it's a tough to say what party really dominates.

But they didn't seem to be run anyone with 'star power' so to speak against Bob Rae before, so I have a hunch it will be Rae-all-the-way. 

Besides, if Igniateff flops, there will likely be another change of Liberal Party leadership, and who do you think will step up to the plate it? Justin Trudeau?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

adagio said:


> I've read talk if the Liberals win that Bob Rae will be finance minister. I shudder to even contemplate it. I hope your riding at least votes for the NDP candidate so that won't happen.


The Liberals don't have to win for this to happen. Unless there is a Con Majority there will another attempt at a Coalition, so Rae would still be Finance Minister.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Flaherty's an absolute moron, but Rae is a way bigger moron.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> I've read talk if the Liberals win that Bob Rae will be finance minister. I shudder to even contemplate it. I hope your riding at least votes for the NDP candidate so that won't happen.


Where did you read this?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

groovetube said:


> Where did you read this?


I've been reading various comments in the news. It's speculation for sure but this isn't the first time this has been bandied about. It makes some sense so I never dismissed the idea out of hand. 

I would feel a lot more comfortable with that guy out of politics. I wouldn't even mind so much if Iggy won as long as Rae wasn't around. He's the one that scares me. Honestly, I would vote for any candidate with a chance against him. 

I lived in Rae's riding when he became Premier of Ontario. Never voted for him and was horrified when he won. Everything I predicted on election day came true. He is fake through and through. The only thing he desires is power. He has powerful friends. Never believe he is for the little guy nor cares. His circle of friends is a who's who of the corporate world.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> I've been reading various comments in the news. It's speculation for sure but this isn't the first time this has been bandied about. It makes some sense so I never dismissed the idea out of hand.
> 
> I would feel a lot more comfortable with that guy out of politics. I wouldn't even mind so much if Iggy won as long as Rae wasn't around. He's the one that scares me. Honestly, I would vote for any candidate with a chance against him.
> 
> I lived in Rae's riding when he became Premier of Ontario. Never voted for him and was horrified when he won. Everything I predicted on election day came true. He is fake through and through. The only thing he desires is power. He has powerful friends. Never believe he is for the little guy nor cares. His circle of friends is a who's who of the corporate world.


ah, I kinda wondered, as that makes the least sense to me. In fact I highly doubt it would ever happen. But it certainly makes a good scare tactic for ontario voters.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ah, I kinda wondered, as that makes the least sense to me. In fact I highly doubt it would ever happen. But it certainly makes a good scare tactic for ontario voters.


That's likely the battle ground. We have all heard "the first casualty of war is the truth."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> That's likely the battle ground. We have all heard "the first casualty of war is the truth."


yep. See my youtube I posted


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Sky is not falling, but the GTA could have used this hydroelectric power comes the hot summer days when everyone is using their air conditioner.


Newfoundland and Labrador do not require federal aid to make this great power system dream come true!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

certainly not since there are billions to be spent on G20s and Tony Clement's riding!


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Newfoundland and Labrador do not require federal aid to make this great power system dream come true!


True. NL has never asked for federal aid, just a co-signing of the loan since NS is involved, and is still considered a "have not" province. This would get the consortium a lower interest rate. With NL reporting a surplus in five of the past six years, the federal government would not lose a dime, since we would back the NS part of the loan. 

Still, because Quebec will not allow power generated in NL to flow to ON via Quebec, we have to go with an undersea route from Labrador to the Island of Newfoundland ........ then from NL to NS and then overland to NB and to PEI. NS and NB will be selling some of their excess power to New England. Thus, ON gets nothing from this lower Churchill hydro project.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> Flaherty's an absolute moron, but Rae is a way bigger moron.


Flarerty doesn't care, He doesn't have to live on the Canada Pension when he retires,
In fact none of them do, Love to see them give up their fat pensions and try to live on CPP,
Then you'd see them make life better for everyone that has to live on the CPP.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I guess everything is up to the Governor General now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> Then you'd see them make life better for everyone that has to live on the CPP.


The CPP was only designed as a supplement in which people contribute more than they get back out of it--it was never intended to carry people through their lengthy retirements.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> Flarerty doesn't care, He doesn't have to live on the Canada Pension when he retires,
> *In fact none of them do*, Love to see them give up their fat pensions and try to live on CPP,
> Then you'd see them make life better for everyone that has to live on the CPP.


That 's not true, there were two MPs who gave up thier "golden handshake"... Their names are Preston Manning and Werner Schmidt... both Reform MPs... If only all MPs had as much integrity.

Also *every* civil servant and every teacher does not have to live off the CPP as they all have VERY healthy pension plans. There are undoubtedly others but these are the first two that come to mind.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> I guess everything is up to the Governor General now.


Not yet... But undoubtedly in due course that will be the case.... and undoubtedly his decision will be to drop the election writ.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> That 's not true, there were two MPs who gave up thier "golden handshake"... Their names are Preston Manning and Werner Schmidt... both Reform MPs... If only all MPs had as much integrity.
> 
> Also *every* civil servant and every teacher does not have to live off the CPP as they all have VERY healthy pension plans. There are undoubtedly others but these are the first two that come to mind.


I was thinking more along the lines of the poorest of the poor and the pre RRSP generation.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Not yet... But undoubtedly in due course that will be the case.... and undoubtedly his decision will be to drop the election writ.


I guess it depends on whether or not the GG is in Harpers left or right pocket.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> I guess it depends on whether or not the GG is in Harpers left or right pocket.


Not really... there is only one case in all of Canadian history where the GG offered an Opposition coalition the option to govern. The rest of the time a non confidence motion resulted in an election... so the GG does not have to be in "Harper's left or right pocket" he only needs to be following the predominance of precedent and currently there is no formal coalition in play.

There will be an election... and it does not mean the GG is in Harper's pocket... either one of them. This suggestion is highly demeaning to every indication that His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston is a highly principled man and to the institution that he represents. I personally take umbrage to the suggestion.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ehMax said:


> How many times have ween been to the polls in the last 7-10 years?
> 
> Far too many.
> 
> I have a feeling SINC will be right on this one. Make us do another election yet again, and the Conservatives might get the majority they've been looking for.


I bet that's exactly what their end goal is. 

Enough is enough. I'm sick of voting. I know its part of freedom and I do appreciate the opportunity, but I feel like we're constantly being held hostage - getting forced to vote all the time. 

It's like a game kids are playing in the backyard but one kid wants to play a game so the others throw massive hissy fits!


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

In any case, The triplets have their wish.
At least Stockwell "Doris" Day won't have to run again.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I don't mind voting.

What I mind is the endless slagging of each other, the cost, the delays, the money spent on advertising without really saying anything, the general rhetoric.

Voting ... not a problem.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I don't mind voting.
> 
> What I mind is the endless slagging of each other, the cost, the delays, the money spent on advertising without really saying anything, the general rhetoric.
> 
> Voting ... not a problem.


When have the Tories ever stopped with their election campaign?
All I see is Iggy did this Iggy didn't come back for you.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Not really... there is only one case in all of Canadian history where the GG offered an Opposition coalition the option to govern. The rest of the time a non confidence motion resulted in an election... so the GG does not have to be in "Harper's left or right pocket" he only needs to be following the predominance of precedent and currently there is no formal coalition in play.
> 
> There will be an election... and it does not mean the GG is in Harper's pocket... either one of them. This suggestion is highly demeaning to every indication that His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston is a highly principled man and to the institution that he represents. I personally take umbrage to the suggestion.


We can only hope he isn't in any of Harpers pockets,
The previous GG certainly looked like she was in Harpers inside pocket.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

dolawren said:


> When have the Tories ever stopped with their election campaign?
> All I see is Iggy did this Iggy didn't come back for you.


Classless and so transparent that you'd need a couple dozen NHL headshots not to see through it as well...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> We can only hope he isn't in any of Harpers pockets,
> The previous GG certainly looked like she was in Harpers inside pocket.


No I disagree, she merely did not want to be seen as the first GG in history to allow for a coalition government to be propped up by a party with separatist intentions, that 75% of the country disagreed with.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> We can only hope he isn't in any of Harpers pockets,
> The previous GG certainly looked like she was in Harpers inside pocket.





jawknee said:


> Classless and so transparent that you'd need a couple dozen NHL headshots not to see through it as well...


Such is the reality of a minority government. *ALL* of the parties have been in constant election mode... let's get real here.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

jawknee said:


> Classless and so transparent that you'd need a couple dozen NHL headshots not to see through it as well...


"Transparent"...Now that's a news worthy word,
Just heard Flaherty mention that very word on the news today.

Am I supposed to see right through him?


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

screature said:


> No I disagree, she merely did not want to be seen as the first GG in history to allow for a coalition government to be propped up by a party with separatist intentions, that 75% of the country disagreed with.


Plus she was hot, so you know... That's cool.


----------



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

MLeh said:


> I don't mind voting.
> 
> What I mind is the endless slagging of each other, the cost, the delays, the money spent on advertising without really saying anything, the general rhetoric.
> 
> Voting ... not a problem.


Amen, Sister MLeh. Add to this list the promises that don't ever get kept, and we are in agreement.

Still, I do love to vote and cherish my right to have this free and private ballot. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Such is the reality of a minority government. *ALL* of the parties have been in constant election mode... let's get real here.


But that's the root of the problem, All this posturing of parties,
If they only put aside their differences and tried to work together.

At least Dion had an olive branch to unite the parties,
But that nasty "Coalition" word crept into the fears of the party,
Out went Dion and in came Iggy.

But...You have to agree with me...Duceppe is a brilliant man,
If he wasn't a separatist, I'd vote for him.

Heaven forbid we should ever have a united Parliament.

I still think Dion would have made a brilliant Prime Minister.

Oh well, We'll never know, We are too busy polluting our environment to care.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> No I disagree, she merely did not want to be seen as the first GG in history to allow for a coalition government to be propped up by a party with separatist intentions, that 75% of the country disagreed with.


Oh...Right...The separatist card, That's right, A word forever flaunted by the Tories
in Parliament and still being blurted out to this day from the chief triplet himself Baird.

Seems there are still some broken records playing in Parliament,
You'd think they'd get some new material to use for flaming the opposition.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Oh...Right...The separatist card, That's right, A word forever flaunted by the Tories
> in Parliament and still being blurted out to this day from the chief triplet himself Baird.
> 
> Seems there are still some broken records playing in Parliament,
> You'd think they'd get some new material to use for flaming the opposition.


well, let them. It only further alienates them in Quebec, thereby making majorities far harder to achieve.

idiots


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> I still think Dion would have made a brilliant Prime Minister.


You're the only card-carrying member of that club!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> But that's the root of the problem, All this posturing of parties,
> If they only put aside their differences and tried to work together.
> 
> At least Dion had an olive branch to unite the parties,
> ...


This has never and never will happen... it is the very nature of Parliament and politics... you have a government and opposition... same as it ever was and ever will be.

I disagree. Dion would never have been a great Prime Minister... a great diplomat possibly... but never a great PM. I always personally liked Dion as an MP and Minster but he was never PM material. Manley would have been a better PM but because of his "funny" looks (too much like the Muppet's "Beaker") he didn't stand a chance...

And even Manley supports the current budget BTW.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> Oh...*Right...The separatist card,* That's right, A word forever flaunted by the Tories
> in Parliament and still being blurted out to this day from the chief triplet himself Baird.
> 
> Seems there are still some broken records playing in Parliament,
> You'd think they'd get some new material to use for flaming the opposition.


Yep as long as there is a BQ in the House it will always be played... like I said let's get real... do you seriously expect anything different?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jawknee said:


> Plus she was hot, so you know... That's cool.


Best looking GG ever.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Yep as long as there is a BQ in the House it will always be played... like I said let's get real... do you seriously expect anything different?


I guess not, Question period is just that...
A question mark with a period.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> I guess not, Question period is just that...
> A question mark with a period.


QP is theatre... It is essentially meaningless. Except for the media for whom it is their bread and butter.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> QP is theatre... It is essentially meaningless. Except for the media for whom it is their bread and butter.


If it's theatre, Then the Tories certainly aren't very good actors.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

dolawren said:


> But that's the root of the problem, All this posturing of parties,
> If they only put aside their differences and tried to work together.
> 
> At least Dion had an olive branch to unite the parties,
> ...


Unless you have already moved you are not voting for Duceppe.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Unless you have already moved you are not voting for Duceppe.


Duceppe is just a provincial politician in a federal parliament, something that never should have happened and the sooner that situation is corrected, the better.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Duceppe is just a provincial politician in a federal parliament, something that never should have happened and the sooner that situation is corrected, the better.


Just who are you to second guess the decision of the voters of Laurie -Sainte Marie with regard to who represents their interest in the Parliament of Canada?

I thought the control issues were just a bad trait of Harper and Caucus. Is this controlling nature a trait of all conservatives and supporters?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Just who are you to second guess the decision of the voters of Laurie -Sainte Marie with regard to who represents their interest in the Parliament of Canada?
> 
> I thought the control issues were just a bad trait of Harper and Caucus. Is this controlling nature a trait of all conservatives and supporters?


Little arrows in your clothing, little arrows in your hair...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Duceppe is just a provincial politician in a federal parliament, something that never should have happened and the sooner that situation is corrected, the better.


Don't forget that before the current Conservative party came to be, the party Preston and Stephen built was essentially a Western party that had its roots in the WCC (Western Canada Concept) and later Reform party before it became the Alliance and eventually joined with the PC party under the contemplated-but-never-chosen banner of Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP for short). In fact, I suspect strongly that it is the regionalism roots that have constantly dogged Harper and prevented him from obtaining the majority he so desperately craves--a quality essential in s truly national party. This time won't be any better, and voters may well decide that after five years of a minority Conservative gov't it may be time for a minority Liberal gov't again.

P.S. What happened to that fixed election date concept anyway?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Just who are you to second guess the decision of the voters of Laurie -Sainte Marie with regard to who represents their interest in the Parliament of Canada?
> 
> I thought the control issues were just a bad trait of Harper and Caucus. Is this controlling nature a trait of all conservatives and supporters?


Nice try to dodge the fact that Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament. Want to try again?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Judging by the abidingly petulant and spiteful tone of this thread, I'll go out on a limb here and predict that this election is going to be all about poopy pants.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'll be looking forward to this election now,
At first I was dreading the whole idea of yet another election.

It'll be kind of fun to watch the Tories at their head campaign offices right across Canada

They're at Timmies aren't they?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nice try to dodge the fact that Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament. Want to try again?


 The citizens of Laurie -Sainte Marie have repeatedly sent Duceppe to represent their interests in the Parliament of Canada. We shall see who they send to the Parliament after the next election.

There is an old saying in politics after every election "the people have spoken and the people are never wrong." Is it your position you don't really believe in democracy?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> The citizens of Laurie -Sainte Marie have sent the same Duceppe to represent their interest in the Parliament of Canada. We shall see who they send to the Parliament after the next election.
> 
> There is an old saying in politics after every election "the people have spoken and the people are never wrong." Is it your position you don't believe in democracy?


Again you dodge the issue. Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> This has never and never will happen... it is the very nature of Parliament and politics... you have a government and opposition... same as it ever was and ever will be.
> 
> I disagree. Dion would never have been a great Prime Minister... a great diplomat possibly... but never a great PM. I always personally liked Dion as an MP and Minster but he was never PM material. Manley would have been a better PM but because of his "funny" looks (too much like the Muppet's "Beaker") he didn't stand a chance...
> 
> And even Manley supports the current budget BTW.


One thing I'll have to say about Dion, He certainly had a brilliant concept to solve the
pollution problem, Better than giving money away to the corporations and letting
them keep polluting for the sake of jobs.

Our dollar may be high now under the current leadership,
But then that's pollution dollars at work.

Could I interest you in some Northern Alberta (Tar Sand) Spring water?

XX)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It looks like the non-confidence vote to bring down the current Government will be because of Contempt of Parliament rather than the budget.

I have a feeling Thursday night or Friday morning Harper will visit Readeau Hall to visit with the GG to pull the plug rather than becoming historic.



CBCNews said:


> The Liberal motion that is scheduled for a vote Friday calls on MPs to agree with the findings of a committee report released Monday that found the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament for not supplying sufficient information on cost estimates for crime bills, the F-35 fighter jet procurement and corporate tax cuts and that as a result of that finding, the Commons has lost confidence in the government.


Opposition lines Up Against Government


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Again you dodge the issue. Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament.


I guess the reality distortion field is not just limited to Jobs and Macs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I guess the reality distortion field is not just limited to Jobs and Macs.


I await your explanation of how he can be considered anything else. He represents no one outside the province of Quebec and has no business having a seat in a federal parliament.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I await your explanation of how he can be considered anything else. He represents no one outside the province of Quebec and has no business having a seat in a federal parliament.


That would only be a problem if he became PM. He's an MP and represents his constituents like any other. What's the problem?

[edit to add:] it's not even mathematically possible for him to become PM, as the BQ does not run candidates outside of Quebec, so you can't argue the "what if the block won?" position.

Duceppe represents his riding. Nothing more.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Again you dodge the issue. Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament.


I always thought he was an independent, A very smart one at that too.

Quoted from Wikipedia


> Election to Parliament
> 
> In 1990, Duceppe was elected to the Canadian House of Commons as an independent because the Bloc had not been registered by Elections Canada as a political party. All of the Bloc's other Members of Parliament had crossed the floor from either the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party earlier that year. Duceppe's victory in a by-election demonstrated — for the first time — that the party had electoral support in Quebec and could win elections. Previously, many pundits (and members of other parties) predicted that the Bloc would not gain traction with ordinary voters in Quebec.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> That would only be a problem if he became PM. He's an MP and represents his constituents like any other. What's the problem?
> 
> [edit to add:] it's not even mathematically possible for him to become PM, as the BQ does not run candidates outside of Quebec, so you can't argue the "what if the block won?" position.
> 
> Duceppe represents his riding. Nothing more.


Fair enough on representing his riding.

But how can a provincial party be allowed to run in a national election? It is after all, a provincial party.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

bryanc said:


> That would only be a problem if he became PM. He's an MP and represents his constituents like any other. What's the problem?
> 
> [edit to add:] it's not even mathematically possible for him to become PM, as the BQ does not run candidates outside of Quebec, so you can't argue the "what if the block won?" position.
> 
> Duceppe represents his riding. Nothing more.


If he did become PM that would be interesting,
Do you think he'd let us become part of Quebec?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fair enough on representing his riding.
> 
> But how can a provincial party be allowed to run in a national election? It is after all, a provincial party.


Parti Québécois is the Provincial party and the BLOC is the federal party.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dolawren said:


> Parti Québécois is the Provincial party and the BLOC is the federal party.


I see, so just how many members do the BLOC have outside Quebec and how many provincial associations are there besides in Quebec? Care to try and answer that one? Federal party my ass.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> I await your explanation of how he can be considered anything else. He represents no one outside the province of Quebec and has no business having a seat in a federal parliament.


With this logic how can the Conservatives govern Canada when they represent no one in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Has the reality distortion field been dialled to maximum strength or did it the big lie of conservative supporters in the western land become the truth in those environs?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> With this logic how can the Conservatives govern Canada when they represent no one in Newfoundland and Labrador.
> 
> Has the reality distortion field been dialled to maximum strength or did it the big lie of conservative supporters in the western land become the truth in those environs?


Well, we'll just assume you can't answer the question. Too bad that something so simple as a provincial party in a federal parliament is such a difficult concept to understand.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> I see, so just how many members do the BLOC have outside Quebec and how many provincial associations are there besides in Quebec? Care to try and answer that one? Federal party my ass.


There aren't any, Had it been the Reform party and I said the same question,
Would they have been a federal party or a provincial party?

Just because a party is limited to one province, Doesn't necessarily make it provincial.
Who knows if they will evolve and expand in the future.

Look at the Tories they were saved with a pile of C.R.A.P.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Reform morphed into a national party. A party that advocates separation from Canada will never do that. Traitors in parliament is basically all they are.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Leave it to "Count Ignatieff" and "Smil'n Jack" to ruin my spring...:lmao:

What a bunch of wankers...every single one of them, from Harper all the way down to Duceppe. Parliament Hill needs an enema.tptptptp


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fair enough on representing his riding.
> 
> But how can a provincial party be allowed to run in a national election? It is after all, a provincial party.





SINC said:


> Again you dodge the issue. Duceppe is a provincial politician in a federal parliament.





fjnmusic said:


> Don't forget that before the current Conservative party came to be, the party Preston and Stephen built was essentially a Western party that had its roots in the WCC (Western Canada Concept) and later Reform party before it became the Alliance and eventually joined with the PC party under the contemplated-but-never-chosen banner of Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP for short). In fact, I suspect strongly that it is the regionalism roots that have constantly dogged Harper and prevented him from obtaining the majority he so desperately craves--a quality essential in s truly national party. This time won't be any better, and voters may well decide that after five years of a minority Conservative gov't it may be time for a minority Liberal gov't again.
> 
> P.S. What happened to that fixed election date concept anyway?


So your position is Deb Grey shouldn't have been sworn in the Parliament of Canada? She was only a provincial politician from the boonies of Alberta wasn't she?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> So your position is Deb Grey shouldn't have been sworn in the Parliament of Canada? She was only a provincial politician from the boonies of Alberta wasn't she?


You continue to miss the point entirely. A provincially based French speaking party that has publicly stated they want to separate from Canada is what we are discussing, not ancient Reform party history, that eventually morphed into the current Conservative party.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Reform morphed into a national party. A party that advocates separation from Canada will never do that. Traitors in parliament is basically all they are.


All they did was cross the floor, It was either that or become independents,
Which, Brings us back to what Duceppe is...An independent that formed a party.

It's not his fault that his party is in Quebec.

It looks like he's going to have his 7th straight win,
Can't get those odds on a Tory horse.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Reform morphed into a national party. A party that advocates separation from Canada will never do that. Traitors in parliament is basically all they are.


The thought police are amongst us beware, beware. No idea shall go uncontrolled. 

They shall inform you of the dangers. Freedom of speech, balderdash! Freedom of assembly, anarchy! Freedom of thought, intolerable! 

The Great and glorious leader of Canada's New and Infallible Government©®™ and his devoted followers shall allow everything you require. Don't worry be happy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> One thing I'll have to say about Dion, He certainly had a brilliant concept to solve the
> pollution problem, Better than giving money away to the corporations and letting
> them keep polluting for the sake of jobs.


He had a brilliant plan of exporting Canada's economy to China and India anyway.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> With this logic how can the Conservatives govern Canada when they represent no one in Newfoundland and Labrador.
> 
> Has the reality distortion field been dialled to maximum strength or did it the big lie of conservative supporters in the western land become the truth in those environs?


In all fairness to the voters of NL, we had our chance to vote in up to 7 members in the House of Commons. The voters chose to elect 6 Liberals and one member from the NDP (in my federal riding :clap: ). Still, the Newfoundland Liberation Party did not get many votes.

So, Peter Mackay theoretically represents us in the House of Commons.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Lawrence Martin: Budgetland

"Harperland" Author Lawrence Martin on the Stephen Harper Conservatives and the 2011 federal budget. Martin appeared on TVO's the Agenda.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The thought police are amongst us beware, beware. No idea shall go uncontrolled.
> 
> They shall inform you of the dangers. Freedom of speech, balderdash! Freedom of assembly, anarchy! Freedom of thought, intolerable!
> 
> The Great and glorious leader of Canada's New and Infallible Government©®™ and his devoted followers shall allow everything you require. Don't worry be happy.


No kidding SINC and Macfury, You are famous on Google:



> Search Results
> Looks like there might be a Spring election - Page 15 - ehMac.ca
> 2 posts - 2 authors
> Traitors in parliament is basically all they are. ... One thing I'll have to say about Dion, He certainly had a brilliant concept to solve the ... He had a brilliant plan of exporting Canada's economy to China and India anyway. ...
> Canada's Mac, iPod, iPhone and Apple TV Community! › ... › ehMac: Canada's Mac Community! › Everything Else, eh!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> No kidding SINC and Macfury, You are famous on Google:


I'm utterly amazed at how quickly Google indexes EhMac...vsometimes it literally takes about 10 minutes for these pearls of wisdom to be broadcast worldwide.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> He had a brilliant plan of exporting Canada's economy to China and India anyway.


You know what, After reading Brian Jean's blurb on this page
I really can't see what the difference is with the governments plan today versus back then.

Even without the carbon tax we are still feeling the same effects as stated by Brian Jean.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm utterly amazed at how quickly Google indexes EhMac...vsometimes it literally takes about 10 minutes for these pearls of wisdom to be broadcast worldwide.


All you have to do is say the word "traitor" and the world is watching.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> You know what, After reading Brian Jean's blurb on this page
> I really can't see what the difference is with the governments plan today versus back then.
> 
> Even without the carbon tax we are still feeling the same effects as stated by Brian Jean.



Similar effects, minus the massive effect of the carbon tax, which would have exaggerated the effect of world economic pressures.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The thing that is being forgotten in this argument is that the Bloc runs no candidates outside of the province of Quebec. All other parties are National parties because they run candidates in ridings in all provinces. It does not matter whether or not they win just that they run a candidate. 

The BQ is a* not* a National party, SINC is correct they are a provincial party running in a federal election. However, there is nothing to stop them from doing this, but I do personally take umbrage with them receiving the federal subsidies that they do when by definition they cannot have electoral support (i.e. no votes) outside the province of Quebec.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

screature said:


> The thing that is being forgotten in this argument is that the Bloc runs no candidates outside of the province of Quebec. All other parties are National parties because they run candidates in ridings in all provinces. It does not matter whether or not they win just that they run a candidate.
> 
> The BQ is a* not* a National party, SINC is correct they are a provincial party running in a federal election. However, there is nothing to stop them from doing this, but I do personally take umbrage with them receiving the federal subsidies that they do when by definition they cannot have electoral support (i.e. no votes) outside the province of Quebec.


actually never thought of it that way...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ignatieff has proved himself a disaster at strategic thinking. I believe that the Conservatives have succeeded in craftily creating a situation too tempting for him to resist. They offer a budget with some obvious and well-reported concessions, but one that his ego simply can't allow to survive. This is Iggy's last chance to run, so he's willing to call an election at what he may perceive as the most opportune moment remaining for himself. 

I suspect he'll be reeling a few months from now.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> The thing that is being forgotten in this argument is that the Bloc runs no candidates outside of the province of Quebec. All other parties are National parties because they run candidates in ridings in all provinces. It does not matter whether or not they win just that they run a candidate.
> 
> The BQ is a* not* a National party, SINC is correct they are a provincial party running in a federal election. However, there is nothing to stop them from doing this, but I do personally take umbrage with them receiving the federal subsidies that they do when by definition they cannot have electoral support (i.e. no votes) outside the province of Quebec.


This is just old hat, But, I'll bite:



> A New Political Party is Born
> The Bloc Québécois emerged as an entity in 1990 when Lucien Bouchard, a prominent cabinet minister in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, and a group of Progressive Conservative and Liberal MPs, left their respective parties. The Bloc was originally created as an informal coalition with the objective of promoting Quebec sovereignty at the federal level. However, it soon evolved into a full-fledged federal political party, despite that it has always run candidates only in Quebec ridings. The BQ was bolstered by considerable dissatisfaction with the federal system and increased sentiment for separatism in Quebec following the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. Duceppe’s victory in the 1990 by-election in the riding of Laurier—Sainte Marie was a watershed moment in the Bloc’s development: it showed that a sovereigntist party at the federal level was capable of winning seats in Quebec.


Source:
Voter Almanac


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> This is just old hat, But, I'll bite:
> 
> Source:
> Voter Almanac


I think I know the history of the Bloc as I lived through it and live in the province of Quebec... what exactly is your point?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ignatieff has proved himself a disaster at strategic thinking. I believe that the Conservatives have succeeded in craftily creating a situation too tempting for him to resist. They offer a budget with some obvious and well-reported concessions, but one that his ego simply can't allow to survive. This is Iggy's last chance to run, so he's willing to call an election at what he may perceive as the most opportune moment remaining for himself.
> 
> I suspect he'll be reeling a few months from now.


It won't be the budget that brings down the Harper government,
The Harper government has made a major mistake in their timing.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> I think I know the history of the Bloc as I lived through it and live in the province of Quebec... what exactly is your point?


The point being the obvious, The BQ was formed as a federal party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> It won't be the budget that brings down the Harper government,
> The Harper government has made a major mistake in their timing.


Just what the hens said about that fox with the feathers stuck to his mouth. It's too late to try to make the non-confidence vote appear to be about something else. Iggy has already blown it... again.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> It won't be the budget that brings down the Harper government,
> The Harper government has made a major mistake in their timing.


Not really, there is very little room for it to have happened differently. It is simply a matter of the timing of the procedures of the House. They pushed back the Liberals Opposition day as far as they could. The budget requires 2 full days of debate before the first possible vote (the budget actually has several votes along the way to full implementation) so that left Friday being the first opportunity to vote on the budget, but the contempt motion will actually be voted on first. C'est la garre. It is all a matter of trivia as what brings them down, the Opposition all said they would vote against the budget as well, it makes no difference in the end and the public knows it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> The point being the obvious, The BQ was formed as a federal party.


Who said anything differently? Of course they are a federally registered party otherwise they couldn't run in a federal election, that is not the point or the argument being made. The fact remains they are *not* a National party... did you actually read my post?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

It doesn't matter what motion the opposition votes on to bring us to an election - the Conservatives are already going to campaign on an "It's the economy, stupid," platform while the Liberals apparently are planning on campaigning on some sort of 'integrity and honesty' platform (apparently thinking that we're completely stupid and don't remember the scandals from the Liberal era). Very "pot/kettle" of them.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Who said anything differently? Of course they are a federally registered party otherwise they couldn't run in a federal election, that is not the point or the argument being made. The fact remains they are *not* a National party... did you actually read my post?


I read your post, But my post provides information as to why they are limited to Quebec,
Also it clears the air on the requirements of a federal party.

I really can't see the problem, Duceppe made a lot of gains for Quebec,
Would it be a better province if he stepped down and had all those gains eradicated?

I mean, Who's being targeted here exactly, The party or the province?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It is all a matter of trivia as what brings them down, the Opposition all said they would vote against the budget as well, it makes no difference in the end and the public knows it.


With Layton and Ignatieff already plastered all over the front pages as committed to bringing down the government over the budget, the public already perceives this as a budget issue. Trying to change it to an integrity issue at this late date is painfully transparent, appearing more as a last-ditch effort to reframe the landscape around the coming train wreck.

Iggy must have gotten some devastating polling data in recent days, or he wouldn't have attempted to pull this off. The ineptitude of the Liberal PR strategy is alarming.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> I read your post, But my post provides information as to why they are limited to Quebec,
> Also it clears the air on the requirements of a federal party.
> 
> I really can't see the problem, *Duceppe made a lot of gains for Quebec,*
> ...


I live here and I don't see them, crumbling infrastructure and the longest wait times for medical care in Canada. What exactly has he gained for Quebec? 

I would actually say the opposite. He and his party have hurt Quebec by diminishing federalist representation in the House. His MPs never can be in the government or in Cabinet and that is where they can be most influential. No the Bloc has been a blight on Quebec and any Quebecer who understands federal politics and isn't consumed with separatist notions understands this.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> I live here and I don't see them, crumbling infrastructure and the longest wait times for medical care in Canada. What exactly has he gained for Quebec?
> 
> I would actually say the opposite. He and his party have hurt Quebec by diminishing federalist representation in the House. His MPs never can be in the government or in Cabinet and that is where they can be most influential. No the Bloc has been a blight on Quebec and any Quebecer who understands federal politics and isn't consumed with separatist notions understands this.


Ontario is no different, If Toronto became a province tomorrow then I'd cheer

Provincial downloading in its present form sucks.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what amuses me, is watching how the conservatives think Iggy's opportunism of forcing an election, is in any way, different than Harper's having brought on the last 3 elections.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's interesting to see how many westerners do not want an election. As a matter of fact a poll on the local Global news in Edmonton last night ended up like this:










Stories being carried now are warning voters that a vote for the NDP or the Liberals is a sure fire way to install a coalition government. Voters are being urged to elect a Conservative majority to end this threat once and for all.

That kind of fits with my theory that most Canadians will see it the same way once they have a ballot in hand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what amuses me, is watching how the conservatives think Iggy's opportunism of forcing an election, is in any way, different than Harper's having brought on the last 3 elections.


It's different, because Iggy isn't smart enough to work it in his favour.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> It's interesting to see how many westerners do not want an election. As a matter of fact a poll on the local Global news in Edmonton last night ended up like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As everyone knows, web site polls are suspect at best and can be completely manipulated at worst. But even if the poll had SOME accuracy, it must be a different situation where the outcome of 95% of the seats are a foregone conclusion, being won by Conservatives. There naturally wouldn't be much interest in an election if that is the case.

But I don't think that most people who aren't political junkies look too favourably on the idea of elections — or politics in general. That often changes once the election is underway and people start to notice the issues and debate. I think the bogeyman that "Canadians don't want an election" or "whoever is seen as triggering an election will suffer" is not a huge factor. 

It didn't hurt Harper when he triggered the last one, even though his opponents wanted it to hurt him. But in this case it's clear to all but the most partisan Conservatives that if Harper doesn't want an election right now, we won't be having one.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> It's interesting to see how many westerners do not want an election. As a matter of fact a poll on the local Global news in Edmonton last night ended up like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The suggested support for Conservatives in the western lands is not surprising, however the concentration of conservative views in the western lands does not serve you well at all.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Am I missing something here? 

I get the feeling that the Ignats theme is going to be that the Cons have proven to be every bit as greedy and corrupt as the Liberals. Therefore being a traditionally Liberal province Ontario can go back to having 95% Liberal misrepresentation. 

I will not be at all surprised if the Cons trump card will be promising no Carbon Tax. A huge issue as those living on minimal levels of income could easily see their monthly expenses double. It may well get the Cons a one seat majority. I am sure they will be as quick to renege on that as they were on the promise not to tax those Royalty funds (forget the correct name but I do have a couple of friends that have sworn to never again vote for the Cons after being burned on that one).


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

You mean incomes trusts?

Most people would be glad to see such a large gapping loophole closed for evasion of corporate tax, but I guess the perspective is different when you're one of those who were using the loophole.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> MLeh: You mean incomes trusts?
> 
> Most people would be glad to see such a large gapping loophole closed for evasion of corporate tax, but I guess the perspective is different when you're one of those who were using the loophole.


I believe those were the ones. Certainly had a big impact on those involved, as they could not dump them and the return rate was rather poor without the tax advantage. 

Point was the Cons kept the promise on that one about as well as the Cretin kept his word on dumping the GST.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> I believe those were the ones. Certainly had a big impact on those involved, as they could not dump them and the return rate was rather poor without the tax advantage.
> 
> Point was the Cons kept the promise on that one about as well as the Cretin kept his word on dumping the GST.


The blame for the losses incurred by those Trust holders who sold is with their financial advisers and themselves. The change in the Trust distribution system was given a susnset clause such that the changes actually only come into affect this year, 2011.

I have an income trust and it took a helluva hit right after the announcement, on paper. I held on and it returned back to where it was before the announcement was made in a little under a year. All investments have risk including government decisions affecting the stock price.

It was the right thing for the government to do closing that loop hole because more and more multi-billion dollar corporations were adopting the income trust structure in order to avoid paying income tax.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So why did Harper make a very public announcement that he WOULD NOT TAX INCOME TRUSTS?

And the conservatives go batcrap nuts when a liberal does it, screaming criminals! Liars! Lieberals! Arrrggghhh! however when their party does it, meh, it should have been done anyway.

Funny stuff that.

Let's here some more about how the conservatives keep their promises.

LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> And the conservatives go batcrap nuts when a liberal does it, screaming criminals! Liars! Lieberals! Arrrggghhh! however when their party does it, meh, it should have been done anyway.


groove, where is all this screaming you keep talking about?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The Conservatives certainly ran their EAP with an election in mind buy the folks off with their own money as expressed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApNfU195LsY


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> groove, where is all this screaming you keep talking about?


Probably something to do with the GST and Sheila Copps.


----------



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

Not that I think it will happen, but I was wondering the legality of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's power to prorogue Parliament tomorrow morning. Could he do this and thus, delay any no confidence vote?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Not that I think it will happen, but I was wondering the legality of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's power to prorogue Parliament tomorrow morning. Could he do this and thus, delay any no confidence vote?


He could probably do that, Then he could go to the Royal Wedding.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I believe he could under the rules. He would delay the inevitable and rule by means of Governor in Council for a period but he would then look as if he believes his governments budget is a fail.

I still wonder will he wander over to Rideau Hall tonight or tomorrow morning, talk to the GG and dissolve the house so as not to be found in contempt of Parliament.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> I believe he could under the rules. He would delay the inevitable and rule by means of Governor in Council for a period but he would then look as if he believes his governments budget is a fail.
> 
> I still wonder will he wander over to Rideau Hall tonight or tomorrow morning, talk to the GG and dissolve the house so as not to be found in contempt of Parliament.


You concluding comment is what I would be betting on if I was a betting man, and someone gave me 5-1 odds. We shall see.


----------



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

dolawren said:


> He could probably do that, Then he could go to the Royal Wedding.


One never knows, dolwaren. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It just might be a disappointing election for many here when the Liberals and NDP combined can barely equal Tory support in Ontario:

Tories near majority territory: poll



> The Conservative party is approaching majority territory on the eve of a federal election campaign, according to a poll conducted for Global National and Postmedia News by Ipsos Reid.
> 
> *If an election were held today, 43 per cent of the national vote would support Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, while Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would receive 24 per cent, according to the poll.*
> 
> ...


Tories near majority territory: poll


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Too bad!

There is only one poll that counts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, and it looms ever closer given your membership in "a disappointing election for many here".


----------



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

I say let there be a non-confidence vote tomorrow, a writ brought to the GG on Saturday, and we go to the polls on Tuesday. There would be one debate on Monday between the leaders of the five parties, and then we go to vote on Tuesday. 

Not going to happen, but it would avoid much of the cost and bickering of the politicians and the electorate.

Vox populi.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The Conservatives certainly ran their EAP with an election in mind buy the folks off with their own money as expressed here


What do you call promises to improve government-run health care? Where do you think the money comes from? All government spending promises are intended to buy off various parties with their own money.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> It just might be a disappointing election for many here when the Liberals and NDP combined can barely equal Tory support in Ontario:


Dream a little dream SINC. If I recall, you've been singing the same tune every election since the Reformer became PM. You should become a weatherman!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC has been closer to correct than many here.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> SINC has been closer to correct than many here.


Whatever that means. Wrong is still wrong. Are you the official spokesposter?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Whatever that means. Wrong is still wrong. Are you the official spokesposter?


Perhaps I am. I'll think about it and tell you for certain later.


----------



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

An option to my previous posting would be a 24 hour show on ALL Canadian TV stations entitled "The Incivility and Attack Ad Channel". For 24 hours, regardless of what station you turn to, so long as it was a Canadian station, this is all you get. Then, we go to vote.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: I love incivility in politics. It's the nature of that dirty beast. By all means express your ideas, but feel free to express them in as cruel a fashion as you care to. Why try to limit my fun to a single station?


----------



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

I think that one thing is going to come out of this election -- new leaders for most if not all of the major five parties. Unless PM Harper finally wins a majority, there might be a change in a couple of years. As for the other parties, dramatic positive results at the polls might be the only thing standing in the way of leadership campaigns and their farewell speeches. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Whatever that means. Wrong is still wrong. Are you the official spokesposter?


I don't need a spokesman to be able to predict the election outcome. This move by "Iggy The Misinformed" will result in his demise and along with it, his party. 

Lameton and his crowd will suffer the same spanking at the hands of Canadians who are tired of their, and their supporters ill-guided blindness in following the current leadership of both opposition parties.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: I love incivility in politics. It's the nature of that dirty beast. By all means express your ideas, but feel free to express them in as cruel a fashion as you care to. Why try to limit my fun to a single station?


Not a single station, Macfury -- ALL stations. Regardless of what you turn on, it will be the 24 hour incivility and attack ad station. Sort of like a day in the life of Big Brother. Paix, mon ami.

Seriously, I personally tire of attack ads. They do not add anything to the debate. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I don't need a spokesman to be able to predict the election outcome. This move by "Iggy The Misinformed" will result in his demise and along with it, his party.
> 
> Lameton and his crowd will suffer the same spanking at the hands of Canadians who are tired of their, and their supporters ill-guided blindness in following the current leadership of both opposition parties.


Dream on dreamer, dream on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Dream on dreamer, dream on.


One thing is for sure, one of us is right. We shall see whom in due time.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> One thing is for sure, one of us is right. We shall see whom in due time.


And to the victor go the spoils.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> And to the victor go the spoils.


And Iggy and Lameton will be those spoils.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yeah I recall all the sabre rattling before in the last election. Harper was gonna get a majority for sure. Even with Dion and his carbon tax scheme, Harper still failed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Yeah I recall all the sabre rattling before in the last election. Harper was gonna get a majority for sure. Even with Dion and his carbon tax scheme, Harper still failed.


Yeah, right, but that was back when they had Dion as a leader. Iggy is far less popular. 

Times change.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

far less popular? Really? You only wish Sinc.

Sorry to ruin your evening. 

Poll shows increasing voter skepticism about Harper government - The Globe and Mail


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> far less popular? Really? You only wish Sinc.
> 
> Sorry to ruin your evening.
> 
> Poll shows increasing voter skepticism about Harper government - The Globe and Mail


Too bad!

There is only one poll that counts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*the election issue:*

Do we like Harper's art?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> far less popular? Really? You only wish Sinc.
> 
> Sorry to ruin your evening.


Nothing ruined, it's been common knowledge for years now and continues:

Ignatieff would take Liberals to worse election showing than Dion: poll

Michael Ignatieff enters 'Dion-land' - The Globe and Mail

Ignatieff would do worse in election than Dion: poll

Ignatieff would take Liberals to worse election showing than Dion: poll - Politics - News - The Prince Albert Daily Herald

And it is going to continue, guaranteed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of polls. Especially these days when increasingly pollsters can't get anyone to answer the phone. I got called on the weekend and I had to tell the lady I was too busy to answer her questions. I wanted to but it was bad timing. Many don't even have land lines anymore and pollsters generally can't call mobile phones. 

And especially in a place like Canada where we don't vote for the leader, we vote for our local MP. Inaccurate percentages of support or lack of support for any given party can't necessarily translate into seat counts. They can't indicate much besides the most general trends, and may even be wrong on that count.

And polls at the beginning of an election campaign rarely stay the same. 

Polls are mostly for dogs to pee on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of polls. Especially these days when increasingly pollsters can't get anyone to answer the phone. I got called on the weekend and I had to tell the lady I was too busy to answer her questions. I wanted to but it was bad timing. Many don't even have land lines anymore and pollsters generally can't call mobile phones.
> 
> And especially in a place like Canada where we don't vote for the leader, we vote for our local MP. Inaccurate percentages of support or lack of support for any given party can't necessarily translate into seat counts. They can't indicate much besides the most general trends, and may even be wrong on that count.
> 
> ...


We all love them when (we think) they're in our corner though.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yeah I recall all the sabre rattling before in the last election. Harper was gonna get a majority for sure. Even with Dion and his carbon tax scheme, Harper still failed.


GT, given SINC's prediction track record, his current assertions guarantee us more of the same. It's when _he_ thinks there will be more of the same that we're in trouble.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> With NDP's leader, Jack Layton, saying that there was not enough in the new budget to gain his support, and with the Liberals and Bloc leaders already saying that they would not support this budget, it appears that we might be headed for a Spring election.
> 
> It should prove to be an interesting time for many across Canada. We shall see.
> 
> Remember, voting is one of the four responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. ...


As long as you won't make me remember the other 5 or 6 responsibilities of citizenship, I'l go and vote.


But please stop all these phone calls that ask me to reveal what i will do in my SECRET BALLOT!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> GT, given SINC's prediction track record, his current assertions guarantee us more of the same. It's when _he_ thinks there will be more of the same that we're in trouble.


yeah I know 

well hopefully it'll be someone returned to a minority.

er, heh heh
Conservatives are pedalling furiously but going nowhere - The Globe and Mail

Though, the majority talk is better. Because when Canadians smell the coffee and realize voting for this uy might mean a majority, down goes his support. 

So yeah, Majority!! wooo! MAJORITY Stephen's gonna getta a majority!!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I am kind of disappointed by this thread as it is just a re-hash of previous discussions. 

I'd like to see some policy discussions, like do we need the f35? I am disappointed to see Canada sending planes to Libya, it is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to justify the need for Canada to have attack fighters. If the need is for something to defend Canada's sovereignty there are more cost effective ways.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I am kind of disappointed by this thread as it is just a re-hash of previous discussions.
> 
> I'd like to see some policy discussions, like do we need the f35? I am disappointed to see Canada sending planes to Libya, it is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to justify the need for Canada to have attack fighters. If the need is for something to defend Canada's sovereignty there are more cost effective ways.


if we could do away with the sabre rattling, it's too tempting to, poke a stick... 

I read that a poll showed that the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't think we should be spending that kind of money at the moment, and Harper and co has made a real point of telling Canadians our economy is still fragile, so they're going to have a tough one on this.

The economy will indeed be a big one here, and I think Harper has handed Iggy some pretty good ammo finally. It's a question of whether Iggy is crafty enough to get some traction early, and run a tight campaign as Harper has shown once before in 06.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> The economy will indeed be a big one here, and I think Harper has handed Iggy some pretty good ammo finally. It's a question of whether Iggy is crafty enough to get some traction early, and run a tight campaign as Harper has shown once before in 06.


Iggy has been awfully crafty in recent years. Why there was... wait a minute... what about... then there was the time... 

Give that man an egg, and the first thing he'd do is rub it over his face.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree with GA - polls are a distraction at best. They mean whatever people want them to mean. We all get to be talking heads and engage in purple punditry when the circus, once again, comes to town.

Guess we'll get what we get. As the good doc says, "we shall see."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> I am kind of disappointed by this thread as it is just a re-hash of previous discussions.
> 
> I'd like to see some policy discussions, like do we need the f35? I am disappointed to see Canada sending planes to Libya, *it is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to justify the need for Canada to have attack fighters. *If the need is for something to defend Canada's sovereignty there are more cost effective ways.


Nonsense. It is our obligation to provide support in this UN sanctioned action, we are also providing naval support. Some people just love to see a conspiracy behind everything.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Iggy has been awfully crafty in recent years. Why there was... wait a minute... what about... then there was the time...
> 
> Give that man an egg, and the first thing he'd do is rub it over his face.


Well I hope that was at least somewhat cathartic for you.



Max said:


> I agree with GA - polls are a distraction at best. They mean whatever people want them to mean. We all get to be talking heads and engage in purple punditry when the circus, once again, comes to town.
> 
> Guess we'll get what we get. As the good doc says, "we shall see."


yes, it'll be polled to death, and much hollering and sabre rattling.

But I don't see very much to hope for, or celebrate here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I agree with GA - polls are a distraction at best. They mean whatever people want them to mean. We all get to be talking heads and engage in purple punditry when the circus, once again, comes to town.
> 
> Guess we'll get what we get. As the good doc says, "we shall see."


Polls have been shown to be next to meaningless up until the last few days before the election and even then they can be off. It is kind of like forecasting the weather, the long term forecast is almost always wrong and if it is right it is only a fluke, the short term forecast often stands a chance of being relatively accurate but there can always be surprises. 

Polls are mostly good for two things, keeping pollsters and the media in business.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Some people just love to see a conspiracy behind everything.


Sounds... conspiratorial.

[ducks back around corner, disappears into the wind]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> I am kind of disappointed by this thread as it is just a re-hash of previous discussions.
> 
> I'd like to see some policy discussions, like do we need the f35? I am disappointed to see Canada sending planes to Libya, it is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to justify the need for Canada to have attack fighters. If the need is for something to defend Canada's sovereignty there are more cost effective ways.


That would be a re-hash of the discussions we already had about the F-35.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That would be a re-hash of the discussions we already had about the F-35.


And once again a post that has nothing to do about discussing policy.

C'mon you can do better than this.

What policy issues do you think we should be discussing?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> And once again a post that has nothing to do about discussing policy.
> 
> C'mon you can do better than this.
> 
> What policy issues do you think we should be discussing?


Did you miss the discussion about the F-35? Seriously? There was a huge discussion on that last week.

And instead of asking others what you should be discussing, why don't you begin a discussion on the policy of your choice?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

How stupid of the Liberals to take down the Conservatives on ethics charges. Why not stand on your principles and vote down the budget, which is the real issue?

I think it is time for Harper to have a try at a majority government. He has had a steady hand at the helm for the past five years and has shown himself to be worthy.

Let's see what they can do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> How stupid of the Liberals to take down the Conservatives on ethics charges. Why not stand on your principles and vote down the budget, which is the real issue?


As a strategy, it's an embarrassment. They should have done so before the budget was announced to make that stick as the reason for the election. The bumbling suggests that the same geniuses behind Dion are behind this debacle.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Did you miss the discussion about the F-35? Seriously? There was a huge discussion on that last week.


You know I started that thread, this is clearly a new election issue. The program was started under a Liberal government and is now a Conservative platform. The question for voters is do we need these things?



Macfury said:


> And instead of asking others what you should be discussing, why don't you begin a discussion on the policy of your choice?


It's pretty easy to fling feces from the cheap seats, but it's kind of hard to participate constructively.

I don't really have an issue with the Conservative Party getting elected again, or with the Liberals. I have more of an issue with corporate Tax cuts at the expense of a balanced budget. That's a policy discussion... That simple enough for you?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

VanDave, I know you and I are not in agreement on many things but I enjoy hearing your take nonetheless.

I think ethics and democratic representation is every bit as important as the budget. I do not see one as being exclusive of the other. Harper's administration has demonstrated that the man has contempt for many parliamentary procedures and that the very things he used to criticize previous administrations for, accountability and transparency, have been dispensed with in an expedient fashion - all in the name of consolidating and extending his power. By my lights, the man wants Canada to be happy with some stern, grey father figure who knows best; I can't say I'm one of the flock who agrees with such a patronizing take.

This election will be examining many issues, the budget among them. But the country is also beset by the fractures of regionalism, and what's important to one region may be at best irrelevant to another. Now that the election is upon us, all bets are off. Predicting who will win is for some great sport, but I think it's a mug's game. I just don't feel as confident as many of you apparently do, regarding who will win and what will result of this latest round - a majority or a minority.

As an aside, I was having a beer with an old friend last night at the local. Normally we refrain from discussing politics because it's not really something we generally do. But this being election time, the topic came up. I was surprised to hear him rail on against Ignatieff. He clarified that he loathes Stephen Harper but that he considers Iggy even worse. I had to laugh at the depth of his vitriol. I have no love for either man, I have to confess. I think people are certainly frustrated by the endless go-round of elections and stymied results.

This is one of those occasions where I would be, once again, happier with a minority than a majority. No, I do not believe a conservative majority would amount to a disaster (I have one friend who contends that a conservative majority would be the best thing we could hope for, since that would give them the best chance possible to hang themselves in public). Very simply, I would rather not let this habitually dour, grey-helmeted suit of a man, with his cold, distant eyes and robotic, passionless aura, continue to ostensibly speak for myself and my fellow Canadians. The man gives me the willies. Maybe he should play the piano and sing off-key more often - that little stunt made him seem almost human.

Iggy? He's some kind of wizened reptile. Crafty and calculating and not of this earth. Doubtless he's got the strangest ideas about his natural leadership, too.

It's a little shop of horrors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> I don't really have an issue with the Conservative Party getting elected again, or with the Liberals. I have more of an issue with corporate Tax cuts at the expense of a balanced budget. That's a policy discussion... That simple enough for you?


No need to be snipey. Enjoy your discussion!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I have one friend who contends that a conservative majority would be the best thing we could hope for, since that would give them the best chance possible to hang themselves in public).


Time to test this theory, Max.



Max said:


> It's a little shop of horrors.


Feed me-e-e-e-e-e-e.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

I am not sure if we will have a majority govt...it might all depend on how bad the Bloc plays up up the "woe is us...we need more money". If they expand their seat count then we will have a minority. If Flaherty cuts a good GST deal with Charest, it might be enough to swing the tide in Quebec. 

Neither Harper or Iggy do anything for me as leaders.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Thanks Max. Likewise.

I don't really want a leader that only has charisma. Leaders like that tend to be low on substance. I don't want somebody who just smiles for the camera and is only thinking about how to spin an issue or put on an act for the public. I want our leaders to be cold and calculating. I want them to be intellectual. I want them to understand the issues and have an opinion about them. And that's what I like about Harper. What you see as being a negative, I see as being a positive.

Accountability and transparency is important to me as well. The Conservatives has disappointed me a little bit on that front. However, I put more faith in them on these issues than any other party. The Conservatives have a strong base from the Reform Party and that was about cleaning up Ottawa and fixing our systems to make it work better for all Canadians. I am hopeful that a majority Conservative government can bring in some of these needed changes. I would like to see Senate Reform. I would like to see less political appointments. I would like to see more power in the hands of the electorate. The only party to really speak about these issues has been the Conservatives. The Liberals have always been far too entrenched in the status quo and I still don't trust them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> yeah I know
> 
> well hopefully it'll be someone returned to a minority.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, seems that Gob and Snail yarn of yours left out just a bit of pertinent information:



> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives begin an election campaign this weekend far ahead of their political rivals in public favour and would be poised to win a "comfortable" majority if Canadians cast their votes now, a new poll has found.
> 
> The national survey, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, reveals that voter support is declining for the opposition Liberals who have put forward a non-confidence motion that will lead to the defeat of the Conservative government in the House of Commons Friday afternoon.
> 
> ...


Tories begin campaign far ahead of Liberals, poll shows


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said, VanDave. I wish for many of the same things - Senate Reform, less political appointments (good luck to us on that one!), etc. And I agree that charm or charisma in and of itself is not the be all and end all.... but I guess we'll have to part ways with how we respectively see Mr. Harper.

MF: I don't want to see a Conservative majority - not while the party leadership is under the Harper Flag. The man is arrogant. I would rather not see the country give him the reins to do his thing. Nor do I see much in the way of fiscal conservatism to applaud. The whole way this jet purchase thing has gone down gives me pause. And the obsession for super-prisons and supposed "unreported crime" borders on high weirdness and Prime Sinisterial occultism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> ...Prime Sinisterial occultism.


Shades of Mackenzie King!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think I will donate a bit of cash to keep those ads rolling.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> As a strategy, it's an embarrassment. They should have done so before the budget was announced to make that stick as the reason for the election. The bumbling suggests that the same geniuses behind Dion are behind this debacle.


I should disagree with the assertion whom bumbled. It seems to me the Conservatives are getting the election they planned for, right on schedule, but not as they planned.

The Liberals, to me, seemed to have suddenly woke up and figured out how to be an effective opposition. The liberals did this right on cue for the historic occasion to the absolute disgrace of the Conservative Government. Parliament finding the Conservatives guilty of contempt.

The results of the next election will be a footnote with regard to pundits referencing Harper as the only PM to be sanctioned in this manner.

Harper master strategist indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I should disagree with the assertion whom bumbled. It seems to me the Conservatives are getting the election they planned for, right on schedule, but not as they planned.
> 
> The Liberals, to me, seemed to have suddenly woke up and figured out how to be an effective opposition. The liberals did this right on cue for the historic occasion to the absolute disgrace of the Conservative Government. Parliament finding the Conservatives guilty of contempt.
> 
> ...



I guess that's what it looks like when you're seeing it from the bottom of the heap.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, seems that Gob and Snail yarn of yours left out just a bit of pertinent information:
> 
> 
> Tories begin campaign far ahead of Liberals, poll shows


oh Sinc. I'm mocking the whole sabre rattling and poll talk. Seriously.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> ...MF: I don't want to see a Conservative majority - not while the party leadership is under the Harper Flag. *The man is arrogant.*....


Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien... all arrogant. It seems to be a common trait among leaders in Canada in recent history..... and if Iggy were to be PM the trend would continue as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien... all arrogant. It seems to a common trait among leaders in Canada in recent history.....


Surprise... McGuinty, Harris, Rae, Klein, Campbell. A measure of arrogance is necessary to get to the top.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No doubt! But it would be a break from Darth Harper, you have to admit.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Surprise... McGuinty, Harris, Rae, Klein, Campbell. A measure of arrogance is necessary to get to the top.


I tend to agree... there are rare exceptions, Stanfield and Pearson come to mind. But in general it seems to a personality trait that is actually necessary to duke it out among your own internal adversaries to get to the top of the party.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I guess that's what it looks like when you're seeing it from the bottom of the heap.


You do know what the smiling monkeys at the bottom of the tree see and are amused by when they look up ?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The thing about arrogance is being wise enough to recognize genuine humility in oneself. Not humiliation, humility.

Yeah, you need feistiness and determination to duke it out all the way to the top, but once there you can still be bested by your own propensities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> You do know what the smiling monkeys at the bottom of the tree see and are amused by when they look up ?


The fece****ting their faces from the big monkey on top?



Max said:


> Yeah, you need feistiness and determination to duke it out all the way to the top, but once there you can still be bested by your own propensities.


Eventually, the lack of humility finishes them all off. They're slapped out by the date what brung them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This thread's really motoring along, I can't keep up. 



Max said:


> I agree with GA - polls are a distraction at best. They mean whatever people want them to mean. We all get to be talking heads and engage in purple punditry when the circus, once again, comes to town.





screature said:


> Polls have been shown to be next to meaningless up until the last few days before the election and even then they can be off. It is kind of like forecasting the weather, the long term forecast is almost always wrong and if it is right it is only a fluke, the short term forecast often stands a chance of being relatively accurate but there can always be surprises.
> 
> Polls are mostly good for two things, keeping pollsters and the media in business.


All that said, I'll still watch them like a hawk, but that's only because I'm a political junkie, I don't give them a lot of significance.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I'm no fan of Iggy either. He strikes me as oily. I think he strikes a lot of people that way. I don't feel Harper is oily, he's strikes me as someone who is a liar though. The slightly right-of-centre political positions he has taken since his return to federal politics after his leadership of the crypto-right-wing National Citizens Coalition are not his real positions, they are strategic positions with majority government being the sole aim. I get the sense that having to wear this costume is very irritating to him.

I don't believe he could afford to revert to his real positions if he were to attain a majority, Canadians wouldn't stand for it, but the gloves will most certainly come off. You would see something similar to Harris' Ontario.

On the other hand Oily Iggy is only slightly right-of-centre. He's posing as more left than he is as well, but he wouldn't take us to where Harper is prepared to.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The fece****ting their faces from the big monkey on top?


I think you may have found a way around the censors and coined a new term all at the same time, Macfury. :clap: FECE****TING.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The slightly right-of-centre political positions he has taken since his return to federal politics after his leadership of the crypto-right-wing National Citizens Coalition are not his real positions, they are strategic positions with majority government being the sole aim. I get the sense that having to wear this costume is very irritating to him.
> 
> I don't believe he could afford to revert to his real positions if he were to attain a majority, Canadians wouldn't stand for it, but the gloves will most certainly come off. You would see something similar to Harris' Ontario.


My concerns are the reverse. I hope that he harbours these desires, but is keeping them under wrap for now. My fear is that he can't be trusted to act on them

We shall see.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I watched question period and interestingly Harper was not in the House but left his pit bull attach dog barking away.

I wonder if he is going into the house this afternoon or has he become the first rat off the sinking ship of state?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think if we do go into an election, the best result would be, Harper returns to a minority, having just lost a few seats to give him the message it's time to work with parliament with the mandate he was given, a minority government. It seems to me, Harper is the problem, he refuses to understand this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think if we do go into an election, the best result would be, Harper returns to a minority, having just lost a few seats to give him the message it's time to work with parliament with the mandate he was given, a minority government. It seems to me, Harper is the problem, he refuses to understand this.


The problem to whom?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I think if we do go into an election, the best result would be, Harper returns to a minority, having just lost a few seats to give him the message it's time to work with parliament with the mandate he was given, a minority government. It seems to me, Harper is the problem, he refuses to understand this.


But lets not forget who kept Harper as PM for the past 5 years...the longest minority government in Canada's history. 

Ah yes, the same three mouthpieces who are now so infuriated over the contempt of parliament. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The problem to whom?


likely the Canadian voters, who very clearly twice, did NOT give Harper a majority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> likely the Canadian voters, who very clearly twice, did NOT give Harper a majority.


Then why single out Harper? All of the leaders did not get a majority. Except Harper got a larger not-majority than any of them.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Then why single out Harper? All of the leaders did not get a majority. Except Harper got a larger not-majority than any of them.


Yep.

I've never voted anything but Liberal in my life, but recent Liberal leadership leaves a lot to be desired. I know a number of die-hard Liberal party voters and I have yet to meet one who's impressed with Ignatieff.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Great to see Harper Fall (hopefully the next time on his face)beejacon! Let the show begin!!!!

Election looms as government falls - Politics - CBC News


----------



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

Maybe PM Harper shall walk across the street to see the GG, writ in hand ................ and then toss the GG out of his office and declare a "coup d'etat"? Maybe not. 

I still wish we could bypass the campaigning, the ads upon ads upon ads and go straight to the vote next week.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Maybe PM Harper shall walk across the street to see the GG, writ in hand ................ and then toss the GG out of his office and declare a "coup d'etat"? Maybe not.
> 
> I still wish we could bypass the campaigning, the ads upon ads upon ads and go straight to the vote next week.


:clap::clap::clap:

Harper is a weasel but he's no Alexander Haig!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> ...I still wish we could bypass the campaigning, the ads upon ads upon ads and go straight to the vote next week.


I 'd be ready to go vote tomorrow.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Yep.
> 
> I've never voted anything but Liberal in my life, but recent Liberal leadership leaves a lot to be desired. I know a number of die-hard Liberal party voters and I have yet to meet one who's impressed with Ignatieff.


If you've ever watched those old "Law and Order" shows,
You might see some resemblance to Sam Waterston. (Second from the right below)


----------



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

screature said:


> I 'd be ready to go vote tomorrow.


No, let everyone rest up this weekend. Let there be a five person debate on Monday for about five hours, and then we vote on Tuesday.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Maybe PM Harper shall walk across the street to see the GG, writ in hand ................ and then toss the GG out of his office and declare a "coup d'etat"? Maybe not.
> 
> I still wish we could bypass the campaigning, the ads upon ads upon ads and go straight to the vote next week.


He's probably kicking Flaherty in the A$$


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> No, let everyone rest up this weekend. Let there be a five person debate on Monday for about five hours, and then we vote on Tuesday.


5 hours!!! Do you want the kill off the public from a brain haemorrhage or just put them into a coma.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> 5 hours!!! Do you want the kill off the public from a brain haemorrhage or just put them into a comma.


A comma? Not a period? Or a colon? 

They can just broadcast the debate highlights over Twitter.


----------



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

jimbotelecom said:


> :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> Harper is a weasel but he's no Alexander Haig!


True. 

Still, if PM Harper makes a deal with the Bloc, the Conservatives could have a majority in the House, and claim that they have MPs from every province from BC to NS ................. all except NL, which elected no Conservatives to the House. 

In exchange for their support, the Conservatives would give the Bloc (and Quebec) control over all of Labrador, and the oil rights to the offshore oil around the island of Newfoundland. The only catch would be that they would have to drop any notion of Quebec Nationalism. With all of this newfound wealth in resources, they would jump at the offer, since Quebec would become a powerhouse of economic growth in Canada, much like AB. As an added bonus to the Bloc, the people of NL would have to speak only French. 

The new battlecry for those of us here in NL would be "la mort avant le déshonneur".

Paix, mes amis.


----------



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

screature said:


> 5 hours!!! Do you want the kill off the public from a brain haemorrhage or just put them into a comma.





Sonal said:


> A comma? Not a period? Or a colon?
> 
> They can just broadcast the debate highlights over Twitter.


Good idea, Sonal. Still, I would tune in to at least the first and last hour or so just to see how the five leaders start off and how they finish.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> True.
> 
> Still, if PM Harper makes a deal with the Bloc, the Conservatives could have a majority in the House, and claim that they have MPs from every province from BC to NS ................. all except NL, which elected no Conservatives to the House.
> 
> ...


Add to that that Quebec would steal your power and resell it to the Americans at great profit.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> A comma? Not a period? Or a colon?
> 
> They can just broadcast the debate highlights over Twitter.


Aww crap, too much typing not enough looking... fixed.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Good idea, Sonal. Still, I would tune in to at least the first and last hour or so just to see how the five leaders start off and how they finish.


Sure. Webcast the full debate, and also break up the individual questions and sections up onto youtube so people can both read the highlights and see further detail where they want to. 

In fact, do the debate Monday and leave people 3-4 days to digest the information. We can all vote Friday.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Here it is:



> STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
> 
> The global economy is still fragile. Canada’s recovery has been strong, but it needs to remain our focus. That’s why, the economy has been, and will continue to be the number one priority for me as Prime Minister and for all the Members of our Conservative government. This is what Canadians expect of us in Parliament – all of us.
> 
> ...


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

^^^^^^^^^^


Thanks Steve. And now back to our sponsors.....


*Off with 'is 'ead!*


----------



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

jimbotelecom said:


> Add to that that Quebec would steal your power and resell it to the Americans at great profit.


If they gain control of Labrador, they won't steal anything -- it shall be there power. They even save the $24 million a year that they pay us for this power, and can still sell it for over $1 billion, so they make even more of a profit. Because of our oil and mineral revenue, NL was able to balance it's books once again, and thus, all this wealth would flow to Quebec. They would be a have province.


----------



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

Sonal said:


> Sure. Webcast the full debate, and also break up the individual questions and sections up onto youtube so people can both read the highlights and see further detail where they want to.
> 
> In fact, do the debate Monday and leave people 3-4 days to digest the information. We can all vote Friday.


Why spoil a Friday with voting. We vote on Tuesday and get it over with once and for all. 

Of course, we could have a system where the party with the least votes has to drop out if there is no majority. Then we vote again on Wed. No majority, the last party has it's name stricken from the ballots, and we vote again on Thursday. Then, if there is still no clear majority, we vote for one of the last two parties standing on Friday.

Or, we could have the five candidates choose straws just after the five hour debates. Long straw is PM for three years with a majority. No need for the House of Commons or the Senate. What the PM says will happen will be law. Sort of like a Pharoh. "So let it be written ............ so let it be done."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Sort of like a Pharoh. "So let it be written ............ so let it be done."


Dr. G: Have you any experience with making bricks from clay? I hear they'll be hiring soon.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

What will be the procedure and at what time will be the dissolving of this thread?

The title of this thread "Looks like there might be a Spring election" is no longer the fact.

At this juncture of the space time continuum a Spring election looks like a certainty, that is if one can believe the latest news and commentary, although I have not heard Rex Murphy's opinion on the matter. 

What is the precedence, who would declare or make the definitive pronouncement on the demise of this thread?


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: Have you any experience with making bricks from clay? I hear they'll be hiring soon.


:lmao::lmao:

No, and I don't have a brother, Aaron either. Still, I shall put some lamb's blood on my doorpost, just in case. "Let my people go".


----------



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

BigDL said:


> What will be the procedure and at what time will be the dissolving of this thread?
> 
> The title of this thread "Looks like there might be a Spring election" is no longer the fact.
> 
> ...


As the original poster of this thread, I was going to pull the pin and start a thread on the actual election campaign once the writ was dropped tomorrow. However, if you want to start that sort of thread, be my guest. Paix, mon ami.

Rex spoke yesterday on The National. It was one of his better regular Thursday night "At Issue" presentations.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> ....*Off with 'is 'ead!*


That doesn't sound very democratic.... more like a lynch mob which the Opposition looks and behaves like more and more every day.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Release the dogs!

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/p...gn-mudslinging/article1957280/?service=mobile


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Harper; "our fragile economy cannot afford democracy". <fear, fear, fear> 
Shut up.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature: can't say as I share your instinct to blame the opposition for this latest rude debacle on the Hill.

Too bad for Harper... he wears it well.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My concerns are the reverse. I hope that he harbours these desires, but is keeping them under wrap for now. My fear is that he can't be trusted to act on them
> 
> We shall see.


Although I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the Prime Minister's secret desires, I'm almost certain that the desires that you share with him exist quite strongly and are currently under wraps to hopefully increase his electability amongst us mostly vaguely-socialistic Canucks.

My reasons for believing that Steve believes these things are based on the sum of his public statements prior to his return to federal politics and becoming leader of the present-day Conservatives. A man who believes in the things that Harper publicly stated up until 2002 doesn't suddenly change and become a mushy-middle-of-the-road "big government" supporter. Stephen Harper is absolutely not the equivalent of a blue Liberal.

But he may not be trusted to act on his real beliefs even if he attains a majority. I doubt if he would want to do a 5 year burnout as a radical right winger that would be at odds even with many conservatives. He is much to the right of most Canadians and he would end up on the golf course with Mike Harris if he were to do that, while the Liberals would end up back in power at the next opportunity. So he would have to moderate his most intense right-wing impulses and couch them in such a way that they don't cause too much consternation and might pave the way for being able to win further elections in future. 

So I'm afraid your free-market paradise will have to wait. But Steve will surely give you some nice things to snack on in the meantime, should he win that majority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Om-nom-nom!


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

*Looks to me like a choice between the lesser of five evils.*

And in the end, will it really make a difference in the direction of our country? No matter who takes the helm, seats may change in the House but the same shameful charade will continue, and the truth twisters we choose to govern us will bluster on.

Come on now…really…who among them has shown real vision? Something that goes beyond narrow-minded petty party politics, finger pointing, insult and innuendo. These are our leaders?

How many of us are proud of our politicians?

We’ll reap what we sow, like we’ve done for years now – Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, Bloc, whatever.

And so it goes. We muddle through


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

wwj said:


> And in the end, will it really make a difference in the direction of our country? No matter who takes the helm, seats may change in the House but the same shameful charade will continue, and the truth twisters we choose to govern us will bluster on.
> 
> Come on now…really…who among them has shown real vision? Something that goes beyond narrow-minded petty party politics, finger pointing, insult and innuendo. These are our leaders?
> 
> ...


I can't say I disagree with anything you've written here. I can't say I haven't thought the same things myself. 

Unfortunately this line of thinking often leads many to disengage with politics and even from voting. When this happens it only serves to hand politics over to even more cynical power mongers amongst the professional politicos. I think it's critical that citizens engage with the political process and press our elected reps to be better.

Although to be honest, I take much interest in the drama and entertainment of the horse race, my real interest is in making the country and the world a better place for all.

It's not a game, lives hang in the balance.


----------



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

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I can't say I disagree with anything you've written here. I can't say I haven't thought the same things myself.
> 
> Unfortunately this line of thinking often leads many to disengage with politics and even from voting. When this happens it only serves to hand politics over to even more cynical power mongers amongst the professional politicos. I think it's critical that citizens engage with the political process and press our elected reps to be better.
> 
> ...


Amen, Brother GA. Too much is at stake to get cynical and "disengage". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

If you don't vote you're not supporting the troops and you are dishonouring the families of the fallen and the maimed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Screature: can't say as I share your instinct to blame the opposition for this latest rude debacle on the Hill.
> 
> Too bad for Harper... he wears it well.


Well will have to agree to disagree as there is probably little point in going into detail as it is doubtful if we did either one of us would change our minds. Peace.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

already the duel begins about how it's the other side's fault for the election.

There'll be plenty of gullible people that'll buy Harper's act, but both Iggy, and Harper wanted this election.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Peace back at you, Screature.

Let the campaigning begin!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> already the duel begins about how it's the other side's fault for the election.
> 
> There'll be plenty of gullible people that'll buy Harper's act, but both Iggy, and Harper wanted this election.


Harper wanted it. Iggy was made to _think_ he wanted it. 

I suspect even Liberals close to Iggy are hoping this election relieves them of the burden. Look at that dreadful media scrum speech he gave the other day about forming a coalition government--it made him look incompetent.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

groovetube said:


> already the duel begins about how it's the other side's fault for the election....


The historic event, of the government being found in contempt of Parliament, has been successfully buried by the Harper machine. The CBC barely mentioned it yesterday.

The extravagant waste of billions on military aircraft, that are only useful for killing people, is also being ignored. And other substantive issues, too.

Instead we are supposed to focus on this issue, that there is too much democracy in Canada, that a minority government should not have to face the people after being found in contempt of Parliament. The Harper Conservatives seem to own the agenda, so they are winning this race so far.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Harper wanted it. Iggy was made to _think_ he wanted it.
> 
> I suspect even Liberals close to Iggy are hoping this election relieves them of the burden. Look at that dreadful media scrum speech he gave the other day about forming a coalition government--it made him look incompetent.


I agree with you, Macfury. This election will be the "last hurrah" for a few, if not most of the leaders of the five federal parties. It shall depend upon the outcome, and that depends upon the voters ............. those who choose to vote and those who choose not to vote. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> The extravagant waste of billions on military aircraft, that are only useful for killing people, is also being ignored.


Be reasonable--it's well understood that military hardware is created with the intent of killing people.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Be reasonable--it's well understood that military hardware is created with the intent of killing people.


Some military equipment is actually useful - for search and rescue, for recovery after a flood or earthquake, that sort of thing. It's an inefficient way of protecting the residents of Canada, but it still helps. You might be able to make a case for military kit that defends Canada against foreign invasion, though anything along those lines would meet with deep skepticism from the likes of me.

No, I mean to focus on the military equipment that is only useful for keeping on bases overseas and killing people there. It is only reasonable to be honest about such use.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> No, I mean to focus on the military equipment that is only useful for keeping on bases overseas and killing people there. It is only reasonable to be honest about such use.


They can also be used for threatening to kill people who might come over here... but I agree they would more likely be used for killing people elsewhere.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I agree with you, Macfury. This election will be the "last hurrah" for a few, if not most of the leaders of the five federal parties. It shall depend upon the outcome, and that depends upon the voters ............. those who choose to vote and those who choose not to vote. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


If the Liberals don't win this one--and it's unlikely that they will--I think Iggy is finished. Then the Liberal party leadership will likely go to Bob Rae, and I'm not sure if enough time has passed for Ontario to vote for Bob Rae. If so, he's finished. 

Then I think the left/centre shake-up will come.


----------



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

"Then I think the left/centre shake-up will come." I agree, Sonal. We shall see.


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I can't say I disagree with anything you've written here. I can't say I haven't thought the same things myself.
> 
> Unfortunately this line of thinking often leads many to disengage with politics and even from voting. When this happens it only serves to hand politics over to even more cynical power mongers amongst the professional politicos. I think it's critical that citizens engage with the political process and press our elected reps to be better.
> 
> ...



I hear you and respect your point of view – I just don’t share it. I remain engaged, but with lower expectations than you seem to have. No doubt there are exceptions, but I see little evidence that “our elected reps” are striving to be better. Party politics and policies work against that. Unfortunately, it is a game -- it’s called “toe the line.”

I will vote. I take that franchise seriously. On occasion in the past, I have spoiled my ballot rather than casting support for mediocrity and then griping about the results – but I always vote. This time, it will reluctantly be a vote against rather than a vote for.

Muddle muddle.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It has become so brazenly obvious that during the election, representatives represent their constituents, and once the election is over, they represent their party and are punished for doing otherwise. I think we might have better representation if we got rid of political parties altogether. Vote for the PM separately. Make them work for support.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> "Then I think the left/centre shake-up will come." I agree, Sonal.


This is long overdue. It is clear that the majority of Canadian's are "left" to "center-left". If the Green, NDP and Liberals merged into single party politics in Canada would be more focused on the center as the Conservatives would have to move towards the center (or at least remain there as they sort of are there already). The combine opposition would have to move towards the center as well.

Sadly the overall leadership of the opposition parties is so lacking that it would take a Conservative majority to excise the current "leaders"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> If the Liberals don't win this one--and it's unlikely that they will--I think Iggy is finished. Then the Liberal party leadership will likely go to Bob Rae, and I'm not sure if enough time has passed for Ontario to vote for Bob Rae. If so, he's finished.
> 
> Then I think the left/centre shake-up will come.


Rae is at times shockingly inept. I attended an event a while back in which he was chosen as a judge. He videotaped his speech and sent it to the event, revealing an ignorance of the subject matter so great as to evoke howls of outraged derision. Even his admission that he has "learned from his mistakes" in bringing Ontario to its knees is alarming. Having blown up his first lab, he's ready to test his new theories in a facility the size of Canada.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It looks like Layton will surge in the polls this time,
He's behind seniors and the Canada Pension.

If the Tories and the Liberals don't change their tunes,
Then Layton and the Greens could come from behind and take the house.

Might be a good thing though, A good kick in the pants.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> It looks like Layton will surge in the polls this time,


What makes you believe that this will happen? Just his support of seniors? My local Liberal candidate just circulated a flyer based entirely on the same premise. Harper insists that a sound economy is required to support seniors' benefits. I don't think you'll find a single politician coming down hard on seniors.

However, if Layton makes any inroads, it will be at the expense of the Liberals. If the Greens make any inroads, it will be at the expense of the NDP.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Although I can't see Layton giving up on the Jets,
He'll cave for the defense of the arctic.

While we could just get some updated Hercules type airplanes in the meantime,
I mean...Do we really need jets to defend the arctic?

What are we going to do...
Fire missiles at people setting up oil platforms in disputed Canadian waters?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What makes you believe that this will happen? Just his support of seniors? My local Liberal candidate just circulated a flyer based entirely on the same premise. Harper insists that a sound economy is required to support seniors' benefits. I don't think you'll find a single politician coming down hard on seniors.
> 
> However, if Layton makes any inroads, it will be at the expense of the Liberals. If the Greens make any inroads, it will be at the expense of the NDP.


The fact that the baby boom is either retiring or retired makes it bad timing for an election,
Also the fact that the Harper government offered up to $800. a year for seniors in supplements,
What is that?...Less than a cup of coffee a day?

Not even even a bag of rice and a can of beans a month.
Too little, They'd get more from a food bank.

Shame on the Conservatives...SHAME.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> The fact that the baby boom is either retiring or retired makes it bad timing for an election,
> Also the fact that the Harper government offered up to $800. a year for seniors in supplements,
> What is that?...Less than a cup of coffee a day?
> 
> ...


This based on the notion that seniors are depending entirely on the government for sustenance. They shouldn't be. Shame on them if they did nothing to plan for their futures, then demand others cover for them. 

I'm tired of the myth that seniors have done so much for their countries, etc. They're just older people who have worked and lived as we're all working now.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

just a thought: does anyone else wonder if the motives behind this election have to do with our dollar and/or how do you think it might impact our dollar?

It's finally at a respectable level so I'm wondering what might happen to it.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This based on the notion that seniors are depending entirely on the government for sustenance. They shouldn't be. Shame on them if they did nothing to plan for their futures, then demand others cover for them.
> 
> I'm tired of the myth that seniors have done so much for their countries, etc. They're just older people who have worked and lived as we're all working now.


Course you have to understand that the baby boom generation was around long before
the RRSP and even then those that did manage to get an RRSP had lost their fortunes
on the mutual funds that they had assumed was protected, Silly them eh?

Want to buy some BRI-X stock?

This is just posturing, Get with it, History is full of facts,
Just wished the PC government could get their facts straight.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

keebler27 said:


> just a thought: does anyone else wonder if the motives behind this election have to do with our dollar and/or how do you think it might impact our dollar?
> 
> It's finally at a respectable level so I'm wondering what might happen to it.


Our dollar is over inflated, It's based on our dirty filthy stinking oil sand Alberta oil.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> This based on the notion that seniors are depending entirely on the government for sustenance. They shouldn't be. Shame on them if they did nothing to plan for their futures, then demand others cover for them.....


Serious seniors iissues are not all federal govt.

For example, what a senior pays in a care home is determined by provincial policy. The BC Liberal govt has decided that seniors should pay 80% of their income for such care. That leaves the other 20% for prescriptions, dental, newspapers, hair care, a chocolate bar from the tuck shop, ... I don't know what this $ 800 is that others speak of, but in this province, you would only get to keep $ 160 of it after the provincial govt takes its share. 

So there is not much point in saving up for your old age, if the provincial govt is gonna take 80% of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> Our dollar is over inflated, It's based on our dirty filthy stinking oil sand Alberta oil.


It is accurately based on our resource wealth.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Serious seniors iissues are not all federal govt.
> 
> For example, what a senior pays in a care home is determined by provincial policy. The BC Liberal govt has decided that seniors should pay 80% of their income for such care. That leaves the other 20% for prescriptions, dental, newspapers, hair care, a chocolate bar from the tuck shop, ... I don't know what this $ 800 is that others speak of, but in this province, you would only get to keep $ 160 of it after the provincial govt takes its share.
> 
> So there is not much point in saving up for your old age, if the provincial govt is gonna take 80% of it.


So what does that mean for those that can't afford life insurance?
Or even a burial with dignity?

Sad very sad and despicable of the PC government to provide less to seniors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> Course you have to understand that the baby boom generation was around long before
> the RRSP and even then those that did manage to get an RRSP had lost their fortunes
> on the mutual funds that they had assumed was protected, Silly them eh?.


I don't see people older than 65 as helpless wards of the state.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Serious seniors iissues are not all federal govt.
> 
> For example, what a senior pays in a care home is determined by provincial policy. The BC Liberal govt has decided that seniors should pay 80% of their income for such care. That leaves the other 20% for prescriptions, dental, newspapers, hair care, a chocolate bar from the tuck shop, ... I don't know what this $ 800 is that others speak of, but in this province, you would only get to keep $ 160 of it after the provincial govt takes its share.
> 
> So there is not much point in saving up for your old age, if the provincial govt is gonna take 80% of it.


It could be less than $800., I think it works out to be less than welfare,
In Ontario, That would be "Work Fare" Although making seniors work would be unlawful,
So they would get less than working welfare workers, That makes sense. Right?, "NOT"

Sorry...That's an acceptable PC thing...The word "NOT".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

...to each according to his needs.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't see people older than 65 as helpless wards of the state.


Those are interesting supplementary words "Wards of the state"
Did you decide to interject them in here for any particular strategic reason?

Considering that would take us off topic, Towards the Triplets of Ontario perhaps?

Oh yes....Harpers wards....Banished from Ontario,
Leftovers from the shamed Harper government.

Could it be that you want to talk about those helpless wards from Ontario?

Old fish lips - Clement of the Mighty Muskoka's
Johnny Baird - Our unspeakable house leader that speaks like a rabid chipmunk
Flaherty - Our wonderful contentious moron that is that stake behind this election


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Talk about your hatred for those politicians all you want. I still don't see seniors as wards of the state.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

This is the fundamental problem that the PC party doesn't see,
Poor people won't vote for poor conditions in life.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Talk about your hatred for those politicians all you want. I still don't see seniors as wards of the state.


Wards of the state was your interjection, Or is that injection?
It's not hatred by the way, It's an observance.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> ...to each according to his needs.


You must have a very nice pension, I'm happy for you,
But to the other 99% of Canada, Don't you feel some kind of empathy?

We're not talking about those cartoon squirrels that saved and didn't save,
We're talking about real life full blown Canadian retired people here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

--
-
-

--
-

-
-
-
-
-
--

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--

--
-
-
-

--

--
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
--

---
Ok...You scrolled down here for....Nothing


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Are you OK?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Are you OK?


I think dolawren may have has a seizure....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Should I look back at the other page or skip it?


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Those are interesting supplementary words "Wards of the state"
> 
> Old fish lips - Clement of the Mighty Muskoka's
> Johnny Baird - Our unspeakable house leader that speaks like a rabid chipmunk
> Flaherty - Our wonderful contentious moron that is that stake behind this election




Seems to me that when we resort to nasty name-calling we lower ourselves to the same level as the people we're dissing. 

What do you think?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> I think dolawren may have has a seizure....


Such bad english...Oh wait...We are in Quebec.
Real English is in small type.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

wwj said:


> Seems to me that when we resort to nasty name-calling we lower ourselves to the same level as the people we're dissing.
> 
> What do you think?


How can you diss truth?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Should I look back at the other page or skip it?


A true PCer wouldn't look back, Might turn to salt.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Are you OK?


I'm Okay, How are you SINC?
Aren't we entitled to our own views?

This is a democracy right?


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

Seems to me that when we resort to nasty name-calling we lower ourselves to the same level as the people we're dissing.





dolawren said:


> How can you diss truth?




I think you may have missed my point.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I should have been a politician,
My grandfather was a member of the House of Lords in London England

Perhaps I could have made a difference, As he had.


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

dolawren said:


> I should have been a politician,
> My grandfather was a member of the House of Lords in London England
> 
> Perhaps I could have made a difference, As he had.



Well, you certainly have the verbal prerequisites for being a politician.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

wwj said:


> Seems to me that when we resort to nasty name-calling we lower ourselves to the same level as the people we're dissing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those same people are the ones to blame for putting us into an election

Flaherty for his budget that was not enough for the basic Canadian
Baird for being the ass that he is in Parliament
Clement for not allowing the G 20 summit to be allowed in his "Rosedale" of the Muskoka's.

Heaven forbid...
Protesters might block the roads and prevent us from getting a Starbucks coffee.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

wwj said:


> Well, you certainly have the verbal prerequisites for being a politician.


Why...Thank you


Best compliment ever.

Lol


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Why...Thank you
> 
> 
> Best compliment ever.
> ...




Touché!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This based on the notion that seniors are depending entirely on the government for sustenance. They shouldn't be. Shame on them if they did nothing to plan for their futures, then demand others cover for them.
> 
> I'm tired of the myth that seniors have done so much for their countries, etc. They're just older people who have worked and lived as we're all working now.





Macfury said:


> I don't see people older than 65 as helpless wards of the state.


If this situation was understood even a little bit such a cruel sentiment would never be uttered.

When people are earning near or below the poverty line there are no savings. There is no money for RRSP contributions. 

There isn't enough money for necessities. Where would the money for savings come from?

The OAS Supplement is an extra stipend paid to seniors as these folks fall below a fixed level of resources. These folk receiving the OAS Supplement are struggling presently after struggling all of their lives.

I know where the milk human kindness does not flow.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The OAS Supplement is an extra stipend paid to seniors as these folks fall below a fixed level of resources. These folk receiving the OAS Supplement are struggling presently after struggling all of their lives.


I understand the situation--and that's not a stipend. Seniors are being taken care of quite well enough. However, the system required to support them was based on a Ponzi scheme involving wildly increasing populations and seniors with much shorter lifespans. Initially, such schemes figured to pull them through the last five or six years of their lives. They're now not only healthier than ever, but are likely to live another 20 years. They'll have to retire later, because there's not enough money to take care of that many seniors, except those who are ill or disabled. No prizes for just living to 65.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> Such bad english...Oh wait...We are in Quebec.
> Real English is in small type.


Oh yes a typo equals bad English...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> It looks like Layton will surge in the polls this time,
> *He's behind seniors and the Canada Pension.*
> 
> *If the Tories and the Liberals don't change their tunes,
> ...


You're dreaming in technicolor...

How are the Tories not behind seniors and the Canada Pension plan...? 

You do realize that changing the Canada Pension plan requires agreement among the provinces and would have to be negotiated and that would involve a lengthy process. You seem to have fallen for Layton's smoke screen that he tossed out there making it seem like amendments to the plan could have been put into this budget. They could not, due process would have had to have taken place and there was far from enough time to do that.

Tory lead suggests another minority: EKOS



> The EKOS poll suggests the Liberals are stronger than the Conservatives among younger voters, while the *Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals with seniors*.


The NDP historically garners about 12% - 15% of the senior vote, about on par with the overall national support.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Tory lead suggests another minority: EKOS
> The NDP historically garners about 12% - 15% of the senior vote, about on par with the overall national support.


Layto's best hope lies with the mathematically challenged. I don't care how good the idea is if you don't know how to pay for it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Layto's best hope lies with the mathematically challenged. I don't care how good the idea is if you don't know how to pay for it.


He would pay for it as Bob Rae did--by driving his constituency into ruinous debt. In this case, Canada.

Oh the seniors, oh the children, oh the working parents, oh the students-- a nation full of potential victims to ply with their own cash.


----------

