# The Coming Election...Part II



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Bloc wants us to get out of Afghanistan ASAP following the deaths of a few Quebec based soldiers. The Liberals are also concerned about support in Quebec so I imagine they will paint themselves into the same corner as the Bloc (i.e. get out ASAP).

The NDP definitely won't support the Conservatives so it looks like we are headed for another election this Fall, which will return the Conservatives back to power.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Cons blew their chance and now face the problem of an unpopular war instead of the more balanced situation in the spring. Either they come up with some great ideas and, by inference, stop acting like an opposition party, and/or Dion runs an aggressively bad agenda, or the Cons will lose. 

I'll even venture an addendum bet for a Lib government (minority or majority unknown) should an election be called in '07 (the election itself could be in '08).


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> The Bloc wants us to get out of Afghanistan ASAP following the deaths of a few Quebec based soldiers. The Liberals are also concerned about support in Quebec so I imagine they will paint themselves into the same corner as the Bloc (i.e. get out ASAP).
> 
> The NDP definitely won't support the Conservatives so it looks like we are headed for another election this Fall, which will return the Conservatives back to power.


The Bloc is looking to scam nay vote they can; and considering the decline of the PQ in recent years (and the rise of the AD party), they need to find any vote they can.

Dion is in a sticky situation. He is look at in Quebec as being 'soft', neither in the Separatist camp or fully in the Liberal camp. Outside of Quebec, he will have to truely defend himself on the basis of his nationality, considering that he was not a Canadian citizen at the time of his election as leader of the Liberal Party. He later recinded his French citizenship, but I doubt that will gain much of an audience west of Browns Line.

Harper attempted to 'strenghten' his Cabinet by playing games. His Minister of Defense was a hard core old school soldier - and because of the disagreements between the military establishment and the civilian authorities above, Harper chose to listen to the whimpers of the passivist Chief of the General Staff over his own appointee.

The 'War' in Afghanistan has degenerated into a joke. They need to look upon the example set by Lord Curzon, who knew how to impose his authority upon a fracticious people. Our soldiers are there to be targets for the Taliban because it was the choice to be there as peace-keepers, not peace-imposers. Without the overwhelming show of bravado and superiority, our 'allies' in the area will simply chart their own course, simple to survive. We choose to follow 'rules of engagement' while our opponents choose to blow everything to bits. There should only be one rule of engagement, that is to show our overwhelming military superiority to achieve peace. If our forefathers had followed the same mantra, Hitler's grandson would be ruling 'Greater Germany' right now.

So while Harper chooses to undercut his own party with his silly moves; the weak and enfeebled Opposition builds strength despite the lack of their own strengths or real policy. We are left with a choice: Harper and his quasi-liberal policies; Dion and his lack of true Canadian citizenship; Duceppe (who I'd vote for if the Bloc ran here because I am tired of hearing about Quebec whining about everything) and his sinking fortunes; and Layton and his party who now look like pacifist cowards. Hmmm... I hope the Marijuana Party runs so I have someone to vote for!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The Cons blew their chance and now face the problem of an unpopular war instead of the more balanced situation in the spring. Either they come up with some great ideas and, by inference, stop acting like an opposition party, and/or Dion runs an aggressively bad agenda, or the Cons will lose.
> 
> I'll even venture an addendum bet for a Lib government (minority or majority unknown) should an election be called in '07 (the election itself could be in '08).


This is a wedge issue for many people and it is something the Liberals and Bloc can grab onto. I imagine there could be a strong 'protest' vote in Quebec which will benefit the Bloc.

The opposition has nothing else to go on that resonates with most Canadians and I don't see any other big issues on the horizon. So, I think they are going to push with this hard. The good news for the Conservatives is that their base is strong and all three opposition parties have the same stance on Afghanistan so the protest vote gets diluted.

The Conservatives will have to deflect the issue quickly or concede and agree to a withdrawal by 2008. The Liberals and Bloc will have to be careful because most Canadians still support the mission, they just want to see an end game. I think this is where the Conservatives need to take a definitive stand. I think they could also benefit by associating this issue with other foreign affairs issues (e.g. asserting our northern border). 

This isn't a lost cause for the Conservatives yet. They just need to play their cards right and quickly.

I predict a Conservative minority.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

EP: How does Dion not have a true Canadian citizenship? I am aware that citizenship can be contested based upon serious lies and/or omissions when applying (ie. nazis) and there was some complication related to an anachronistic policy (related to religious definitions? I forget), but "true" citizenship is pretty clear. If you are Canadian, you are a true Canadian, regardless of hockey skills -- to my great relief.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The opposition has nothing else to go on that resonates with most Canadians and I don't see any other big issues on the horizon.
> ..........
> The good news for the Conservatives is that their base is strong and all three opposition parties have the same stance on Afghanistan so the protest vote gets diluted.
> ..........
> ...


I disagree.
..........
A fair point, but the NDP have worked hard to weaken themselves. Not close to the same relevance as the free trade split, for example, in my opinion. We probably agree on that analysis.
..........
That would be a horrible idea. I think Canadians and the opposition are looking for an end/change, regardless of what that really implies. That would be notice (because we like being responsible international citizens) that post-2009 our role would change dramatically. That's quite sellable and even the NDP would have to be very careful in opposing such an approach. Layton's credibility is limited and the next election is highly likely to be his last as federal NDP leader.
..........
Let's talk odds on my proposition. That would result in us having neutral positions with regards to: a Con minority; no election called in '07; and a party other than the Libs or Cons getting the most seats.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> This is a wedge issue for many people and it is something the Liberals and Bloc can grab onto. I imagine there could be a strong 'protest' vote in Quebec which will benefit the Bloc.
> 
> The opposition has nothing else to go on that resonates with most Canadians and I don't see any other big issues on the horizon. So, I think they are going to push with this hard. The good news for the Conservatives is that their base is strong and all three opposition parties have the same stance on Afghanistan so the protest vote gets diluted.
> 
> ...





> Only seven per cent of Canadians strongly support the Afghanistan mission, while the total number of those opposed in Quebec remains high at 75 per cent, according to a new poll by The Strategic Counsel.
> 
> The survey, conducted between July 12-16 [2007] for CTV and The Globe and Mail, suggests the level of intensity for Canadians strongly opposed to the mission is far greater than those who are in firm support: (percentage point change from a July 12-15, 2006 poll in brackets):
> *
> ...


CTV.ca | Most Canadians oppose Afghanistan mission: poll

from dictionary.com


> most [mohst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
> 1.	in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
> 2.	in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
> ...


[insert picture of someone counting chickens before they hatch]


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The last I had heard about the Liberal position on this was that they felt there was no other choice but to keep our troops in Afghanistan until 2009. If that is the case, the Conservatives should survive a confidence vote if the issue is to recall the troops immediately.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't think that parliament has a say in troop deployment; the government can choose to hold a vote. I'm not certain, though.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Yeah, troop deployment and use is the PM's decision.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Beej said:


> EP: How does Dion not have a true Canadian citizenship? I am aware that citizenship can be contested based upon serious lies and/or omissions when applying (ie. nazis) and there was some complication related to an anachronistic policy (related to religious definitions? I forget), but "true" citizenship is pretty clear. If you are Canadian, you are a true Canadian, regardless of hockey skills -- to my great relief.


Dion was not a Canadian Citizen prior to his election as head of the Liberal Party, but rather, a citizen of France. Of course his naturalization was fast tracked because it was a pretty major embarassment, and potentially a scandal. The same thing happened to the Governor-General, as she was not a citizen when she was nominated; but she chose to become a citizen just because she was scoring a pretty high paying job. Reminds one of the protestant Henry who decided that to become the King of France was worth the Mass...

This is a policy that does need to be changed. According to our own Constitutional Instrument, and number of "aliens" can "take over" the country. So even as a British citizen and a member of the House of Lords, Conrad Black could have run for high office; even with his repudiation of his own Canadian citizenship. This can not happen in the United States, and even Colin Powell, who is a citizen but is not 'native born', can not run for the highest offices of power. All US presidents must be native born citizens of the US; and we should have the same policy in Canada.

It is certainly true that we have had Prime Ministers that were not citizens, but then again, it would be difficult to find someone native born to this land in that pioneering age; well, next to genuine native North Americans. Why doesn't an aboriginal run for high office? I'd vote for them, especially if they made it easier to buy smokes off of the reserve...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Dion was born in Quebec City in 1955 and has always been a citizen of Canada.

He has not rescinded his French citizenship.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Research is a dead art.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

zoziw said:


> He has not rescinded his French citizenship.


And this makes him less of a Canadian?


Let's not forget Tony Clement and Myron Thompson also have dual citizenship...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> And this makes him less of a Canadian?


Not to me, I was responding to EvanPitts first post where he said Dion had rescinded his french citizenship.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks zoziw.
It would be hard to argue that the person responsible for the clarity act is not Canadian enough.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And this makes him less of a Canadian?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Bien sur !!"

but Clement and Thompson are both Cons so it's ok for them to be a dual citizen


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Beej said:


> I don't think that parliament has a say in troop deployment; the government can choose to hold a vote. I'm not certain, though.


I think I better understand how the Bloc would accomplish a non-confidence vote on this issue. If there is not a line in the Speech from the Throne stating that our troops will be returned immediately, then the Bloc will not support the speech when it is voted on in Parliament.

If Parliament fails to pass the speech the government falls.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Dion was not a Canadian Citizen prior to his election as head of the Liberal Party, but rather, a citizen of France. Of course his naturalization was fast tracked because it was a pretty major embarassment, and potentially a scandal. The same thing happened to the Governor-General, as she was not a citizen when she was nominated; but she chose to become a citizen just because she was scoring a pretty high paying job. Reminds one of the protestant Henry who decided that to become the King of France was worth the Mass...
> 
> This is a policy that does need to be changed. According to our own Constitutional Instrument, and number of "aliens" can "take over" the country. So even as a British citizen and a member of the House of Lords, Conrad Black could have run for high office; even with his repudiation of his own Canadian citizenship. This can not happen in the United States, and even Colin Powell, who is a citizen but is not 'native born', can not run for the highest offices of power. All US presidents must be native born citizens of the US; and we should have the same policy in Canada.
> 
> It is certainly true that we have had Prime Ministers that were not citizens, but then again, it would be difficult to find someone native born to this land in that pioneering age; well, next to genuine native North Americans. Why doesn't an aboriginal run for high office? I'd vote for them, especially if they made it easier to buy smokes off of the reserve...


care to change your tune?

"They call me Mr. (in the) Pitts"
- with apologies to Sidney Poitier

and just where the hell did you learn these "facts?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just where the hell did you learn these "facts?"


One of his interest is history - making it up possibly?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just where the hell did you learn these "facts?"


It was all over the news during the Liberal Convention; reported on the CBC, CTV and Global. And add to it, it was an issue covered on a number of Blogs at the time, and it was common knowledge within the party itself that the selection of Dion could be quite the political embarrassment. If Dion had any integrity whatsoever, he would step down, and apply for Citizenship as any other immigrant needs to, and wait his turn, again, just like any other immigrant.

This is the same situation with our Governor-General, though she saw fit to become a Citizen because the job was worthwhile.

It seems that this issue of citizenship needs to be addressed; and I for one would like to see the same regulations that they have in the US. In the US, you MUST be a citizen to run for political office, and MUST be native born in order to run for high office. And I do not see any need for "dual citizenship" because you are either Caandian or not Canadian. You can not live in two places simultaneously, and it is a preposterous notion that we give out citizenship willy-nilly to those who have not one patriotic bone in their body. While they dish out the "easy route" through the red tape for political fools, the government sees fit to reject applicants who wish to come to Canada to forge a new life for themselves and provide for their family.

No other nation tolerates such foolishness, so why should we? And if you wish to debate these points, just try to emigrate to Japan and run for the Diet!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Evan, you have achieved the herculean task of making 'spec look almost sensible when near to you. I mockingly bow to you.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Evan, you have achieved the herculean task of making 'spec look almost sensible when near to you. I mockingly bow to you.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> And I do not see any need for "dual citizenship" because you are either Caandian or not Canadian. You can not live in two places simultaneously, and it is a preposterous notion that we give out citizenship willy-nilly to those who have not one patriotic bone in their body.


To bad. I'm just as Canadian as you and if you don't like my dual citizenship you can stick your complaints where the sun don't shine. There is only one level of Canadian citizenship and it applies to all Canadians whether you like it or not. As for your assertion that no other countries allow this. You are dead wrong. I'm a citizen of the USA, Dion is a citizen of France, many Canadians are citizens of the UK, Italy, Germany, China and India to name a few. We are still just as Canadian as you. tptptptp All these countries allow dual citizenship (except China which allows it but doesn't recognize second citizenships.)

What a joke insisting Dion is not a Canadian. All I see in your post is a heavy xenophobic bias against Canadians from other places. Where is your ancestry from?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My daughter - can and likely will get dual German/Euro citizenship to take advantage of certain schooling.
Personally I think it's wonderful "bonding" between peoples to offer dual citizenship.

The sooner we ALL get to Citizen of Earth mentality the better.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

martman said:


> What a joke insisting Dion is not a Canadian. All I see in your post is a heavy xenophobic bias against Canadians from other places. Where is your ancestry from?


Where else - Canada!

And I would prefer if they changed the lyrics of the national anthem to fit the situation: Oh Canada, our home on native land!

I have no xenophobic bias against Canadians from other places - only against those people who see fit to engage in their little games of treason and sedition against this nation. Dion certainly fits this mould, as he was heavily involved with the traitors of the PQ, and I would suspect he was an FLQ sympathizer, of not an outright member of that sad and pathetic band. He only 'converted' when he discovered that he could more easily damage the nation by trying to become part of the nation and ruin it from the inside. But even though he his leader of a federal party and has a very real chance (though slim) of becoming the next Imperator, he chooses to slap the face of the nation and retain his French Citizenship. And if he becomes leader, I can see even more French being shoved down our throats, and perhaps that evil invention of the French - Metric...

If I was xenophobic, I would need to get rid of at least half of my friends who are from so many different places from around the world. But they have chosen Canada to be their home, and show their patriotism through seeking and gaining a real and substantial citizenship of this nation. Not that they are always pleased with their adoptive nation. It is a fact that the Carpetbaggers have taken over, and that the honest and hard working immigrant has little or no chance of advancement.

Dual Citizenship is a scam that needs to be ended; and the choice be made to either be Canadian or not. And if not, go home and give us back our land! Long live Dudley George!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I have no xenophobic bias against Canadians from other places -


Perhaps but you sure seem to have a hate on for French Canadians.



EvanPitts said:


> But they have chosen Canada to be their home, and show their patriotism through seeking and gaining a real and substantial citizenship of this nation.


Unlike you who shows his patriotism by demonstrating his francophobia like an American waving the Stars and Stripes. Having a second language is an asset not a liability. Demonstrating a hate on for a 1/4 of Canada's population is a strange way to show your patriotism.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> If Dion had any integrity whatsoever, he would step down, and apply for Citizenship as any other immigrant needs to, and wait his turn, again, just like any other immigrant.


EvanPitts, what country and city was Dion born in? Or does this have something to do with a belief that Quebec is not part of Canada?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Evan, you have achieved the herculean task of making 'spec look almost sensible when near to you. I mockingly bow to you.


If I did not know better, I'd say he was related to SINC. beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Where else - Canada!
> 
> And I would prefer if they changed the lyrics of the national anthem to fit the situation: Oh Canada, our home on native land!


That's actually clever - I may just sing it that way next time.



EvanPitts said:


> I have no xenophobic bias against Canadians from other places - only against those people who see fit to engage in their little games of treason and sedition against this nation. Dion certainly fits this mould, as he was heavily involved with the traitors of the PQ, and I would suspect he was an FLQ sympathizer, of not an outright member of that sad and pathetic band. He only 'converted' when he discovered that he could more easily damage the nation by trying to become part of the nation and ruin it from the inside. But even though he his leader of a federal party and has a very real chance (though slim) of becoming the next Imperator, he chooses to slap the face of the nation and retain his French Citizenship. And if he becomes leader, I can see even more French being shoved down our throats, and perhaps that evil invention of the French - Metric...


You do realize that Dion is hated in Quebec for trying to keep the country together?

BTW, the metric system is an English invention (John Wilkins) and believed to have been communicated to the French via the like the Ben Franklin. While it is true that Lavoisier helped implement it in France, you'll appreciate the fact that he was beheaded during the French Revolution.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Where else - Canada!
> 
> And I would prefer if they changed the lyrics of the national anthem to fit the situation: Oh Canada, our home on native land!
> 
> ...


and I would prefer you learn what the word "fact" means and not spew the pollution coming from the smokestacks at CFRB, Canwest / Global, National Pest

Have you recanted your use of the word "fact" referring to Dion's lack of Canadian citizenship?
or
are you just going to keep your head in the sand?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and I would prefer you learn what the word "fact" means and not spew the pollution coming from the smokestacks at CFRB, Canwest / Global, National Pest


And how many other news outlets would you prefer to stiffle, just because they do not choose to spew the facts that you agree with?



> Have you recanted your use of the word "fact" referring to Dion's lack of Canadian citizenship?


No, because it is a fact that he, and others in Parliament, are not Canadian citizens. It's even in the Wikipedia, so perhaps you will have to log on and change those facts.

Dion is hated because he and Pettigrew were made men, given high paying and powerful jobs in Cabinet without being elected. And Dion betrayed the separatist cause in the first place when he backstabbed Beaudien, and faked the 'federalist' cause when he found that he could score a made job. His connections with the Mulroney kleptocrats are also very suspicious, but no one had really figured out the Oerlikon Affair, not even the German authorities who were long investigating Heinz-Schrieber.

Being a pawn of the French governement is also very dangerous if he was to become PM. It would strain relations with the US, and his passivist policies would make us look foolish to the world.

So it remains a fact, until the time comes that Dion decides it would be prudent to at least show a patina of patriotism by relinquishing his alien citizenship, that he is not a true citizen of this nation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> No, because it is a fact that he, and others in Parliament, are not Canadian citizens. It's even in the Wikipedia


Well then, I guess it _must_ be true.... 



> ... if he was to become PM. It would strain relations with the US, and his passivist policies ...


Just for the record, it is for exactly these reasons that I'll probably vote Liberal for the first time in my life the next election.

Cheers


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Your comments now border on hate, but are at the very least misinformed.

He was born in Quebec City, remains a Canadian citizen, and holds French citizenship through his mother, who was born in France.

Wikipedia has it right, meaning someone either snuck in and changed it there, or you are unable to read (I prefer the latter explanation).

If that makes him a pawn of the French government, tell that to the tens of thousands of people born in France to whom French citizenship is withheld because their parents aren't citizens.

I hope he keeps his French citizenship. Canada needs more international connections, not fewer. Clearly there are too many narrow-minded people here.





EvanPitts said:


> And how many other news outlets would you prefer to stiffle, just because they do not choose to spew the facts that you agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It is a fact that the Carpetbaggers have taken over, and that the honest and hard working immigrant has little or no chance of advancement.


Is that a fact?

That hasn't been my experience. Much of the top management of the company I work (600 staff) for is mostly comprised of immigrants. Coworkers in my division include people from the US, New Zealand, China, Taiwan, England and Bangledesh. They seem to be doing just fine.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Your comments now border on hate, but are at the very least misinformed.


You are being extremely generous HowEver! (To say the least)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> He was born in Quebec City, remains a Canadian citizen, and holds French citizenship through his mother, who was born in France.


Right from your own words - he is a FRENCH CITIZEN, therefore he is not a Canadian. Shame on Dion, shame on the Liberal Party, shame on the immoral legislators that allow this kind of travesty on a regular basis.



> Wikipedia has it right, meaning someone either snuck in and changed it there, or you are unable to read (I prefer the latter explanation).


Completely right! Just as it says, he is a FRENCH CITIZEN, an alien in control of one of our major political parties. And recall that Hitler was AUSTRIAN, and look what he did to Germany. This nation should be by Canadians, for Canadians - not run by an unnaturalized criminal alien who engaged in acts high treason and sedition through his rabid support for separatism. In case you do not know, separatism means the destruction of the nation, and it is the duty of all patriots to rise up and prosecute those who engage in such furtive behaviours.



> If that makes him a pawn of the French government, tell that to the tens of thousands of people born in France to whom French citizenship is withheld because their parents aren't citizens.


That just shows me that France engages in degrading acts against their own people, just like the French do. I saw a news item on the CBC where the Quebec government forcibly takes Cree children from their parents in order to cram the French language down their throats. And not only that, immigrants who settle in Quebec are forced to educate their children in French. No wonder why most immigrants go to Toronto or Vancouver, where they have the freedom to educate their children properly. They may have to take English in order to go to public school, but they also have the right to learn their own heritage language. And this malarky goes on in France all the time, where they officially engage in such a high degree of discrimination that the frustration boils over and results in massive race rioting.



> I hope he keeps his French citizenship. Canada needs more international connections, not fewer. Clearly there are too many narrow-minded people here.


I think this nation has the most open minded people in the entire world. We need real international connections, those we already have and those we should foster. But we should not let that detract from the fact that we welcome far too many carpetbaggers who loot the nation, people who do no good. And Dion for one has never demonstrated anything during his stay in Parliament. For instance, he never once stood up during Question Period to denouce Chretien over AdScam, never once. To do that, to ask even one question of which he is free and able to do, would have shown a great deal of integrity. By not saying anything, he shows that he was in full support of the corruption that went on. And if this is what "dual citizenship" brings to this nation, the faster it is completely and utterly abolished the better.

One Canada, By Canadians, For Canadians! Long Live Canada!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Completely right! Just as it says, he is a FRENCH CITIZEN, an alien in control of one of our major political parties.


you may want to review who is the head of state of this country
hint: look at the loonie in your pocket and then look at the loonie in the mirror


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> he [Dion] is a FRENCH CITIZEN, therefore he is not a Canadian.


by your logic ehmac's Dr. G. is also not a Canadian as was born in the U.S. and is a naturalized Canadian citizen

also, never mind that Dion was born in Canada and is therefore a Canadian citizen by birth


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Completely right! Just as it says, he is a FRENCH CITIZEN, an alien in control of one of our major political parties. And recall that Hitler was AUSTRIAN, and look what he did to Germany. This nation should be by Canadians, for Canadians - not run by an unnaturalized criminal alien who engaged in acts high treason and sedition...<foaming rant snipped>


Okay, now I understand. You're either insane or trying to be funny. If it's the latter, it was a good try but you went too far too fast. Try reading some Fake Steve to see how that sort of thing is done. If it's the former, seek help. Now.


Cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the fact that Dion is a bit of a dud will have more impact on my vote than any Dion/Hitler connection.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I think the fact that Dion is a bit of a dud will have more impact on my vote than any Dion/Hitler connection.


Hitler had 2 legs and Harper has 2 legs
Hitler had 2 arms and Harper has 2 arms
Hitler had a bad haircut and Harper has a bad haircut.

I think the fact that Hapre is a bit of a dud will have more impact on my vote than any Harper/Hitler connection.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I rather like Dion; he seems to be principled, intelligent, thoughtful... no wonder he's out of place leading the Liberals. To be fair though, while the Liberals lack of any coherent ideology is usually a weakness, it also allows a strong leader to put his or her stamp on the party... as Trudeau did. Dion has often been underestimated; he faces tough challenges but perhaps he's up to it. He's certainly a refreshing change from Paul Martin and might even be is opposite... no talk, all action.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Aha! But Harper is a full citizen of CAnada--which Dion and Hitler were clearly not!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dion may just drive votes away from the Liberals. His lack of personality will be his downfall.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Aha! But Harper is a full citizen of CAnada--*which Dion and Hitler were clearly not !*


I see you have joined the delusional one.... 
Care to explain how Dion is not a full citizen of Canada? Or will you just divert (again)?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I see you have joined the delusional one....
> Care to explain how Dion is not a full citizen of Canada? Or will you just divert (again)?


that's con speak for WASP


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It looks like Harper is engineering a confidence vote for mid October and it seems that Afghanistan is going to be the big issue.

I think the Conservatives have looked at the recent polls on Afghanistan, as discussed above, and figure they can come out ahead on the issue. The level of support for the war is significantly higher than the Conservatives polling numbers (around 15 points). 

The Bloc seems unlikely to support the government because they want to make Afghanistan a wedge issue in Quebec. I predict the NDP is going to come out strong against the war to try and garner the 'anti-war' vote, which is a higher percentage than their level of support. 

So, where does that leave the Liberals? I think they stand to lose the most. The anti-war vote will go to the NDP and Bloc. The 'gap' between the Conservative support level of 33% and the war support level (51%) is likely comprised mostly of centre to centre-right voters. If the Liberals change their stance from supporting the war to going against it, they will not be in a good position with that demographic. 

Based on the above, I think there is a good chance the Liberals will support the government to buy more time and wait for the next big issue. Or maybe the Liberal Party will want to throw Dion to the 'Lions' since he is unlikely to win them anything in the near future and will want to replace him with a better leader.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The goal of the Liberals would then be to make the election about something else. I think that they would have trouble opposing a carefully worded confidence vote but, if they did, they should do so with a campaign plan at the ready. Bark about Afghanistan for a few days and then roll out the real campaign. Be ready to spin bad news from Afghanistan as needed.

Go for Bay St., Green St., Alumni Ave. (currently has too many orange houses for the Libs' liking) etc. Harper will stick to Main St. and will continue to target a larger piece of the centre without triggering another (useless) schism. If election rules allow it, Dion should write open letters for newspapers to pick up. He needs to run on what he is (and is good at), just like any job interview. Let some of his teammates add a little flair here and there; even raise a little controversy. In other words, let them do the dirty work. Sort of like an elderly version of the old Liberal rat pack.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It looks like Harper is engineering a confidence vote for mid October and it seems that Afghanistan is going to be the big issue.
> 
> I think the Conservatives have looked at the recent polls on Afghanistan, as discussed above, and figure they can come out ahead on the issue. The level of support for the war is significantly higher than the Conservatives polling numbers (around 15 points).


I find the government to be rather vague on Afghanistan as of late.
This weekend MacKay announces that we are out by Feb ‘09
globeandmail.com: We're out by Feb. '09: MacKay
Then there is a serendipitous leak stating that Canada is too focused on Afghanistan
CTV.ca | Canadian military too focused on Afghanistan: report
Pre-occupation with Afghanistan draining other military priorities: report

I guess the Taliban are not that threat that Mackay and all have been saying, was this not supposed to be the battle where we were not going to “cut and run”? I guess we can forget about fighting them over there…

At least Dion seems on the ball about what the Conservatives are doing but I wonder if his message will get across.
globeandmail.com: Tories getting wires crossed, Dion says

Seems that Harper is opportunist if we look at his latest move:
globeandmail.com: Parliament begins new session Oct. 16
Delaying Parliament by month – kind of contradicts his getting back to work early…


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Liberals aren't looking so great right now. I wonder how many Liberals would rather just throw Dion to the wolves now and get the next election over with so that they can get a new leader in place.


Tories, NDP big winners in byelections
Disappointing day for Liberals, Dion
Jack Branswell, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, September 17, 2007

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives pulled off a huge upset in Monday's Quebec byelections, stealing one seat from the Bloc Quebecois in a sovereigntist stronghold and running a very strong second in another riding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: I think this is just "Harpo" humiliating himself by shamelessly picking up seats as a tactic to discredit Dion who hasn't yet had a chance to prove himself,


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wharper1003/BNStory/National/home

Harper said that Canada is entering a prolonged period of minority federal governments and that a return to the polls would likely produce the same result.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

A series of Minorities does have precedent: the United Kingdom had a series of Minorities throughout the 1800's; and Gladstone was Prime Minister on four occassions. Of course, the Liberals self-destructed over a number of issues (disestablishmentarianism, Irish Home Rule, etc...), opening the door for the ascendency of the Independent Labour Party, who are now the major players. Come to think about it, the Minority idea really worked, since that was the era in which Britain was accendant in the world.

Canadians are tired. As a people, we suffered through the Corporate sell everything to the Americans mentality of the Saint Laurent ministry. We suffered under the renegade Diefenbaker and his inability to make a decision. We suffered through the Years of Hope and Anger. Out of that struggle, we then seen our hopes dashed (and anger brought to the forefront) during the final reign of Trudeau which was spent doling out vengeance against the citizens of this nation. In protest, we installed the confused ministry and kleptocracy of Mulroney. When that did not work out, we put into power Chretien, the peasant-dictator who all but ignored Parliament. Then we were witness to the putsch of Martin, who manipulated the unelected Privy Council into forcing Chretien to resign. This saw the factionalizing of the Liberal Party while his ministry doled out profane acts of class warfare upon the now quite weary citizens.

The Minority, whether it is King Harper, or someone else, is a welcome breath of fresh air because in order to get the work of the Government done, Parliament is not entirely engaged in their work. A Majority is a return to the dictatorship of whichever party happens to gain a ministry; a Minority is an exercise in representational democracy. So just like the United Kingdom, our own inner strength will come to the fore during a Minority. Perhaps policies that reflect a rejection of class warfare and an acceptance of our humanity; and perhaps even an cessation to the kleptocratic ways of previous ministries. And took at the minorities of Trudeau as an example, as these were his best years in power, when he had to fight daily for his job; and the same struggle propels King Harper away from acts of class warfare and towards fair and rational policies.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned the opposition parties yesterday that things will be different in the new session of Parliament, saying the defeat of any key government bill could plunge the country into an election.


globeandmail.com: Harper's election ultimatum

Harper's not pulling any punches. I guess he wants to move his agenda along a little quicker, and hates pandering to whiney partisan politics.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> globeandmail.com: Harper's election ultimatum
> 
> Harper's not pulling any punches. I guess he wants to move his agenda along a little quicker, and hates pandering to whiney partisan politics.


But he's decided to pander in the press box for this ultimatum....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from the article;


> "You can't pass the Throne Speech one day and the next day say, 'Well, I didn't mean to do it or we didn't actually give you a mandate,' " Mr. Harper said.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


"you can't flip flop, but I can" - S. Harper.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> But he's decided to pander in the press box for this ultimatum....


amazing how harpo now uses the media when it's something he wants to talk about and spread


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Harper's not pulling any punches. I guess he wants to move his agenda along a little quicker, and hates pandering to whiney partisan politics.


King Harper does have the upper hand. His main opponents, the Fiberals, are embrewed in a struggle for leadership. Dion is a lame duck with little manouvering space and waning support in Quebec, while Kennedy has the support of Bay & Richmond, and Ignatieff has the core support of the braintrust. The BQ is in trouble, since not only is Duceppe under attack from his own party, the old Social Creditists (who are the basis of the Bloc) are rumbling to bring back the SC party. And the NDP, though strong in policy, are under a withering attack by the Green Party, who are robbing them the traditional support of the Environmentalists and the Youth.

Meanwhile, Harpo has a Minority in a time that the nation wishes a Minority; knowing full well that he can exploit the party who pulls the trigger on his government. I think that the party that initiates non-confidence will be thrashed at the polls; and none of the parties can count on enough momentum in order to survive non-confidence. If the Fiberals pull the trigger, then they can count on loosing support in Quebec because the provincal Liberals will support the Conservatives, and the PQ will support the Bloc. If the Bloc pulls the trigger, their infighting will become even more pronounced during a campaign. And the NDP, who may threaten to use it, know that they will end up loosing even more support as the Green Party erodes their base.

And Harper knows not to put out anything too controversial as he has seen the example of Joe Clark being ejected over 18 cent tax on Gas, a tax that Trudeau phaes in over three years anyways. People voted Liberal to save 18 cents and are now wiser for that mistake. Unless something big erupts, we will just end up with a Minority with some of the seats reshuffled.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I expect that all this "hard talk" will not be reflected in the speech and that it will be toned down from what he's projecting at the moment.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> People voted Liberal to save 18 cents and are now wiser for that mistake.


as are those that voted Con to save 1% on their GST
not to mention the poorest income tax paying Canadians that saw their income tax rate RISE by 1/2%


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> as are those that voted Con to save 1% on their GST


I'm very happy with those savings as are most of the people who voted for him. 

The poor? Let's see: One per cent GST cut minus one-half per cent tax increase (offset by other cuts, but we'll ignore those right now) = ONE HALF PER CENT reduction! Sweet!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm very happy with those savings as are most of the people who voted for him.


Do you even see a savings?
Harpo has complicated the tax system with targeted "rebates" (think kids in sports teams) instead of real cuts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Do you even see a savings?


Yes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes.


Big spender....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Big spender....


What a concept, cut taxes, allowing more money in peoples pockets to just spend some more. Sounds better than being taxed to death and hoarding what ever money I have left over.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

He did raise the tax brackets for the lowest income earners; but then he also raised the lowest tax threshold in step with inflation; so it was a wash. A decrease in the GST allows the economy to throttle up because it applies to pretty much everything across the board. This is all a wash since, in essence, these triffling savings are swallowed by inflation anyways. And recall that it was the braintrust of Mr. Mulroney who stole this scheme from New Zealand - and the New Zealanders warned us not to do it, that it was a big mistake, and in their case, triggered a decade long economic recession.

I think that we need a "Big Brother" government. Take 14 candidates and seal them in a house with a variety of challenges. Like, put out a big steak dinner and see which one can hold out from gorging themselves on it the longest. Or perhaps putting out a big dish of dollar bills and see which one scams the least amount of money. And every week, one of them is voted out of the house; the winner selected by a jury of those who were sealed inside the house. In fact, I'd rather have Dick Donato running this country than the morons we get to pick from now! I mean, he'd tell it as it is, he'd tell the Frenchies off, and he'd have a big concert gig with The Rolling Stones on Canada Day. Evel Dick for PM! And we could have that hot chick from the Canadian Banana Company (the CBC) announce the proceedings...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> What a concept, cut taxes, allowing more money in peoples pockets to just spend some more. Sounds better than being taxed to death and hoarding what ever money I have left over.


Taxes were not cut. Those credits are to specific interest groups. If you want to help Canadians, you don't reduce the GST, you reduce income tax.

Funny how Harper's budget surplus estimated was underestimated by over 50% - talk about hoarding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Given a choice between cutting income tax and GST, I choose income tax. Given the choice between a GST cut and no cut, GST wins every time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> What a concept, cut taxes, allowing more money in peoples pockets to just spend some more. Sounds better than being taxed to death and hoarding what ever money I have left over.


Yes, we are overtaxed. I can't believe all the crap that gets dinged off my paycheck. When I get a bonus I lose about half to tax. tptptptp 

I agree with how the Conservatives have managed their finances. I think moderate tax cuts are reasonable and hopefully this trend can continue for many years into the future. At the same time, I want to see our Debt/GDP ratio get reduced every year so that we eventually get it down to zero.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I agree with how the Conservatives have managed their finances.


Record spending? Or the big surpluses?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Record spending? Or the big surpluses?


Tax cuts and debt reduction.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Record spending? Or the big surpluses?


or riding the economic wave of policies put in place by finance minister Paul Martin?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> or riding the economic wave of policies put in place by finance minister Paul Martin?


That wave has already lost its mojo long ago.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Tax cuts and debt reduction.


Too bad they are hardly being fiscally conservative....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> That wave has already lost its mojo long ago.


We'll be able to blame the Connies when the economy sours then?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> or riding the economic wave of policies put in place by finance minister Paul Martin?


I'd nearly forgotten about PM the failed PM.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I'd nearly forgotten about PM the failed PM.


SINC, to the faithful, this dream of Camelot seems as though it happened only yesterday.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> That wave has already lost its mojo long ago.


but Harpo et al seem to be blaming Liberals for whatever goes badly
if it's good, it's due to cons
if it's bad, it's due to Liberals

how very Karl Rove of you


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Since Harper said he does not want an election, it should be fun to go to the polls in early December.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Since Harper said he does not want an election, it should be fun to go to the polls in early December.


Fish or cut bait AS. Either the Liberals support the throne speech or they don't. Let's not go into winter with them supporting an agenda at the front end and then backing out later.

Harper has laid it out to them. He doesn't want an election until 2009. He knows that an election prior to then will just result in another Conservative minority. 

The only question is whether the Liberals want to throw Dion to the wolves just to get him out the door now rather than wait.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Fish or cut bait AS. Either the Liberals support the throne speech or they don't. Let's not go into winter with them supporting an agenda at the front end and then backing out later.


Harpo's like dare to support all policies is stupid at best.
How's that "working" within a minority gov. that you so espouced working out?
Big bully Harper is doing all to get an election, he will likely get it.




Vandave said:


> Harper has laid it out to them. He doesn't want an election until 2009. He knows that an election prior to then will just result in another Conservative minority.


Yes he wants an election - he's doing all to get one but trying to blame it on others. Typical Harper...




Vandave said:


> The only question is whether the Liberals want to throw Dion to the wolves just to get him out the door now rather than wait.


What wolves would that be?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: I agree. It's all about when the Liberals decide to dump Dion--and his little dog too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: I agree. It's all about when the Liberals decide to dump Dion--and his little dog too.


I see your trying to make this next election about the Liberals and Dion. Afraid to look at Harper's "record" so far?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harpo's like dare to support all policies is stupid at best.
> How's that "working" within a minority gov. that you so espouced working out?
> Big bully Harper is doing all to get an election, he will likely get it.


Hence the offer to fish or cut bait. You either take it or leave it.

They can negotiate with the Conservatives now to come up with an agenda or they can choose to sit on the sidelines with the NDP and Bloc. Do you think they are 'working' with the minority government? The Bloc came out and said they wouldn't support the government any further. The NDP came out one day after the election and said they wouldn't even meet with the Conservatives to try and find common ground. Yet, you consider giving your vote to those two parties? You say you are voting Bloc, yet you claim to not be a separtist.  



ArtistSeries said:


> Yes he wants an election - he's doing all to get one but trying to blame it on others. Typical Harper...


Harper has established his position. Now it's Dion's turn. It is his choice. 



ArtistSeries said:


> What wolves would that be?


The Canadian electorate. They will eat him apart come election day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> *They can negotiate with the Conservatives *now to come up with an agenda or they can choose to sit on the sidelines with the NDP and Bloc. Do you think they are 'working' with the minority government? The Bloc came out and said they wouldn't support the government any further. The NDP came out one day after the election and said they wouldn't even meet with the Conservatives to try and find common ground. Yet, you consider giving your vote to those two parties? You say you are voting Bloc, yet you claim to not be a separtist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry VD, Harper is being a bully. It's about time he stop flip-flopping all over the place. He's setting it up to have an election - not the other parties. Nice try....

I'm voting Bloc because I don't like how Fortier is pretenting to be my rep in my area. I'm voting Bloc because, at a larger scale, Harper is a wanna-be american and does represent my values.
The Bloc has more of my values than the Connies ever had.
As for "separation", Harper has pandered to them more than any one...
Libs are still in time out in Quebec....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harper.... does represent my values.


I knew you would eventually come around. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I knew you would eventually come around. :clap: :clap: :clap:


ooops forgot a qualifier.....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harper is being a bully. It's about time he stop flip-flopping all over the place. He's setting it up to have an election - not the other parties.


Call it what you want, but Harper is definitely being assertive.

He has the clout right now because he knows the Conservatives currently have an advantage. That's politics for you. You execute your agenda as best you can using all the clout you can. There is nothing wrong or unethical about this. It's negotiation 101.

He has taken a strong stance because he can afford to do it. He has all the strong cards right now. The Liberals are free to call his 'bluff' if they want. A smart player would fold. But maybe the Liberals don't care about this hand and want to re-deal to start fresh again (i.e. get rid of the Dion card).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

quoteth by VD;



> Call it what you want, but Harper is definitely being assertive.


the cons don't have enough for a majority, the polls tell the tale
so plunging the country into an unnecessary and expensive election is a good idea?

minority in and minority out

fink-nottle is still the only one to take me up on my open bet that the cons won't win a majority


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> quoteth by VD;the cons don't have enough for a majority, the polls tell the tale
> so plunging the country into an unnecessary and expensive election is a good idea?
> 
> minority in and minority out
> ...


Harper wouldn't take you up on the bet. Why would you expect somebody else to?

That said, Harper is confident he can maintain minority control and remain PM. He is in a position to push against the Liberals. The Liberals would do the same if the Conservatives were floundering. Right now the Liberals don't have the clout so they don't get as much of their agenda implemented.

It isn't much different than buying and selling a car. Sometimes the buyer has the advantage and sometimes the seller has the advantage. Harper just raised his minimum acceptable price on the care he is selling (he thinks he can get a better price after going to the polls). If the Liberals can live with his minimum price, then a deal gets done. If there is no overlap, then we go to the polls.

At the end of the day both parties in a transaction are responsible for a deal not going through. You can't really say one is more responsible than the other.

If the Liberals agree to pay X dollars for the car today, then can't back out of the deal later. That's what Harper is saying... stick to your deals.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Call it what you want, but Harper is definitely being assertive.
> 
> He has the clout right now because he knows the Conservatives currently have an advantage. That's politics for you. You execute your agenda as best you can using all the clout you can. There is nothing wrong or unethical about this. It's negotiation 101.
> 
> He has taken a strong stance because he can afford to do it. He has all the strong cards right now. The Liberals are free to call his 'bluff' if they want. A smart player would fold. But maybe the Liberals don't care about this hand and want to re-deal to start fresh again (i.e. get rid of the Dion card).


As MS points out - Canadians will pay for his arrogance. Elections are not cheap. As for what? With so-called lame Dion at the helm of the Liberals, Harpers numbers are stagnant...
It's unethical if you decried the practice that you are doing - not do mention Harpocrital.... 
Funny, now you are giving Liberal strategy tips? 
I wonder if the Connies will be getting rid of Harper - he's been at the helm for what? 3 elections and still can't deliver a majority - maybe the message is that Canadians don't like him much...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Harper wouldn't take you up on the bet. Why would you expect somebody else to?
> 
> That said, Harper is *confident he can maintain minority control *and remain PM.


He's wasting taxpayers money....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> At the end of the day both parties in a transaction are responsible for a deal not going through. You can't really say one is more responsible than the other.
> 
> If the Liberals agree to pay X dollars for the car today, then can't back out of the deal later. That's what Harper is saying... stick to your deals.


And what deal would that be?

Here's the deal VD, let me go to your house, have my way with the missus and I want you to be a good boy about it okay? The neighbours may complain but if you don't let me it's all your fault.... oh wait, I was channelling Harper there...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And what deal would that be?
> 
> Here's the deal VD, let me go to your house, have my way with the missus and I want you to be a good boy about it okay? The neighbours may complain but if you don't let me it's all your fault.... oh wait, I was channelling Harper there...


That is the worst analogy ever.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> That is the worst analogy ever.


Second only to the fishing one...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: I have to agree that those analogies were "craptastic." 

"Let's say somebody just delivered a huge pile of used needles infected with hepatitis and dumped it on your house--that's what Harpo is doing to Canada."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm interested in Dion's failure as a leader because I believe it's the Liberals' boat anchor right now. They have to decide if they're willing to bet on their current bad lot or try to find a real leader for a later election. He really is the issue at this point.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm interested in Dion's failure as a leader because I believe it's the Liberals' boat anchor right now. They have to decide if they're willing to bet on their current bad lot or try to find a real leader for a later election. He really is the issue at this point.


The issue is federal elections not inner-party politics. Nice try to focus on the Liberals again.
Harper is wasting taxpayers money if he knows that it will be another minority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> The issue is federal elections not inner-party politics. Nice try to focus on the Liberals again.
> Harper is wasting taxpayers money if he knows that it will be another minority.


I suppose that the government is wasting money each time it calls an election outside of its maximum mandate. Quite honestly, the cost of an elections is simply
one of the prices we pay for the glorious inconvenience of being part of a Democratic system. The people will decide whether any election was necessary. I'm happy to see a vigorous Democratic process in action, even if winding up with a similar political landscape after an election satisfies your definition of wasting money.

And I do believe that if the Liberals had a leader who was pulling even half-decent numbers, they would jump at an election--yes, even if it was a waste of money.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: Seems to me if an election results in another Conservative minority that the only ones wasting money would be those who voted Liberal (in spite of a lame duck leader and no chance at forming a government).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I suppose that the government is wasting money each time it calls an election outside of its maximum mandate. Quite honestly, the cost of an elections is simply
> one of the prices we pay for the glorious inconvenience of being part of a Democratic system. The people will decide whether any election was necessary. I'm happy to see a vigorous Democratic process in action, even if winding up with a similar political landscape after an election satisfies your definition of wasting money.
> 
> And I do believe that if the Liberals had a leader who was pulling even half-decent numbers, they would jump at an election--yes, even if it was a waste of money.


Sorry MF, Harper is telling the sheep that he does not want an election, yet he's engineering for one...

Harper is saying agree with the Throne Speech and any bill we may present or you are against us. 
Harper, not the opposition wants to go to the polls. It's rather silly to pretend anything else.


If there is another Connie minority, it would just show that Canadians don't like Harpo enough. That's democracy for you...

And speaking of waste, Harpo prorogued Parliament, thus wasting and killing all that was on the "table"...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

It's pretty clearly a pragmatic, and cynical move for Harper to force an election at this time.

He's got a good chance of getting his minority back, which his why it's a cynical and hypocritical move. But there's a chance he could win a slim majority, and, at worst, he'll be leading a country that's well-and-truly sick of elections, making a newly elected minority much more like a majority in that none of the opposition parties will dare force *another* election very soon.

So it makes sense politically. I'm just hoping it blows up in his face.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Your comments show a shocking disregard for the history of politics in Canada. Just because it's happening this year, doesn't mean that it's: shocking! outrageous!! without historical prcedent!!! All part of our system gentlemen. The people will decide whose face it will blow up into--if anyone's.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Quite honestly, the cost of an elections is simply
> one of the prices we pay for the glorious inconvenience of being part of a Democratic system.


Good point and I agree. :clap: 

An example of wasting money was the Liberal Sponsorship scandal.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes VD.. and Harper does not want an election...


> Campaign chairman Doug Finley gave the directives during a conference call with candidates Thursday, it said.
> 
> *Finley also reportedly said that there would be four or five items in the throne speech that the opposition parties would find absolutely unacceptable. *
> 
> Sources confirmed that campaign workers have been told to be in place at the Ottawa war room on Oct. 18 -- the day the first throne speech vote could take place. Throne speech votes are confidence votes, so if the opposition parties vote down the speech, an election could be triggered.


CTV.ca | Tories' election planning is 'prudent': strategist

So it's rather amusing to have the sheeple try to blame this on the Liberals...
And rather harpocrital of you VD to claim that Harper wants a minority gov to work.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe Harpo is feeling pressured to get his North American Union in place since Georgie boy's days are numbered.

Canadians don't want an election, Harper SAYS he doesn't want an election, Dion would be astute to not let him have it until 2009.

Libs are not ready, NDP and Bloc are being stupid.

Hold Harpers toes to the fire for another 18 months when the US recession bites and no pal George in the White House.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Hold Harpers toes to the fire for another 18 months when the US recession bites and no pal George in the White House.


To suggest anything so ridiculous is not even funny. That's just an intentionally inflammatory poke at Harper. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Pals", they are not, and never were.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Canadians don't want an election, Harper SAYS he doesn't want an election, Dion would be astute to not let him have it until 2009.
> 
> Libs are not ready, NDP and Bloc are being stupid.


I agree. Politically, the Liberals would be smart to wait.

But will the Liberal Party let Dion do that? Or is the party too divided with many wanting to get a new leader?

Fighting and losing a campaign might also be good long term for the Liberals as it would get them a new leader. It would also give them a good excuse to support the government for a couple more years in the "interest of the electorate". This would buy them time to get unified, organized and find some issues with traction. Until then, they have no chance of a majority.

If the Liberals go to the polls right now, it is very unlikely they will end up in a worse position. The Conservatives can already form a government with the other parties and this is the strongest type of minority government, aside from a coalition. The Liberals could lose some seats, but so what? They will still have a similar number.

My take is that an election will happen because:

1. The Bloc and NDP have already taken this stance;
2. The Conservatives are pushing hard; and,
3. The Liberals have little to lose.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> To suggest anything so ridiculous is not even funny. That's just an intentionally inflammatory poke at Harper. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Pals", they are not, and never were.



How many times did you refer to them PM, Paul Martin as Mr. Dithers?
oh man, the hypocrisy....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> How many times did you refer to them PM, Paul Martin as Mr. Dithers?
> oh man, the hypocrisy....


PM as PM was nothing short of a total failure. See Liberal history.

The fact remains that Harper and Bush cannot even remotely be called "pals". That insinuates a long term relationship over decades of time. It isn't and wasn't even remotely true.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> PM as PM was nothing short of a total failure. See Liberal history.
> 
> The fact remains that Harper and Bush cannot even remotely be called "pals". That insinuates a long term relationship over decades of time. It isn't and wasn't even remotely true.


Little Stevie and Little Flaherty seem to like riding the Liberal coattails... 

Pals, maybe not but Harper sure like to imitate Bush. Maybe they have some of the same advisors....

Nevertheless, Canadian policies of late just seem to be "Made in America".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Little Stevie and Little Flaherty seem to like riding the Liberal coattails...
> 
> Pals, maybe not but Harper sure like to imitate Bush. Maybe they have some of the same advisors....
> 
> Nevertheless, Canadian policies of late just seem to be "Made in America".


how is David Frum making ends meet these days?
those "Axis of Evil" residual cheques must be drying up by now


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure Sinc ......not shared values at all...












> Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy
> Linked by Leo Strauss
> Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change.'
> By Donald Gutstein
> ...





> Joint Statement by Prime Minister Harper, President Bush, and President Calderón
> Montebello, Quebec, Canada
> 
> We, the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States, have met in Montebello to discuss the opportunities and challenges facing North America and to establish priorities for our further collaboration. As neighbours, we share a commitment to ensure North America remains a safe, secure and economically dynamic region, and a competitive player in global markets. We also discussed opportunities to cooperate globally and within our own hemisphere. The values and principles we share, in particular democracy, the rule of law and respect for individual rights and freedoms, underpin our efforts in building a more prosperous and secure region.
> ...


Kissy hug hug for public consumption

meanwhile



> One of these secret meetings took place in Sept 2006 in Banff Springs, Alberta. *When asked by the media if he was in attendance Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day refused to confirm or deny his attendance. He instead said that "if he was there" it was a "private" meeting that he would not comment on.*
> 
> "No item - not Canadian water, Mexican oil, or American anti-dumping laws - "is off the table"; rather, contentious or intractable issues will simply require more time to ripen politically."
> 
> ...


Narrow window with Bush going - Stephan should just bide his time.

Let Harper gnash his teeth about it.......no buddy to the south, no deal.
The Dems will have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's pretty hilarious thinking Doc. I took a screen cap of it to make sure I can keep it for later.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> That's pretty hilarious thinking Doc. I took a screen cap of it to make sure I can keep it for later.





> Harper's comments
> 
> In March 2003, the Canadian Alliance was the only party in the Commons to vote against a Bloc Québécois resolution to stay out of the [Iraq] war. At the time, Harper said "in reading only the polls, indulging a juvenile and insecure anti-Americanism, this government has for the first time in our history left us outside our British and American allies in their time of need."
> 
> ...


CBC - Canada Votes 2006 - Reality Check



> "I suspect in the circles where the United States as a nation is genuinely hated, I suspect Canada is equally hated as are all countries that stand for these values.


TheStar.com | Canada | Harper takes shot at Bush administration

the old "they hate us for our values" routine

Je me souviens, Mon. Harper. Je me souviens.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> [
> Je me souviens, Mon. Harper. Je me souviens.


I'm sure the parties are descending on "Shangri-la" to coax that vote.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I'm sure the parties are descending on "Shangri-la" to coax that vote.


well there sure aren't 125,000 child care seats descending on the Canadian people as promised by Harpo et al

money can be found for war, but can't be found for campaign promised child care

ah, the priorities


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: Don't forget to mention the tax cut that was really a tax increase on you--we never get tired of hearing about that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Spec: Don't forget to mention the tax cut that was really a tax increase on you--we never get tired of hearing about that.


Harpo's "tax cut" was actually a 0.5% in the tax rate of the lowest income tax bracket

never did I say it was a "tax increase on me"
but nice try tho'

spin, spin, spin, to every season....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Like music to the ears. Let's hear some more old saws, OK?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> well there sure aren't 125,000 child care seats descending on the Canadian people as promised by Harpo et al


People should just take care of their own children. And if they don't want children, they should get used to using a rubber. As Trudeau said, the government has no place in the bedrooms of the people.

It used to be that kids started school in Grade 1; named because it was the first grade. Then they came out with Kindergarten... Then thery came out with Junior Kindergarten and Senior Kindergarten... Then Nursury School... Then Junior and Senoir Nursury School... I suppose the next thing is to start institutionalizing the kids the moment they are born. Right out of the delivery room and right into a school; where they can be mindlessly programmed by the retards who run this country; and so parents, well, they won't even need to visit the children at all. They will have proxy-parents to foster the youth of the nation. But I suppose it buys votes.



> money can be found for war, but can't be found for campaign promised child care


Money can't even be found to fix the potholes on the streets; but $30 Million can be found to "save" a theater that collapsed into a pile of rubble anyways...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> People should just take care of their own children. And if they don't want children, they should get used to using a rubber. As Trudeau said, the government has no place in the bedrooms of the people.
> 
> It used to be that kids started school in Grade 1; named because it was the first grade. Then they came out with Kindergarten... Then thery came out with Junior Kindergarten and Senior Kindergarten... Then Nursury School... Then Junior and Senoir Nursury School... I suppose the next thing is to start institutionalizing the kids the moment they are born. Right out of the delivery room and right into a school; where they can be mindlessly programmed by the retards who run this country; and so parents, well, they won't even need to visit the children at all. They will have proxy-parents to foster the youth of the nation. But I suppose it buys votes.
> 
> ...


even more reason to NOT be in Afghanistan


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Like music to the ears. Let's hear some more old saws, OK?


That would be the Western Standard stopping publication....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Tories lunge toward majority turf, poll says
Norma Greenaway, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, October 12, 2007
OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives have surged to 40 per cent in the popularity sweepstakes, opening a 12-point lead over the Liberals and moving within sight of majority government, a new national poll says.

Tories lunge toward majority turf, poll says


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: That poll must be nonsense. Everyone knows that Dion has captured the hearts and minds of Canadians--and that AS is suppporting the Bloc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now that a Conservative majority is nigh, the sound of silence is deafening in this thread. Either that or all I can hear is the Dion supporters.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Now that a Conservative majority is nigh, the sound of silence is deafening in this thread. Either that or all I can hear is the Dion supporters.


let harper force an election and let's see how he squirms out of the Afghanistan horror and the 4-5 times higher death rate of Canadians in the region since he became PM and changed the mission from peacekeeping under Martin to peace making under Harpo

the only noise I hear are bagpipes commemorating our fallen soldiers and the constant squawking of the chicken hawks


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> let harper force an election and let's see how he squirms out of the Afghanistan horror and the 4-5 times higher death rate of Canadians in the region since he became PM and changed the mission from peacekeeping under Martin to peace making under Harpo


Still fiddlin' the same old lies? If Martin had been re-elected, the troop toll would be the same. And remember it was a free vote of parliament that changed the mission, not Harper alone.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I imagine Spec blurting that out without taking a breath.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Still fiddlin' the same old lies? If Martin had been re-elected, the troop toll would be the same. And remember it was a free vote of parliament that changed the mission, not Harper alone.


absolutely untrue
i guess this type of lie passes for truth in your books?
must be that Sun newspaper chain journalistic integrity

our troop toll went up sharply (about 5 times higher), as numbers demonstrate, after harper was elected and the mission changed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm thinking this won't be the cental point of a federal election. And unless the Liberals pull the plug on the current government soon, Ignatieff will be providing the dissenting opinion--which falls a lot closer to Harper's.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I'm thinking this won't be the cental point of a federal election. And unless the Liberals pull the plug on the current government soon, Ignatieff will be providing the dissenting opinion--which falls a lot closer to Harper's.


the chameleon Iggy will be softening his stance as he realizes how unpopular it is for Canadians to be coming home in boxes, especially now that the pres. of Afghanistan is making overtures to the Taliban (the enemy)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> absolutely untrue
> i guess this type of lie passes for truth in your books?
> must be that Sun newspaper chain journalistic integrity
> 
> our troop toll went up sharply (about 5 times higher), as numbers demonstrate, after harper was elected and the mission changed


They like to blame their own shortcomings on the Liberals....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm thinking this won't be the cental point of a federal election. And unless the Liberals pull the plug on the current government soon, Ignatieff will be providing the dissenting opinion--which falls a lot closer to Harper's.


Sure but is it what Canadians want? 
Iggy better start reflecting what the people of his riding want.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think that would be WHAT coming election. 

another day another poll












> A Strategic Counsel poll conducted between Thursday, Nov. 8 and Sunday, Nov. 11 for CTV and The Globe and Mail has found the Conservatives and Liberals are neck-and-neck nationally -- each with 32 per cent support.


message - get on with governing, stop bickering. stop posturing and make deals with each other to get to a consensus. 

CTV.ca | Tory support dips after new Schreiber allegations

damn champagne bubbles - go flat oh so quick.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

And a recent poll just showed Harper with a 20 point lead on the question of who would make the best PM.

Even in Ontario, this lead is 20 points. 

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F07-T265.pdf


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's not fair, to the Liberals Vandave-you know how difficult it is to set priorities.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It's not fair, to the Liberals Vandave-you know how difficult it is to set priorities.


Everything is a priority for the Liberals.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And a recent poll just showed Harper with a 20 point lead on the question of who would make the best PM.
> 
> Even in Ontario, this lead is 20 points.
> 
> http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F07-T265.pdf


So cute to see Conservatives get all hot and horny over this one....

Uh VD, how's this poll?


> *Tax cuts fail to lift Harper's fortunes*
> Tories in dead heat with Liberals after mini-budget, saga of Mulroney-Schreiber
> 
> The survey by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail/CTV News shows the two parties each with the support of 32 per cent of Canadians. The Conservatives had led the Liberals 34 per cent to 29 per cent in a poll taken two weeks before the mini-budget, which included income-tax relief and a one-percentage-point cut to the GST.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071112.wpolll1112/BNStory/National/home

BTW, 37% for an incumbent leader? LOL


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> BTW, 37% for an incumbent leader? LOL


It's not an approval rating, it's who would make the best PM. In this case, Harper leads ALL parties.

You keep attacking Harper, yet your views clearly don't match the rest of Canada who believe he is the best person to lead us.

Ahhhh..... times are good...... :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It's not an approval rating, it's who would make the best PM. In this case, Harper leads ALL parties.
> 
> You keep attacking Harper, yet your views clearly don't match the rest of Canada who believe he is the best person to lead us.
> 
> Ahhhh..... times are good...... :lmao:


Completely disingenuous as usual VD.

The Connies and Libs are effectively in a dead heat (and that's after the tax cuts).

Paul Martin used to be at 50% http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2004/Feb2-liberal_support.pdf (SES)

37% is nothing to crow about, no?
BTW, the undecided were at 25%...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Connies and Libs are effectively in a dead heat (and that's after the tax cuts).
> 
> 37% is nothing to crow about, no?
> BTW, the undecided were at 25%...


Polls are only tell a partial picture. Mixing the data with political analysis is the real predictive power. The factors that polls don't capture are that the Conservatives are well organized, have a unified message and are flush with cash. The same can't be said of the Liberals who are busy infighting and trying to establish an agenda. Canadians also don't vote parties in. They kick old ones out. For the most part, people are not unhappy with the Conservatives.

When you throw all these ingredients together, there is only one conclusion that can be reached. 

Harper knows it. Dion knows it. I know it. You know it.

It is the reason we are not in the midst of an election right now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> When you throw all these ingredients together, there is only one conclusion that can be reached.


Quite the creative interpretation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am looking forard to a not-Liberal majority.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd love to see Harper try and float his SPP agenda in the teeth of Mulroney et al.

AS - what VD and other don't get is anti -Harper does not equal pro Dion or anyone else.
Just like voting OUT the Liberals did not equal voting IN the Cons.

There isn't a decent choice amongst the bunch - none of them have shown signs of being able to govern in minority without continual showboating.

A poll with "none of the above " would do quite well. People are fed up with politicking for it's own sake and not governing.

The one thing I DO like is Harper's approach on reforming the Senate tho he MUST include the provinces on that reform. 
His "my way or the highway" ain't gonna fly for a moment in the constitutional arena.
He should let Hugh Segal chart the course for this aspect. Listen and facilitate - not dictate.

Pass some good legislation instead of stuff laced with poison pills.
It's there to do ...just little sign from any party of coalition governing skills.

This federal gov is

a) overstuffed with cash that needs to go to muncipalities where it came from, .....reverse the downloading that was needed in the 90s and not needed now.

b) over stuffed with power hungry, adversarial politicians who cannot seem to understand that governing and politicking are two different things.

Danny Williams might be the best mix of leader, manager and politician in Canada just now.
McGuinty no leader, marginal politician, good manager.
Charest bit of a lame duck on all three - not all due to him.
Stelmach - an embarrassment.

can't comment on others.

Do the first and the second will flow from that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This federal gov is:

a) overstuffed with cash that needs to go to back to the _individuals_ where it came from.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The tax system for Canada is fine - needs a little tweaking.
The distribution of tax for municipalities is a joke.

No one wants your red in tooth and claw laissez faire nonsense,..and for sure Harper ain't gonna deliver.....he's already grown the gov way beyond what it needs at the Federal level.

Pay cuts, grandfathering positions, retirement attrition.....that's conservative and long overdue at the Federal level.

Better services, fair taxes that go back to the communities and no stupid duplication of revenue collecting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> When you throw all these ingredients together, there is only one conclusion that can be reached.
> 
> Harper knows it. Dion knows it. I know it. You know it.
> 
> It is the reason we are not in the midst of an election right now.


Cons. 35
Libs 34
NDP 17
BQ 9
Green 6

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F07-T267.pdf


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> No one wants your red in tooth and claw laissez faire


You definitely don't--but then you're a hippie. There's a sizable number who do, however.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

No jabs towards other ehMac.ca members please.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EhMax: Which was jab? Hippie? A lot of people wear that one with pride!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Nice coy attempt at a dodge there, MacFury. Methinks you doth protest too much!

LOL!

This place has become a minefield of late. You'd best watch your step, lad.

[he says, looking tentatively over his shoulder]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who you calling a lad???!!!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Why, you... laddie. Feel free to hurl - sorry, I mean lob - back a soft, not too rude epithet of your very own choice! I will respectfully await being smacked by it and then will try to respond to the best of my abilities... always attempting politeness, natch.

The _National Lampoon_ used to run a cartoon called Politeness Man... he would swiftly cut down wanton abusers of decorum with a steel hanky.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember Politeness Man! In one cartoon he helped some people who were reduced to cannibalism to survive a harsh winter by helping them regain a sense of dining etiquette.

(Note to prevent topic drift: I do not know how Politeness Man would have voted in the Coming Election: Part II.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I imagine he would make a choice in accordance with his own private political inclinations but would, at all times, refrain from denigrating the choices of others... until he was at home and could put his feet up.

Alas, Politeness Man precedes the internet age. Hardly an age noted for its decorum!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One difference between the internet age and the previous one: most of the sissies hurling insults on the net would have been hiding behind their gramma's skirts if they had to deal with me in real life.

Obligatory "soft" epithet: Max, you are a "cream-faced loon." (Macbeth - Act 5, Scene 3).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL... and you, sir, are a poltroon and a blaggard!

Take _that!_


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But to bring it all back somewhat: I predict people will still vote in the upcoming election. Someone will lose, someone will win. Sure, it's a safe prediction. However, that vote will shade further and further into irrelevance, what with declining numbers of people sufficiently interested in voting on _anything_... we really should be talking about finding cures for that particular cancer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAx: election participation seems to depend on either:
a) one hot-button issue
b) a fear that other voters will be motivated in a particular election.

The government is a giant drunkard lurching and stumbling cross the country, and every once in awhile Canadians leap up to punch it hard in the head with either right or left hooks as the situation appears to require.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

An apt description, MF. Voters need to be regularly jolted from their apathy but the more the electorate gets jolted, the more desentitized it becomes. Jolts have become normal - alas, the hot button issues must therefore become more dramatic and extreme in order to command any sort of attention and thusly wake up a dozing electorate... which is mostly busy wondering what will happen to the TV season now that the Americans have stopped writing their shows.

In other words, we are doomed.

OK, so maybe we're not doomed, exactly. But we in the west have become the complacent victims of our own fabulous successes.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The "Coming Election" still has not materialized. There is not one opposition party that can afford the political cost of non-confidence; because the People like having a Minority that can not ram rod the various acts of class warfare through Parliament. And the Conservatives clearly, though they have put forth every possible effort, have not been able to bait any of the oppositioners to do such an act.

The Electors are not sensible, hence why Ontario is stuck once again with the effeminite McGuilty regime. It is the same reason why this country has been held back from all it could have been for the past one hundred years. We are stuck with the same liberal regimes because the Electors seem to think that a lack of progress and continual acts of class and racial warfare is somehow a good state of affairs.

We do not need to waste time on these elections because, face the facts, our only choice is between the Harper namby-pamby liberals taking orders from Calgary, the Dion liberals taking orders from Paris, the Layton liberals taking orders from the UFO that landed outside of Medicine Hat, the Duceppe liberals taking orders from the racist hate mongers and jew-baiters of Montreal, and the liberals of the day that runs the Green Party who think about policies while smoking the whacky-weed.

It is a little more interesting now that Mulroney has been pulled out of the closet, so that once again we can be reminded that there is someone in Canada almost as corrupt as the Honorable Mr. Martin (but perhaps with a better grade of friends that Martin ever had). They will never catch Mulroney because the Germans, with the best possible accountants in the world, could not figure out how the money was laundered in the Airbus affair. If they can't figure it out in Berlin, they have no chance in Ottawa. It should sideswipe the Tories, without a hope of a Majority - so the People will get what they want - a Minority that can not engage in continual acts of class warfare against the people.

We are to be happy that the "Coming Election" will be a number of years away.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> T
> The Electors are not sensible, hence why Ontario is stuck once again with the effeminite McGuilty regime.
> 
> We do not need to waste time on these elections because, face the facts, our only choice is between the Harper namby-pamby liberals taking orders from Calgary, the Dion liberals taking orders from Paris, the Layton liberals taking orders from the UFO that landed outside of Medicine Hat, the Duceppe liberals taking orders from the racist hate mongers and jew-baiters of Montreal, and the liberals of the day that runs the Green Party who think about policies while smoking the whacky-weed.


Hey can someone censor this guy? I'm trying to think if there was a group here in Canada he did not manage to offend with this post.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey can someone censor this guy? I'm trying to think if there was a group here in Canada he did not manage to offend with this post.


Sometimes the truth hurts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "racist, jew-baiting" part is uncalled for. I see no problem with the rest.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> The "Coming Election" still has not materialized. There is not one opposition party that can afford the political cost of non-confidence; because the People like having a Minority that can not ram rod the various acts of class warfare through Parliament. And the Conservatives clearly, though they have put forth every possible effort, have not been able to bait any of the oppositioners to do such an act.
> 
> The Electors are not sensible, hence why Ontario is stuck once again with the effeminite McGuilty regime. It is the same reason why this country has been held back from all it could have been for the past one hundred years. We are stuck with the same liberal regimes because the Electors seem to think that a lack of progress and continual acts of class and racial warfare is somehow a good state of affairs.
> 
> ...


Nice strong arguments EvanPitts (Don't agree with them at all, but nice arguments).. However, please watch the language. _" jew-baiters of Montreal, and the liberals of the day that runs the Green Party who think about policies while smoking the whacky-weed",_ is not appropriate one ehMac.ca.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey can someone censor this guy? I'm trying to think if there was a group here in Canada he did not manage to offend with this post.


Back to the censorship thing... Just because someone disagrees with something does not mean the censorship machine needs to be hauled out. The essence of democracy is the freedom to speak out about those things that are of importance. Democracy is not about rushing out and burning books, it is about truth, and it is through truth that we find our freedom.

Reading my post I shall point out the truths, that there are a myriad of groups that have not been offended by the words that are contained within the corpus of my opinion. I have not insulted those of the First Nations, people that I have a high regard for, and I have strongly supported over the years. No one has had their basic human rights stripped from them as much as those of the First Nations, and as a "democracy" devoted to the fundamental "freedoms" of mankind, we participate in the charade of that which we think is legal and meritorious.

I have not insulted those who believe in different political ideologies. It is my fondest wish that with the freedom of the individual comes the freedom of opinion - without discrimination or hatred attached. I have not insulted those who follow a conservative outlook - those who follow that which was expounded by Edmund Burke.

Nor have I insulted those who look towards a reformist attitude - those who continue to work towards the freedoms of the citizen in the tradition of Duncombe.

Nor have I insulted those of a socialist leaning - those who look towards social justice and the establishment of a safety net in order to protect the lives and liberties of those who are disadvantaged.

Nor have I insulted the traditions of the Grits - those refomers who balance the perogatives of a society with the liberties of the individual.

Nor have I insulted those who have chosen to make Canada their home, to become citizens of a land that has the potential to become both strong and free. And it is not only those of a recent trek to this country, but the entire heritage of those who sought freedom over the course of the past four hundred years.

Nor have I insulted the majority of Canadians who choose to ignore the rapacious and hypocritical nature of the political system set up by the carpetbaggers and scalawags of influence peddling that impedes the true progress needed by this nation.

It is my view that there has really been no difference between the various "leaders" and "parties" of this naion over the course of the past hundred years. They have subverted the truth of a democratic system for their own little corrupt ends. They have grown corpulent and lazy, feasting on the fruits of excessive liberality - while ignoring those committments that they swore and oath to in the first place. Corrupt Harper is little different from Corrupt Martin, who in turn was little different frtom Corrupt Chretien, and on and on and on and on.

I stand by those words. I consider those who peddle their hatred, their bigotry and their racism as "separatists" in Quebec to be no more different from the scum of the Nazis and the Klan. Their legislation differs not one iota from Jim Crow, and their judges no less despicable than those who stated that Dred Scott was little more than a farm implement. It is perhaps even more virulent than Apartheid because at least in South Africa, the blacks were third class citizens with a right to live in a homeland slum - while the separatists wish to strip the citizenship and evict those people that do not conform to their peculiar tribal customs. This nation is a nation of hypocrites because we convicted Zundel while allowing the same kind of hate literature to be issued by Marois.

I stand by those words, that Harper is a namby-pamby liberal because the truth of his regime is that they are liberal. They engage in the same pork-barrel giveouts that they accused the Liberals of engaging in. Nothing has changed, and Harper and his party do not have the will or the inclination to do anything other than to suckle off of the largess of corruption. He has little or nothing to do with conservative ideals, nor does he really care about social justice or democratic reform. Those words are just those things uttered in order to be elected and t be able to access the trough of corruption at which he and his minions feed.

Dion is a dangerous foreigner who will do little except take his orders direct from Paris. He states that he "is sensitive" about his citizenship because he should be - it is an entire disgrace. Either Ignatieff or Kennedy would be superior leaders because at least they have the wish to bring some real change to the policies of the Party - while Dion is a traitor who took money and was "reeducated" by Mulroney and Chretien.

Layton talks a lot but if he ever got into power, Corporate America would flee because of taxation. Citizens would flee too because no one can afford the 95% taxation he'd be levying in order to support the crack habits of a bunch of drug abusers. And the Green Party has a hackneyed platform that is better tasting but is less filling.

McGuilty is just that - guilty as not charged in stealing land from the First Nations and giving it to the developers. His government is effeminite, afraid to stand up and make a stand against his grandiose plans and policies of class warfare. Not once could I find in the Hansard that someone from his party stood up and asked his ministry a question, not once. All of his followers are meek, impotent influence peddlers, living off of the corruption that he doles out to them. Not one of them asked "Mr. McGuinty - why have you allowed the First Nations to be ripped off? They have a treaty with the citizens of this province, and it is your government that broke the treaty, and it is your government that has frittered more than $200 Million into the corruption that surrounds these acts of disgrace." No one had the courage, the guile, or the responsibility to even ask a question of such an important nature.

And it stands that the Electors chose not to ask these questions either, meekly thrashing John Tory for his plans of class warfare and racist policies, while embracing the corpus of class warface and racist policies practices by the effeminate freaks of the McGuilty administration.

I have offended no one - except for those who choose to embrace those ideals and policies that abdicate the social responsibilities inherent in a nation of freedom, liberty and equality. And before I forget - I also managed to insult both the Jew-baiters and the Indian-hater as well.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ehMax;605023 [I said:


> " jew-baiters of Montreal


Perhaps not appropriate, and perhaps I should retract those words. But recall that on the night of the last Referendum, Parizeau did show those exact cards when he blamed both the weathly establishment, the foreigners and the Jews for the failure of the PQ to win the election. His statements were censored by news organizations, but having listened to the live broadcasts, I was shocked by his assertions, or at least, shocked that he would utter them out loud for all to hear. It is the racist policies of the PQ, and the recent legislation that Marois tabled are little different from that of the old and intolerant guard of the bigots and racists of the PQ.

However, I retract those words as not only do they have no place on EhMac - they actually have no place in this nation. If only someone would step forward and show some true leadership and some true patriotism. We live with those sentiments that we may wish to censor; just as I wish we could live in a country free of the acts of class warfare foisted upon us by the governments.

I have a low opinion of the Green Party since they evicted Jim Harris. At one time I thought they were "for the environment" and "for social liberty"; but they are little more than a fringe group looking to score some free money. I wish - and I would support them - if they had the same outlook as their counterparts in Europe.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"Le Prix Parizeau" - Mordecai Richler Was Here - CBC Archives



> Before a crowd of reporters at an impromptu press conference at a local pub, Mordecai Richler unveils the Prix Parizeau literary award. The contest is open to ethnic Québecois and the prize is $3000 and a framed caricature of Jacques Parizeau by artist Terry Mosher. The initiative of the [soi-disant] Impur Laine Society, of which Richler is the president, is a response to Parizeau's assertions that the Quebec referendum was lost due to money and the ethnic vote. "I'm responding with ridicule," Richler explains. "I think ridicule is much more appropriate than anger."


^The best reponse to Jacques Parizeau's comments, and the government of Quebec's similar actions.

There was no doubt then, and Parizeau later admitted, what the reference to "money and the ethnic vote" meant.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Back to the censorship thing... Just because someone disagrees with something does not mean the censorship machine needs to be hauled out. The essence of democracy is the freedom to speak out about those things that are of importance. *Democracy is *not about rushing out and burning books, it is *about truth*, and it is through truth that we find our freedom.


While a good goal, why is your post so full of untruths?




EvanPitts said:


> Reading my post I shall point out the truths, that there are a myriad of groups that have not been offended by the words that are contained within the corpus of my opinion. I have not insulted those of the First Nations, people that I have a high regard for, and I have strongly supported over the years. No one has had their basic human rights stripped from them as much as those of the First Nations, and as a "democracy" devoted to the fundamental "freedoms" of mankind, we participate in the charade of that which we think is legal and meritorious.





EvanPitts said:


> I have not insulted those who believe in different political ideologies. It is my fondest wish that with the freedom of the individual comes the freedom of opinion - without discrimination or hatred attached. I have not insulted those who follow a conservative outlook - those who follow that which was expounded by Edmund Burke.





EvanPitts said:


> Nor have I insulted those who look towards a reformist attitude - those who continue to work towards the freedoms of the citizen in the tradition of Duncombe.





EvanPitts said:


> Nor have I insulted those of a socialist leaning - those who look towards social justice and the establishment of a safety net in order to protect the lives and liberties of those who are disadvantaged.





EvanPitts said:


> Nor have I insulted the traditions of the Grits - those refomers who balance the perogatives of a society with the liberties of the individual.





EvanPitts said:


> Nor have I insulted those who have chosen to make Canada their home, to become citizens of a land that has the potential to become both strong and free. And it is not only those of a recent trek to this country, but the entire heritage of those who sought freedom over the course of the past four hundred years.





EvanPitts said:


> Nor have I insulted the majority of Canadians who choose to ignore the rapacious and hypocritical nature of the political system set up by the carpetbaggers and scalawags of influence peddling that impedes the true progress needed by this nation.





EvanPitts said:


> It is my view that there has really been no difference between the various "leaders" and "parties" of this naion over the course of the past hundred years. They have subverted the truth of a democratic system for their own little corrupt ends. They have grown corpulent and lazy, feasting on the fruits of excessive liberality - while ignoring those committments that they swore and oath to in the first place. Corrupt Harper is little different from Corrupt Martin, who in turn was little different frtom Corrupt Chretien, and on and on and on and on.


What corruption would these be? If anything, you forgot Muldoon. Surely none of the above lied to the extend of that great man.


EvanPitts said:


> I stand by those words. I consider those who peddle their hatred, their bigotry and their racism as "separatists" in Quebec to be no more different from the scum of the Nazis and the Klan. Their legislation differs not one iota from Jim Crow, and their judges no less despicable than those who stated that Dred Scott was little more than a farm implement. It is perhaps even more virulent than Apartheid because at least in South Africa, the blacks were third class citizens with a right to live in a homeland slum - while the separatists wish to strip the citizenship and evict those people that do not conform to their peculiar tribal customs. This nation is a nation of hypocrites because we convicted Zundel while allowing the same kind of hate literature to be issued by Marois.


Don Cherry is a racist himself. Why don't you rant against that scumbag?
Or Barbara Kay, that National Post rag writer?
Or Jan Wong?
All hate literature, but somehow Quebec bashing is okay by you....




EvanPitts said:


> I stand by those words, that Harper is a namby-pamby liberal because the truth of his regime is that they are liberal. They engage in the same pork-barrel giveouts that they accused the Liberals of engaging in. Nothing has changed, and Harper and his party do not have the will or the inclination to do anything other than to suckle off of the largess of corruption. He has little or nothing to do with conservative ideals, nor does he really care about social justice or democratic reform. Those words are just those things uttered in order to be elected and t be able to access the trough of corruption at which he and his minions feed.





EvanPitts said:


> Dion is a dangerous foreigner who will do little except take his orders direct from Paris. He states that he "is sensitive" about his citizenship because he should be - it is an entire disgrace. Either Ignatieff or Kennedy would be superior leaders because at least they have the wish to bring some real change to the policies of the Party - while Dion is a traitor who took money and was "reeducated" by Mulroney and Chretien.


Can you even back up any of these allegations? 
Seems to me that these are coming from the land of delusions...




EvanPitts said:


> Layton talks a lot but if he ever got into power, Corporate America would flee because of taxation. Citizens would flee too because no one can afford the 95% taxation he'd be levying in order to support the crack habits of a bunch of drug abusers. And the Green Party has a hackneyed platform that is better tasting but is less filling.


95% taxation? 




EvanPitts said:


> McGuilty is just that - guilty as not charged in stealing land from the First Nations and giving it to the developers. His government is effeminite, afraid to stand up and make a stand against his grandiose plans and policies of class warfare. Not once could I find in the Hansard that someone from his party stood up and asked his ministry a question, not once. All of his followers are meek, impotent influence peddlers, living off of the corruption that he doles out to them. Not one of them asked "Mr. McGuinty - why have you allowed the First Nations to be ripped off? They have a treaty with the citizens of this province, and it is your government that broke the treaty, and it is your government that has frittered more than $200 Million into the corruption that surrounds these acts of disgrace." No one had the courage, the guile, or the responsibility to even ask a question of such an important nature.


And what about one of the previous Ontarian PM who liked to hurl expletives about natives?





EvanPitts said:


> And it stands that the Electors chose not to ask these questions either, meekly thrashing John Tory for his plans of class warfare and racist policies, while embracing the corpus of class warface and racist policies practices by the effeminate freaks of the McGuilty administration.


Effeminate freaks? I guess you prefer big burly bear men? 




EvanPitts said:


> I have offended no one - except for those who choose to embrace those ideals and policies that abdicate the social responsibilities inherent in a nation of freedom, liberty and equality. And before I forget - I also managed to insult both the Jew-baiters and the Indian-hater as well.


:yawn:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An exemplar of the right wing mindset......scary indeed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Effeminate freaks? I guess you prefer big burly bear men?


Or a Margaret Thatcher. I agree with Pitts that having effeminate characters like McGuinty or Dion as public figures does not inspire respect. Better an Alpha male who will at least be able to play the part of a leader when necessary.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Or a Margaret Thatcher. I agree with Pitts that having effeminate characters like McGuinty or Dion as public figures does not inspire respect. Better an Alpha male who will at least be able to play the part of a leader when necessary.


Or a fat pig like Harper, can he even see his miniscule genitals below that big belly of fat?
How about Monkey-man Bush?
Or greasy used car salesman Sarkozy?
Doris Day was rather macho on that jet ski, no?
Potato Pete? Well I guess if you like them stupid...
Lawrence Cannon?
Rona Ambrose? Well at least she has a bigger pair than Harper...


What we need is Jesse Ventura, right?
Better yet, Saddam, now that was a man's man....
Or we could revive the Village People.

Rather pathetic to want to base politicians on their looks...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Rather pathetic to want to base politicians on their looks...


You appear to have made study of it. Quite an extensive catalogue of opinions.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Or a Margaret Thatcher. I agree with Pitts that having effeminate characters like McGuinty or Dion as public figures does not inspire respect.


I'm sorry but this is:
1) a lame criteria for selecting politicians
2) homophobic or otherwise derogatory.


I don't like either but they are not effeminate. Even if they were this is ignorant.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm sorry but this is:
> 1) a lame criteria for selecting politicians
> 2) homophobic and otherwise derogatory.
> 
> ...


Homophobic? :lmao: 

Not all gay men act effeminate. You are stereotyping without thinking about it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Homophobic? :lmao:
> 
> Not all gay men act effeminate. You are stereotyping without thinking about it.


Changed and to or to correct this issue.


Perhaps not but the insinuation is pretty obvious. Maybe you think all politicians should be the Govenator?

I stand by what I typed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't believe either of these two ineffectual leaders to be gay--though my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. 

I do find them effeminate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe either of these two ineffectual leaders to be gay--though my opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
> 
> I do find them effeminate.


Yes MF, all Liberal leaning politicians are effeminate pansies... :yawn:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Changed and to or to correct this issue.
> 
> 
> Perhaps not but the insinuation is pretty obvious. Maybe you think all politicians should be the Govenator?
> ...


Maybe you should think all candidates need to be women, like the Non Democratic Party (NDP).

B.C. NDP to choose candidates through affirmative action

I don't think an effeminate personality lends itself to a leadership position. This does not exclude females or gay men, it just means they need a certain type of personality. Thatcher had it and Hillary Clinton has it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I like the little icon on the bottom of the photo where you're looking up and smiling approvingly.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't think an effeminate personality lends itself to a leadership position. This does not exclude females or gay men, it just means they need a certain type of personality. Thatcher had it and Hillary Clinton has it.


Poor Gandhi....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Could you imagine what Gandhi could have done if he'd had a little more testosterone!!??


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I think that they need a good balance of the two, too much testosterone is never a good thing, and too little makes one appear weak and a push over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

_None_ makes one appear like Dion or McGuinty.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Maybe we should ask Chuck Norris who he approves of....

(It's Mike Huckabee for the curious)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> AS: Could you imagine what Gandhi could have done if he'd had a little more testosterone!!??


Gandhi had more balls than every guy on this board combined.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gandhi had guts, no doubt. Had he tried the same tactics with anyone but the British, he would have been dead.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, you ever think of writing novels of revisionist history? 
You know, the stuff like "What if Booth had missed" and other stuff....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I really enjoy reading some of the alternate history books. I was thinking specifically of a story by Harry Turtledove, "The Last Article" in which the Germans occupy India during WWII. Things don't go so well for Gandhi in that one when he uses the same tactics used on England. It was certainly a well-reasoned scenario.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Cities face infrastructure collapse: report*
> Updated Tue. Nov. 20 2007 10:14 AM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


Typical Neo-Con approach from Harper- sweep it under the rug, hope it goes away instead of addressing it.
Mikey Harris ghosts.......

But make sure the border guards have guns and the military new toys......keep dem terriirsits at bay.  ..

.oh and let's just short change Ontario in the vote/seat distribution while we're at it....make sure it can't happen....



> *Undercutting Ontario*
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> November 15, 2007 at 8:23 AM EST
> 
> ...


Open transparent, fix democracy in Canada....what a steaming load of horsepucky Harper deals out...day after day


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Time to cut social programs and move the money to heavy construction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Time to cut social programs and move the money to heavy construction.


How about getting rid of corporate welfare? Quebec seems to be screaming for that lately...

Social programs + construction benefit industry in the end.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Corporate welfare must end first.

Social programs benefit industry when they excuse industry from having to pay for benefits. Easy to shift the burden for benefits to the taxpayer so they can supply themsleves a rickety chair broad enough for all buttocks.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

:clap: About time, this should make the hippies real happy.

New legislation would impose minimum sentences for drug crimes


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Incredibly astute priorities around here


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> :clap: About time, this should make the hippies real happy.


Yeah, looks like even the dope peddlers near schools get off pretty easy. Perhaps if they made some real sentences rather than these kindergarten punishments, things would improve. All of the drug pushers should be chained together for a minimum of ten years, and be set to work on the highways of the nation. That would solve both problems, the deterioration of the roads and the deterioration of morality.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Incredibly astute priorities around here


Attack the symptom, not the cause... 

I'm sure that drug traffickers are happy at the news, more profits for them.

Stiffer sentences have never been a deterrent....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Incredibly astute priorities around here


Same can be said for you MD, I believe the war on drugs is more of a priority of the Federal gov't than city infrastructure. tptptptp

Cities need to come up with a better plan other than sticking their hand out and waiting for the Feds to fill them. Just imagine if all Canadians solved their problems this way, but of course some people will always live in the land of entitlement.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Same can be said for you MD, I believe the war on drugs is more of a priority of the Federal gov't than city infrastructure. tptptptp


Has the "war on drugs" ever worked? Talk about copying a US move.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Has the "war on drugs" ever worked? Talk about copying a US move.


Right, and the US is the only one fighting this. Nice give up attitude though, here's one for you has Quebec Sovereignty ever worked?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I've always maintained that drugs should be legalized. 
But of course poorly-socialised authoritarian figures with anger issues will never understand that stiffer drug penalties will never work.


As for "Quebec Sovereignty", they have not tried it lately - still trying to figure out your point...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> :clap: About time, this should make the hippies real happy.
> 
> New legislation would impose minimum sentences for drug crimes


yes, and we all know it's only hippies who use drugs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You really DON'T get it do you??? - taxes are GENERATED in the municipalities. The Feds are leeches but if you want to kowtow to Harper.....why aren't we surprised.

It's the FEDs who put their hand out time and time again with little to show to the communities they purportedly serve. They've expanded gov when cities desperately need the downloading that occurred in the 90s reversed....but you can't seem to comprehend the fact that the Feds- one Paul Martin....created the problem in the first place.....and had to given the national finances....NOW is the time to correct that and Harper has done dick all - and you just lap it up.

When your water stops running and your sewer backs up just recall your "priorities".


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> yes, and we all know it's only hippies who use drugs.


No it's hippies who want them legalized.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> No it's hippies who want them legalized.


I certainly am not a hippie or even close to an earth-muffin type. 
Glad that you live by stereotypes....

So who are those hippies again? Chretien is one, right?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> As for "Quebec Sovereignty", they have not tried it lately - still trying to figure out your point...


And Canada last tried mandatory minimums on drugs when?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I certainly am not a hippie or even close to an earth-muffin type.
> Glad that you live by stereotypes....
> 
> So who are those hippies again? Chretien is one, right?


Sorry hippies was the nicest term I could come up with for them without being banned from ehMac.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> No it's hippies who want them legalized.


no, that's simply not true. They are some of many, who want it legalized.

Perhaps that's what you see on TV.

I would take a wild guess, that 'hippies', among pot smokers, are probably the minority.

But, putting them all in jail seems to have worked wonders for the states. They are winning the war on drugs famously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> You really DON'T get it do you??? - taxes are GENERATED in the municipalities. The Feds are leeches ....


Taxes are generated by individuals, not municipalities. If the cost of doing business in a municipality is higher than anywhere else, let that be reflected in the cost of doing business--not taxes on other Canadians who don't choose to live there.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's a great way to kill a municipality.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not if they all did it, however...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Americans lost the War on Drugs as badly as they lost the War in Iraq. A nation can only win a war if they commit themselves entirely to the pursuit of total victory, and the Americans are so infatuated with their grandiose lifestyle of personal greed that they can not commit to the causes that they can not complete. The whole concept of the word "war" mobilizes their patriotic fervour, but they are utterly spineless and can not withstand any effort that is greater than a few weeks.

We were supposed to be treated to a show of "shock and awe" in Iraq. Instead, the war degenerated because the inferiority of the American effort was soon evident, and the tribal elements in Iraq entirely took control of the situation. Same with the War on Drugs, a war fought without any kind of consistent backbone. Drug use and violence continues on its merry way, and any attempt at law enforcement is strictly band-aid.

If they were truly committed to the matter, all of the drug pushers would be exterminated as the vermin they are. And for that matter, Baghdad would have been leveled as punishment for not sticking to the treaties that they signed. The Americans peddled a lie.

Our own nation is also afflicted by this lack of true resolve. Sure, they have these minimum sentences, which are a triffle that surely some inept judge will practice the hocus-pocus of malfeasance upon. If this nation really wanted to change things, they would through committing all resources to fixing those problems that have festered for so long. And if we really did stand for those words that we placed into the Constitutional Instrument, we would give those parcels of land to the First Nations, as agreed upon by the treaties that this nation renegged on.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> When your water stops running and your sewer backs up just recall your "priorities".


Surely living in a fiscally responsible city like Mississauga you aren't worried about this are you? 

Seeing they haven't raised property taxes in how many years they've obviously had enough money to not only build new infrastructure but repair and maintain their existing one. 

But if that has all come to an end, one might think why wouldn't one have planned for this by raising the property taxes yearly and bank the cash needed to repair infrastructure in the near future? Of course that doesn't win you votes, so let's get behind on the upkeep and hold out our hands for when it all falls apart.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly Jumbo. Typical pass-the-responsibility attitude, then manufacture a crisis. It's like budget time at various parks across North America. Don't get the budget you like? "Sorry folks, we had to close all of the toilet facilities, you understand."

Let's see. The city builds it. The city operates it. The citizens use it. The city and citizens abuse it to create wealth for themselves without paying the bills. Something breaks...WAHHHHHH WHERE ARE THE FEDS?

I can understand Toronto asking surrounding municipalities for a levy on entering the city because--if anyone is responsible for using Toronto;s infrastructure without paying for it--it's the likes of Mississauga.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this is almost funny.

Almost I say.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm quite sure I pay more taxes than MF does - and I'm almost certain that he and his family use more healthcare dollars than I do. 
How about starting at home with this "pay for everything that you use" stuff?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> No it's hippies who want them legalized.


And doctors, lawyers, politicians, snowboarders... don't forget them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm quite sure I pay more taxes than MF does - and I'm almost certain that he and his family use more healthcare dollars than I do.
> How about starting at home with this "pay for everything that you use" stuff?


I don't think Macfury's personal info proves your point any better.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> And doctors, lawyers, politicians, snowboarders... don't forget them.


Sure, whoever you want to lump on the idiot band wagon be my guest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> I don't think Macfury's personal info proves your point any better.


Agreed. But it seems that some only a myopic vision and have to have all centered around them. In his wolrd, we'd be down to fiefdoms...
He likely receives net benefits from Canada's social networks.

I certainly don't approve of drug use, but can see the merits of legalisation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Climate change a test for Harper*
> 
> Nov 21, 2007 04:30 AM
> Understatement and obliqueness are the key elements of the language of diplomacy, which is why everyone should pay close attention when a top diplomat speaks with unreserved candour. That is what happened last weekend when United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called global warming "the defining challenge of our age."
> ...


MFs denier island....illustrated version


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

Stephane Dion, the Liberal Leader has not watched and refuses to watch the video of the Polish immigrants death at Vancouver Airport.

Aftermath of Dziekanski tragedy has touched raw nerve in public



> But the real problem -- what's at the root of the growing anguish in the community -- is the absence of authoritative leadership.
> A prime example is Stockwell Day, federal minister of public safety. Hasn't it dawned on him that the Dziekanski affair is a humiliating embarrassment for Canada? Yet all he's done is waffle on about Tasers.
> Liberal Leader Stephane Dion hadn't even bothered to watch the video the rest of the world is talking about.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: What on Earth does socialist health insurance have to do with infrastructure financing. You're way off base here.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Sure, whoever you want to lump on the idiot band wagon be my guest.


Yep, that massive population of doctors, lawyers, scientists, law enforcement officers, and social justice activists are mostly a bunch of 'idiots.'  

Here's an idea: let's make premarital sex illegal! It's caused social problems for centuries, and people sometimes catch diseases from each other, so it can be blamed for lots of health problems. Then we can pour billions into enforcing this law and incarcerating the fornicating miscreants. Hey, it's working out really well with marijuana, so why not?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do enjoy seeing those bizarre photos of polar bears posed on ice floes--as though they just waited for them to melt while they stood there.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Here's an idea: let's make premarital sex illegal! It's caused social problems for centuries, and people sometimes catch diseases from each other, so it can be blamed for lots of health problems. Then we can pour billions into enforcing this law and incarcerating the fornicating miscreants. Hey, it's working out really well with marijuana, so why not?


Oh the turmoil premarital sex brings this country. All those people getting either mugged or shot over it, people panhandling on the street to get their next fix. Not to mention the organized crime that it involves, so many lives ruined by premarital sex.  

Thanks for the great analogy though, nice to see someone making an effort to prove my band wagon theory.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Oh the turmoil premarital sex brings this country. All those people getting either mugged or shot over it, people panhandling on the street to get their next fix. Not to mention the organized crime that it involves, so many lives ruined by premarital sex.
> 
> Thanks for the great analogy though, nice to see someone making an effort to prove my band wagon theory.


hey bub. Go visit an aids hospice sometime and come back to tell us about your proven band wagon theory.

And thats just for starters.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Oh the turmoil premarital sex brings this country.....so many lives ruined by premarital sex.


There is certainly a significant minority who believe it causes problems. In my experience it's certainly as dangerous as marijuana, if not more so.



> All those people getting either mugged or shot over it, people panhandling on the street to get their next fix. Not to mention the organized crime that it involves.


Now you're conflating the problems of illegality with the problems of the thing itself. When alcohol was illegal, it had all of these problems, and when we legalized it, many of these problems went away or at least got better.



> Thanks for the great analogy though, nice to see someone making an effort to prove my band wagon theory.


While I won't argue it's the best analogy ever, I think it holds fairly well in that, like marijuana, premarital sex offends some people, and has been known to play deleterious roles some people's lives in some contexts. It is also similarly pointless to legislate against, because any such legislation is doomed to being ineffective, expensive to enforce, and ultimately detrimental to society.

Regardless of your personal opinions about the use of recreational drugs, it is abundantly clear that their criminalization is worse than futile: It robs society of the otherwise productive individuals who's lives get routed into criminality, the astronomical costs of enforcement, and more than double the economic value of these substances, in that the profits are funneled into criminal gangs which then need to be fought by law enforcement.

Legalization is a win from any rational perspective, except, perhaps, that of the gang-lord, or prison guard looking for job security.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Oh the turmoil premarital sex brings this country. All those people getting either mugged or shot over it, people panhandling on the street to get their next fix. Not to mention the organized crime that it involves, so many lives ruined by premarital sex.
> 
> Thanks for the great analogy though, nice to see someone making an effort to prove my band wagon theory.


How about some logic to support this war on drugs stance.

JJ's argument: Drugs must be illegal because people are shot, mugged, petty crime results from it, organized crime benefits from it. 

(But clearly most of these problems are caused by the fact that drugs are illegal. The legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, seem to be free of these problems.)

Harper's solution, approved by JJ: ratchet up the war on drugs! The fact that this has been exhaustively tried and failed in the US is irrelevant.

Prohibition creates organized crime, prohibition creates police corruption, prohibition emboldens criminals to become more violent and tougher prohibition ensure that only the truly violent and psychotic will become the drug dealers du jour. You can lock up hundreds, but the lure of greater profits will bring along another wave of dealers who aren't afraid of the risks. The big gang leaders and mafia bosses will remain mostly out of touch while the huge profits are funnelled to their offshore accounts. Prohibition ensures deaths of users and pushes them into crime to support their habit. Prohibition has been tried and has failed spectacularly. Yet Harper calls for more.

The logic of this argument is faulty, the solution is nonsense. Harper's policy is pandering to ignorance, irrational fear and to those who can't seem to think clearly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The logic of this argument is faulty, the solution is nonsense. Harper's policy is pandering to ignorance, irrational fear and to those who can't seem to think clearly.


I don't agree.

Consider the four pillar approach that many social advocates and those on the left have pushed for in Vancouver. You can't ignore that Enforcement is one of the pillars with the others being prevention, treatment and harm reduction.

When people who have massive grow-ops don't get any punishment, there is clearly a problem with our judicial system. When crack dealers get charged 30 times without spending a day in jail, there is clearly a problem with our judicial system. I could go on and on with anecdotes. For that reason, I support minimum sentences. Our judicial system is simply not doing it's job.

I am not going to say that Harper and the Conservatives believe in the four pillars approach, but most people on all sides of the political spectrum recognize that punishment does play a role in solving the drug problem. For example, enforcement is one avenue to delivering treatment services to people who need it.

It is also worth noting that the Conservatives have not shut down the safe injection site in East Vancouver, although they have the ability to do it. So, to be fair, I think there is some level of recognition by the Conservatives that harm reduction plays a role in solving the problem.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> Consider the four pillar approach that many social advocates and those on the left have pushed for in Vancouver. You can't ignore that Enforcement is one of the pillars with the others being prevention, treatment and harm reduction.
> 
> ...


I think I, and others who support things like decriminalization of say pot, also recognize that it doesn't mean suddenly it should be legal for crack dealers to have at it on our streets. Unfortunately, this kind of debate always gets polarized between what is portrayed as drug lovin freaks and the unthinking long arm of the law.

It may be too much to hope for a miracle, and enough people to suddenly realize that common sense, wisely putting resources where it should (ie stop wasting millions on busting otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking a joint), and enforce what should be enforced.

And I get the feeling Harper's government would make short work of that insight program should they get a majority. As it is, while in minority, it's probably best left alone for now...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> hey bub. Go visit an aids hospice sometime and come back to tell us about your proven band wagon theory.


You can aids from dirty needles too, but lets ban premarital sex and legalize drugs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I think I, and others who support things like decriminalization of say pot, also recognize that it doesn't mean suddenly it should be legal for crack dealers to have at it on our streets. Unfortunately, this kind of debate always gets polarized between what is portrayed as drug lovin freaks and the unthinking long arm of the law.
> 
> It may be too much to hope for a miracle, and enough people to suddenly realize that common sense, wisely putting resources where it should (ie stop wasting millions on busting otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking a joint), and enforce what should be enforced.
> 
> And I get the feeling Harper's government would make short work of that insight program should they get a majority. As it is, while in minority, it's probably best left alone for now...


I support legalization of pot as well and agree that our resources should be spent on the 'real' drugs.

We can't keep using the minority / majority excuse with the Conservatives. When it is convienient, those in opposition will say that they abuse their minority position by not consulting with the other parties enough. And then on the flip side, when they make a decision the other parties support, theywill say it is only because of their minority position and that it will change should they win a majority. You can't have it both ways. I say judge them by their actions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> You can aids from dirty needles too, but lets ban premarital sex and legalize drugs.


keep up with what's being said. You'll realize that's just silly.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> It may be too much to hope for a miracle, and enough people to suddenly realize that common sense, wisely putting resources where it should (ie stop wasting millions on busting otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking a joint), and enforce what should be enforced.


Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of your casual pot smoker being targeted? Your casual pot smoker gets arrested when they break other laws and get caught with it in their possession.

And if you read the announcement they are going after major producers and dealers with mandatory minimums.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of your casual pot smoker being targeted? Your casual pot smoker gets arrested when they break other laws and get caught with it in their possession.
> 
> And if you read the announcement they are going after major producers and dealers with mandatory minimums.


quite often as a matter of fact.

god this is a waste of time. Nice chatting.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Prohibition all over again - idjits never learn.



> Home-grown
> 
> Oct 18th 2007 | CHINO HILLS
> From The Economist print edition
> ...


I suspect it's BCs biggest agri crop as well. Love those priorities.
Millions in need of housing but spend spend spend on busting pot.. 

Legalize it, tax it, control it, use the funds for social projects.

Gambling and booze already there.

Sex and marijuana??........at least Holland gets it right.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> quite often as a matter of fact.


Love to read those examples, links?

Must be that secret new suburban soccer mom task force.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, how would you explain the sudden hike in possesion charges? The cops suddenly getting real good at catching criminals? 

Let's end this now. It's a bad road to go down by suggesting that pot smokers are criminals who all will get caught as a result of their crime sprees.

Enough nonsense k?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> Consider the four pillar approach that many social advocates and those on the left have pushed for in Vancouver. You can't ignore that Enforcement is one of the pillars with the others being prevention, treatment and harm reduction.
> 
> ...


You are so cute when you are trying to be moderate...
Since the U.S. has decided to "get tough on crime" the rate of incarceration has gone dramatically. Yet, the crime rate has not. 
So the US with 5% of the world population and 25% of total incarceration is the system you'd like to emulate? 

Using the hard cases to base legislation upon, makes for very poor laws.

Countries with the low incarceration rates have the low levels of crime and the countries with high crime rates have higher levels of incarceration. This would indicate that a “get tough” approach does not work. Sending the “bad guys” to prison is like sending them to “bad guy school”. So while your seem to favour a balanced approach, the Harper plan is not. And really, crime rates have been going down – this is pandering to the base of troglodytes…


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I support legalization of pot as well and agree that our resources should be spent on the 'real' drugs.
> 
> We can't keep using the minority / majority excuse with the Conservatives. When it is convienient, those in opposition will say that they abuse their minority position by not consulting with the other parties enough. And then on the flip side, when they make a decision the other parties support, theywill say it is only because of their minority position and that it will change should they win a majority. You can't have it both ways. I say judge them by their actions.


As a fiscal conservative surely you should recognize that throwing good money after bad on a failed policy is nonsense. He is encouraging the massive growth of several arms of government, police and prisons that simply cannot do the job he is asking of them. But certainly the empire-builders within those government agencies will gladly take the money to build up their bureaucracies in the face of any evidence that they can do the job.

He's appealing to his fearful social conservative base for political reasons because it has been well shown that the approach he proposes is not effective at producing the results stated. The evidence shows that the approach he and the drug warriors favour has done the exact opposite. That lesson should have been learned in the 1930s.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A successful plan to follow



> The Netherlands
> 
> In order to appreciate the Dutch approach to drug policy, certain characteristics of Dutch society must be kept in mind. The Netherlands is one of the most densely populated, urbanized countries in the world. It has a population of 15.5 million, occupying an area of no more than 41,526 km2. The Dutch firmly believe in the freedom of the individual, with the government playing no more than a background role in religious or moral issues. A cherished feature of Dutch society is the free and open discussion of such issues. A high value is attached to the well-being of society as a whole, as witness the extensive social security system and the fact that everyone has access to health care and education.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that last paragraph may upset a few.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Upset that these are stats from 1997 maybe, how about some stats from this century?

Dutch Drug Policy Even More Effective

But it's so successful, everyone's doing it. 

Here's some from the same source, except 2007, drug use among teens on it's way down in the US. 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press07/SAMHSA_NSDUH_Release_090607.pdf.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As a fiscal conservative surely you should recognize that throwing good money after bad on a failed policy is nonsense. He is encouraging the massive growth of several arms of government, police and prisons that simply cannot do the job he is asking of them. But certainly the empire-builders within those government agencies will gladly take the money to build up their bureaucracies in the face of any evidence that they can do the job.
> 
> He's appealing to his fearful social conservative base for political reasons because it has been well shown that the approach he proposes is not effective at producing the results stated. The evidence shows that the approach he and the drug warriors favour has done the exact opposite. That lesson should have been learned in the 1930s.


I don't agree that all drugs should be legalized. I think the hard drugs should remain illegal. I think that soft drugs such as pot should be legal.Do you agree or disagree on this point?

I could throw the same argument back at you.... i.e. the current system has failed so let's try something else... My anecdotes are real about drug dealers getting off an unbelievable amount of times without serving any time at all. Maybe putting them away will actually help the situation. Surely you do not believe that keeping such people on the street is a good thing.

Do you agree or disagree that Enforcement is one factor in solving the drug problem?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

way down? a whole less than 2%, among teens?

I figured google would be warming up in your browser.

Upset enough to post nonsensical links.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Countries with the low incarceration rates have the low levels of crime and the countries with high crime rates have higher levels of incarceration.


Well no kidding... farms with lots of chickens have lots of eggs... but what came first? 

Causation... read about it... understand it...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree that all drugs should be legalized. I think the hard drugs should remain illegal. I think that soft drugs such as pot should be legal.Do you agree or disagree on this point?
> 
> I could throw the same argument back at you.... i.e. the current system has failed so let's try something else... My anecdotes are real about drug dealers getting off an unbelievable amount of times without serving any time at all. Maybe putting them away will actually help the situation. Surely you do not believe that keeping such people on the street is a good thing.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that Enforcement is one factor in solving the drug problem?


sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It is true that The Netherlands has found a method of handling the demand for such vices. However, they are also hard core at prosecuting and jailing transgressors. The sex trade and the drug trade are highly regulated (and the workers are unionized with full benefits, etc.), and are allotted very specific areas. One would be simply stupid to partake in these things outside the allotted areas, the punishments are indeed very steep. Of course their legal system is different from ours, and has its basis on the Napoleonic Code. This means that if an area has not been specifically allowed to be a sex trade or drug trade area, it is completely illegal and forbidden. Here, well, they would just tie up the courts until they find a stupid enough judge...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So you are saying it would work in Quebec? 

..but nowhere else?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Well no kidding... farms with lots of chickens have lots of eggs... but what came first?
> 
> Causation... read about it... understand it...


I understand. It's too bad the Connies living in la-la land are disconnected from reality.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> So you are saying it would work in Quebec? ..but nowhere else?


Quebec does not use the Napoleonic Code. They use a far more ancient civil law system, and the Criminal Code is the same as in the rest of Canada. The British allowed the continuance of the Civil Code in order to not disrupt life by having to reopen every title deed and contract that was in existence prior to the Conquest.

But if, say, a neighbourhood was set aside in Montreal for a "tourist trade" where one could purchase the services of a certain Madame Sexe (or La Gigolo Du Greasy), or 5 grammes of la mary-jane... And our government was not entirely controlled by effeminate freaks but by serious law and order men... And the police forces were less wussy and more like the Texas Marshalls... Then it would work.

However, this nation does not have the self control or coordination as they do in progressive minded nations, such as The Netherlands, or Denmark - so I would suppose that the entire system would be corrupted and drained by the money sucking leeches that waste all of the oxygen on The Hill. I am sure that mature and disciplined people can be trusted with smoking some whacky weed, but there are not many of those kinds of people, at least in The Hammer.

And I do think that Beavis and Butthead would do a better job of things than the tools that were elected to mis-represent us in Ottawa. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Adoption of the Civil Code of Lower Canada
> The substantive law of the 1866 Civil Code of Lower Canada was derived primarily from the judicial interpretations of the law that had been in force in Lower Canada. *The work of the Commission on codification was also inspired by some of the modernizations found in the 1804 Napoleonic code. The structure of the Code was also inspired by the Napoleonic code. *At the time of Canadian Confederation for the Province of Quebec the Civil Code of Lower Canada replaced most of the laws inherited from the "Customs of Paris" (La Coutume de Paris) and incorporated some English law as it had been applied in Lower Canada such as the English law of trusts. The former Civil Code was also inspired by the Louisiana Civil Code, the Field Code movement in New York and the law of the Canton de Vaud.


My point being the nonsense about the Napoleonic Code being de rigeur is just that, nonsense.

It seems gambling and booze are handled just fine in Ontario and evening smoking is being handled quite well despite well financed opposition.

Political will to reform is lacking and the Fed, especially now are way too deeply engaged in areas that should be left to the communities and provinces.

As for McCarthy, well its about as cogent as your views on the subject. Maybe Putin appeals more as a "master".

Happy now


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More info on marijuana impact...



> Decriminalizing Pot Will Reduce Prison Population, Have No Adverse Impact On Public Safety, Study Says
> Share This Page del.icio.us | digg | Stumble Upon | Facebook
> 
> November 21, 2007 - Washington, DC, USA
> ...


C'mon Harper - show some leadership = decriminalize pot, keep the dealer penalties but ALSO institute the needle clinics and support centres.

Approach it like alcohol .....treat the medical issues, control distribution - free up the criminal system and maybe even reduce the cost of it so there is some training available for an EFFECTIVE federal police force.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you must surely be a hippie.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you must surely be a hippie.


I think this is considered an insult by EhMax...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

<cue dead pacman sound>


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Better a hippie than a Harpie?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More international pariah behaviour from Harper.



> Canada blocking Commonwealth climate-change deal
> Updated Fri. Nov. 23 2007 12:55 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


CTV.ca | Canada blocking Commonwealth climate-change deal


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Excellent!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Excellent!


Yup.
And those troop supporting chickenhawks in Ottawa have also decided to give our troops a pay cut.


> *Ottawa to axe soldiers' bonus*
> 
> The federal government is about to stop its practice of giving extra money to Canadian soldiers posted to some of the country's most expensive cities.
> 
> ...


Ottawa to axe soldiers' bonus

At least Harper wears red on Fridays - that's supporting the troops...beejacon


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Support our troops except financially!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Taliban Harper.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm still waiting for the Election!

I want to vote for Sheila Copps, so she can kick Dion in the a$$...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

She didn't run last time and I don't think she will run this time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One down....Howard gone..... :clap:

Still our embarrassing PM allowed loose with Canada's reputation.....



> Commonwealth reaches consensus on climate
> Updated Sat. Nov. 24 2007 12:10 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

martman said:


> She didn't run last time and I don't think she will run this time.


Too bad. I think she should run, Parliament does not really have too many crazy people these days, and no one as worthy of a mocking than Sheila...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Highways are a provincial matter. Blame McGuinty.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: You don't get it do you? You're supposed to tax Ontario, take the money to Ottawa, then give it back to Ontario.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Maybe Howard should have put some more prawn on the barbie, and kissed more of the Shielas...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Highways are a provincial matter. Blame McGuinty.


Not always.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just love the "Feed the Feds starve the communities headspace of some.....

You won't see the kind of deterioration in Ottawa you see on other municipalities.....one reason why?? the Capital Commission - Federally funded.



> *The City of Toronto, Ontario maintains a system of expressways and arterial highways at the municipal level. They are fully managed and operated by the City of Toronto, *and are typically characterized by reduced speed limits on expressways (80-90 km/h instead of 100 km/h on provincial freeways), increased speed limits on arterial highways (70 km/h instead of 50-60 km/h on most other roads), and limited access. Most of them were built by Metro Toronto in the 1960s to complement Ontario's 400-Series Highways; *others were provincial highways that were downloaded.*


Toronto generates about 20% of the income Ottawa rakes in, it gets no where near that back.

Keep the tax base at home - let Ottawa beg when it wants to do something.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Just love the "Feed the Feds starve the communities headspace of some.....
> 
> Keep the tax base at home - let Ottawa beg when it wants to do something.


I love the fact that no province has taken up the feds on the offer of taking the 1 and 2% GST cuts to themselves. Until they do, the provinces have no right to whine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Just love the "Feed the Feds starve the communities headspace of some.....
> 
> You won't see the kind of deterioration in Ottawa you see on other municipalities.....one reason why?? the Capital Commission - Federally funded.


I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic premise that any community sucking heavily on the federal teat won't have to worry about budgeting or spending what it has wisely.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just love your intimate affair with big gov - you mean the Feds sucking the community teat.
You have a fetish???

Both of you have it completely backwards and I don't see THIS Federal gov spending responsibly - it's upped the cost of gov as a percentage of GDP and that is flat out unforgiveable in this economy.

Neither of you seem to comprehend the nature of the GST or you would not blather so foolishly. It's entirely different than PST as it's pass through.

You don't see me knocking his income tax changes.

Hilarious to see supposed "conservatives" defend big federal cuz their "boy" is sort of in power. 

Hazel is a real conservative she knows exactly how daft the Cons are.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I support the feds when they cut taxes and spending. I can support them to a degree if they cut taxes without cutting spending. I don't support them at all when they raise taxes.

But it's simply inappropriate to expect that cities should keep the tax revenue generated there. But I will ask you a question MacDoc, just to be fair:

How much of the tax money generated by each city ought to remain there. Give us a specific percentage and specify whether we're talking a total comprised of just sales tax or corporate and income tax as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most interesting...











> Green's Support Surpasses NDP's in Canada for First Time Ever: GPC is 3rd National Party
> 
> National support for the Green Party has surged above the NDP's support for the first time ever.
> 
> ...


Time for a real coalition.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I support the feds when they cut taxes and spending. I can support them to a degree if they cut taxes without cutting spending. I don't support them at all when they raise taxes.
> 
> But it's simply inappropriate to expect that cities should keep the tax revenue generated there. But I will ask you a question MacDoc, just to be fair:
> 
> How much of the tax money generated by each city ought to remain there. Give us a specific percentage and specify whether we're talking a total comprised of just sales tax or corporate and income tax as well.


here's a simple question.

Do you think the reports about rumbling infrastructure are total bunk, and the mayors pleading for more money to help are out of their minds?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What a crock - dodge the principle and hide behind thicket of nitpicks.

We're talking transaction tax which the GST is. 
The collection by region is steady and pretty much universal - even the lawyers pay. No other tax reflect transactions.

1% of the 6% back to the municipalities reflects their transaction levels.
The mayors are in the best position to judge and they are on side with that.
Personally I could see that rising substantially if someone in Ottawa had the guts to shrink federal gov costs instead of inflating them as Harper has done....and no I'm not talking program spending....he has increased the cost of gov.

No new mechanism, quarterly payments .

Income tax is another issue entirely and is not in any way a transaction tax.

On top of the 1% a sizeable portion of any surplus needs to be put aside as Superfunds for specific capital projects such as major tansport, damns, shoreline projects.

Paying down the mortgage when the roof is leaking is seriously stupid.

I thnk assymetrical program spending beyond that by region is the right approach as each region has different needs and this is one area transfer payments can be part of policy.

There will always be program portions somewhat out of step....right now it's seriously stupid when there $100 billion in needed infrastructure repairs/upgrades are going undone and the gov pays down debt.
That's simply poor judgement - misguided ideology, NOT good management or governance.

That municipalities only have control of some 8% of the tax dollars generated is wrong period.

I don't pay taxes to fund limos in Ottawa - I pay for services rendered and right now they suck for supporting the GTA where 20% of the GNP for the NATION is generated.

You want a formula, equal portions municipal, federal provincial. 30% each and 10% to pay down debt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bravo Doc. I applaud your effort here. So, by your reckoning, how much does Toronto, for example, currently get, of the 30% you believe it should be allotted?

Groovetube: I believe the infrastructure is decaying, but current spending priorities of the cities don't indicate any urgency. Let's spend millions to gussy up Nathan Phillips Square when highway bridges are collapsing?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Flaherty shrugs as urban fabric frays
> Email Story Email story
> Print Print
> Text Size Text Size Text Size Choose text size
> ...


Leaking.....hell it's coming apart 

Mike Harris thought the same thing - then Walkerton came along.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A good place to start woulod be the province.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

anything, anything, but the chosen ones.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still dodging the issue.
GST is not part of the provincial mandate - it's federal, it's straight forward to track source and it's almost universal.
Ontario does not have a huge surplus Ottawa does.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Still dodging the issue.
> GST is not part of the provincial mandate - it's federal, it's straight forward to track source and it's almost universal.
> Ontario does not have a huge surplus Ottawa does.


GST, GST, how about the Provincial gas tax? McGuinty only invests 47% of the Provincial gas tax in Municipalities, and they own 80% of Province's roads. You want to talk about a fair share, lets start here.

Nice to see the new Mississauga infrastructure surtax, I guess they neglected the existing infrastructure all those years in favour of not raising taxes. How's that for financial planning! :clap:

Let's Talk Taxes - Ontario's Municipal Tax Madness Spreads

I guess some may say a 2 Billion dollar surplus isn't huge. 

Ontario surplus $2B more than predicted


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I do not know if the case here in The Hammer is the same as elsewhere - but from the experience here, all of the destruction of infrastructure comes down to the enormous amount of corruption at the municipal level.

No other city has spent over $150 Million trying to bribe the NHL into bringing a team here. It is a fact that The Hammer does not support anything that is homegrown. The Fincups packed up after a championship because the City wanted a cash payment; and I am surprised that the same didn't happen to the championship Bulldogs. (Though I am sure the owners in Montreal are wise to the whole corruption deal). They built an arena which has never been used for the purposes that it was built for, and every year, more money is drained in corruption.

No other city has a six mile long highway that took over 60 years to build, at the cost of almost a half a billion dollars! Three or four generations of politicians looted the treasury on that deal. If the Federal Government has used the same method, the Trans-Canada Highway would take another 29,948 years to build; and probably cost 64.7 Trillion Dollars.

It comes as no surprise that the various levels of government want to hoard their money, you know, keep the corruption in their own pockets. The Hammer is a giant vacuum cleaner for cash, and they decided to "renovate" City Hall for $65 Million - mostly so that they can have Internet! (At least that was the excuse they gave, having no knowledge of wireless networking and such.) Nor has The City returned the Bailey Bridge they borrowed from the Canadian Armed Forces in the 60's. Nor does anyone want to give the cash to the Province, seeing how over $200 Million has been wasted in corruption and payoffs in Caledonia; and how they are still charging us a great deal of money to "pay off" the Ontario Hydro debt.

Baird should hold the line, and just keep all of the money because without Federal oversight (and the Auditor General), the money will just be flushed down the toilet by the local kleptocrats at City Hall.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bravo Doc. I applaud your effort here. So, by your reckoning, how much does Toronto, for example, currently get, of the 30% you believe it should be allotted?
> 
> Groovetube: I believe the infrastructure is decaying, but current spending priorities of the cities don't indicate any urgency. Let's spend millions to gussy up Nathan Phillips Square when highway bridges are collapsing?


It appears that diverting a few million dollars by the city to a massive problem would do diddley squat both for the problem, or to convince the feds there's a problem. This isn't a 'toronto' problem. It's across the country.

Vilify Miller or McGuinty for the liberal loonies they are, but that runs out of steam quick.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dumb move in my view but perhaps inevitable......

We may see several exits next summer.....



> *Dion says Liberals ready for a spring election*
> Updated Sat. Dec. 1 2007 11:22 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> This isn't a 'toronto' problem. It's across the country.


Yep and Harper doesn't like cities cuz cities can't stand him for good reason.

This is a structural problem that needs the same kind of deep change that Martin undertook to correct the national finances......except this one now needs to go in the opposite direction.

The financial pain was undertaken now the infrastructure needs renewal.

Flaherty and Harper are THE wrong people to do it.

I'd say the Provincial premieres and mayors could work it out with Ottawa playing referee.

Martin actually came close ....'cept he did it AFTER he lost his majority and so the legislation died.

Mr. Dithers indeed


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Why do you keep attacking the federal government on this issue?

You already have stated that the distribution of taxes to the feds, province and municipalities needs to be rebalanced. Why not focus on that?  You are attacking symptoms and not the fundamental problem.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Yep and Harper doesn't like cities cuz cities can't stand him for good reason.


I don't think that The Cities are really in Harper's balliwick, municipalities are a Provincial affair, and if there is a rip off going on, chalk it up to the corruption of the Provincials. Now if the Provinces are getting ripped off, that would be a different matter. Mayor Miller may complain, but he should first fix his own problems with corruption and nepotism that really, makes Lastman look good.



> This is a structural problem that needs the same kind of deep change that Martin undertook to correct the national finances...


Martin engaged in malicious acts of class warfare, and he himself is entirely dirtied by the corruption of AdScam that he fully approved of. He could have said no; but he saw that it was possibly more profitable to use Government moneys to purchase pocket votes and peddle influence. No other PM waged such a grandiose war against the various classes than Mr. Martin. And no one rigged elections as much as he did. He was punished for his sins. But he could not stop himself, and as a back bencher, attempted to table three more acts of class warfare into the Parliament, all of which were rejected by the four parties in an outright manner. It goes without saying that McGuilty did not learn from the experience of Mr. Martin, and he himself has taken up the flag of class warfare. I wish we had a method of impeachment like they do in the US...



> Flaherty and Harper are THE wrong people to do it.


Why? You stated an opinion, now explain why they are "the wrong people"?



> I'd say the Provincial premieres and mayors could work it out with Ottawa playing referee.


So you are saying that the Federal Government should accept the responsibility for the results of the malfeasance of the Provincial Governments? If The Mayors think that the Province is not doing the job, not doing a fair job, then they can band together and sever themselves from the Province. But The Mayors better have a clean house before they undertake such a manouver.



> Martin actually came close ....'cept he did it AFTER he lost his majority and so the legislation died.


Martin never had a majority - he simply grabbed power during the Christmastime Putsch he waged against the legitimate administration of Chretien. When he finally went to the people, they dealt the cards against his sinister regime that peddled class warfare as policy and rigged constituencies as a fact of life. The nation would not have survived a Martin majority, and the electors made sure that he was rejected in the election he did not loose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Same cats...different stripes.

Not only is Baird a disgrace in Bali but the appointment rigging he thought had gone away is in full bloom.



> Ottawa's mayor facing bribery-related charges
> Updated Mon. Dec. 10 2007 4:02 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Not like it hasn't happened before with team Harpo....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you know I really did think it'd be at least 4 years before we saw the corrupt side of the tories, but man, the last 2 years as been an eye opener on those liars.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I sooooooo love to see our largest city profiled in the Economist......special feature no less



> News this month
> 
> *Toronto the poor*
> 
> Almost 30% of families in Toronto are living in poverty, according to a report by the United Way of Greater Toronto, a charity. The nationwide average is under 20%. The report defined as “poor” a two-adult, two-child family with an annual income after tax of less than C$27,500 ($27,490). And while the number of poor families across Canada has fallen since 2000, in Toronto, a city with a large immigrant population, it has increased by 9.7%. Toronto's median after-tax family income (C$41,500) is also lower than the Canadian average. The mayor of Toronto, David Miller, responded to the findings by calling for an increase in the minimum wage; the premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, promised to consider specific measures targeting poverty in the city.


Economist.com - Cities Guide

and where are the Feds who have sucked the life out the city and are rolling in cash??........nowhere to be seen.

The rest of the planet must wonder just what kind of idiots are running Canada.......

oh yeah ....same finance guy that devastated Ontario.....silly me....

.....the buck stops at Harper.....how much more international shame will he bring on the country


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Right.....  

Harper has been in a minority government for 2 years and you blame every issue on him. 

Still waiting on your Premier to take up that 1% GST tax cut. Feel free to increase PST 1% and pass on the revenue to the cities. Pretty simple solution.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When one is blind to any option but "blame Harper", one cannot expect any other opinion being posted.

Where was the fire, brimstone and blustery indignation when Chretien and Martin were dong ZERO about the environment for 13 long years?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Now how on earth did you get that from that post?

Who is in government now? Or, is the brand "Canada's NEW government" still give Harper immunity from criticism?

And I'm guessing you didn't live in Ontario when Flaherty was finance minister...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> When one is blind to any option but "blame Harper", one cannot expect any other opinion being posted.
> 
> Where was the fire, brimstone and blustery indignation when Chretien and Martin were dong ZERO about the environment for 13 long years?


What you seem to be missing, is that it doesn't matter who is in government right now. There will be fire and brimestone if the government doesn't do anything and 'sits back and waits'.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> And I'm guessing you didn't live in Ontario when Flaherty was finance minister...


He has only been the federal Finance Minister for a short period of time. His past has nothing to do with the current minority government.

Let's keep in mind that Harper has been propped up by the other parties.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes but he had 8 years to decimate Ontario. Now he's been in Ottawa for 2 years.
pretty simple stuff here.


and I don't care who propped Harper up, or if they did. Causing the government to fall right now would likely end up with the same electoral result after wasting even more money so don't give us that nonsense.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> yes but he had 8 years to decimate Ontario. Now he's been in Ottawa for 2 years.
> pretty simple stuff here.


And in 2 years Toronto went from the land of milk and honey with no poverty to where they are today?  

There are a lot of factors at play here. Blaming the feds is simply not understanding the problem.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And in 2 years Toronto went from the land of milk and honey with no poverty to where they are today?
> 
> There are a lot of factors at play here. Blaming the feds is simply not understanding the problem.


what part of flaherty was finance minister in Ontario didn't quite register?


he was noted for such grand schemes like giving tax credits to rich families who send their children to private schools.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Where was the fire, brimstone and blustery indignation when Chretien and Martin were dong ZERO about the environment for 13 long years?


I don't know about others, but I've been writing letters to MPs, and vocally criticizing government inaction on environmental issues since Trudeau was in power.

Of course, in the current situation, it's worth noting a few things. When the Cons were in opposition, they not only failed to criticize the Liberal's inaction on the environment, but they also actively fought any attempts to take action. Secondly, the conservatives are actually doing less than nothing on the environment issue, in that they're supporting the foot dragging of other environmentally reprehensible administrations like that of the US. Finally, while the evidence that global environmental problems are a pressing concern has been unequivocal for decades, never before has the need to act been so pressing.

So while it's perfectly fair to lambaste the Liberals for their inaction when they were in power, this does not in any way excuse or mitigate the actions of the current government.

Fortunately, I think Canadians are starting to clue into the fact that Harper is a lier and a fool who believes that pandering to the oil industry will be good for Canada in the long run. And if the Liberals could get their act together, the Cons would be easy to defeat in an election because of this.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Fortunately, I think Canadians are starting to clue into the fact that Harper is a lier and a fool who believes that pandering to the oil industry will be good for Canada in the long run. And if the Liberals could get their act together, the Cons would be easy to defeat in an election because of this.


The polls certainly don't seem to indicate this:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think they do, because isn't rather lame to see a new government come to power after a corrupt tired party of 13 years, and stall in support like Harper's tories has?

I'd say that says something.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Polls a little out of date there,,,last time I checked it was mid December and almost post Bali.



> *Harper's priorities out of step with voters*
> 
> Dec 13, 2007 04:30 AM
> Haroon Siddiqui
> ...


••

As to "fire and brimstone"....again and again the level of urgency was not apparent as the tracking of the changes did not yet show the acceleration and the science was not as well developed until the last two IPCC reports.

Now it is and Harper is hapless


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper's version of "fixing the democratic deficit.....screw Ontario. 



> Opposition fails to defend Ontario
> December 15, 2007
> Why are Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and the 40 Conservative MPs from Ontario not standing up for Canada's largest province by voicing their strong opposition to a Conservative government bill that would blatantly discriminate against Ontarians by shortchanging them of representation in the House of Commons?
> 
> ...


Posted by the 0.88 % voter in Mississauga

A pox on them all.......


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Harper's version of "fixing the democratic deficit.....screw Ontario.


That's rich. The West has been screwed for the last 40 years. Never heard you speak up on the issue until now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> That's rich. The West has been screwed for the last 40 years. Never heard you speak up on the issue until now.


Sure, sure... I like how certain myths get propagated....
VD, are you allergic to facts? Usually you are better than this...
So are you saying that Ontario should get less than it's fair equal share? Curious.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sure, sure... I like how certain myths get propagated....
> VD, are you allergic to facts? Usually you are better than this...
> So are you saying that Ontario should get less than it's fair equal share? Curious.


The West is something like 10 seats short in Parliament to achieve equal representation. The number of Senate seats occupied by Westerners is significant below what the population would warrant. 

If we agree to giving Quebec and the Atlantic provinces more seats per capita (currently the case), then yes that means Ontario and the West will get less than an equal share. The West has been talking about Senate reform for the last 25 years and nobody back east bothered to listen.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The West is something like 10 seats short in Parliament to achieve equal representation. The number of Senate seats occupied by Westerners is significant below what the population would warrant.
> 
> If we agree to giving Quebec and the Atlantic provinces more seats per capita (currently the case), then yes that means Ontario and the West will get less than an equal share. The West has been talking about Senate reform for the last 25 years and nobody back east bothered to listen.


tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc, you got a serious hate-on for the Conservatives lately.

Out of step with voters? That's funny because they are polling higher than any other Canadian Party and have done so since being elected.

This minority government has also lasted almost two years now, which is longer than the average. If they were so out of step as you claim, should they not have been taken down by the opposition by this point?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I suppose that could depend on how beers you've had.

A couple, and things seem pretty much as it really is.

After 5 or so, the few percentage points, paltry as it is, seems pretty damn good.

After the 10th, my god they are freaking brilliant.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> The number of Senate seats occupied by Westerners is significant below what the population would warrant.


The Senate is representation by region, not by population. The West is allocated by region, the same number of seats as Ontario and Quebec; with the exception of those Senators appointed by Mulroney's Gerrymandering of the Senate...



> The West has been talking about Senate reform for the last 25 years and nobody back east bothered to listen.


The East has listened, and it has been an issue since 1869, when it was first pointed out that the Senate was little more than a group of men that inhabited the pubs of Ottawa. The House of Commons however does not want to really discuss "reforms" because it would chew into the system of dictatorship that is de facto and de jour... Real reform would include regular elections, ie. 1/3rd of the Senate elected every two years, and term limits for both Senators and the Commons, as well as actually having a real head of state which is head of the executive branch of government, elected, and a citizen of Canada. These things, they do not have the want of because they would all be ejected from government pretty quickly...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The Senate is representation by region, not by population. The West is allocated by region, the same number of seats as Ontario and Quebec; with the exception of those Senators appointed by Mulroney's Gerrymandering of the Senate...


BC and Alberta have 12 Senators between them out of a total 105 (11%). This is about half of what the population would warrant. 

Meanwhile Ontario gets 24 as does Quebec. The population of BC and Alberta combined equals Quebec, yet we get half the number of Senators. The Maritimes have about 1/3 the population of BC and Alberta yet they get more than twice the number of Senate seats. 

Senate of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not very representative to me. tptptptp


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Not very representative to me. tptptptp


And Harper's "solution" is not fair for Ontario - what's so hard to understand there?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And Harper's "solution" is not fair for Ontario - what's so hard to understand there?


Where did I suggest that I supported this solution or thought it was fair? I made no comment about Ontario at all. 

All I said was that I found MacDoc's quite timely. It's only an issue when it affects him. The West has been shafted for 40 years and we have been speaking about it that whole time. Meanwhile, the East did NOTHING to acknowledge or fix the problem. tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Where did I suggest that I supported this solution or thought it was fair? I made no comment about Ontario at all.
> 
> All I said was that I found MacDoc's quite timely. It's only an issue when it affects him. The West has been shafted for 40 years and we have been speaking about it that whole time. Meanwhile, the East did NOTHING to acknowledge or fix the problem. tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp


so what if it's an issue that affects only macdoc in Ontario? You criticized him for the opinion so one would reasonably assume you thought it's fine.

This merry go round stuff is silly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> so what if it's an issue that affects only macdoc in Ontario? You criticized him for the opinion so one would reasonably assume you thought it's fine.
> 
> This merry go round stuff is silly.


Reading challenged?

You missed my point... twice...

I didn't disagree with MacDoc... I had issues with the timing of his opinion.

Get it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well now we do. But that wasn't clear in your first post.

Now before you insult my reading capabilities, perhaps it's better to state your position no? Because looked to me like you were justifying Ontario getting 'screwed' because the west was before. As for timing, why wouldn't this be a topic for Ontarians given this is a recent news item? And why would you assume that as a resident of Ontario we didn't think it was wrong the west wasn't better represented? We all don't necessarily agree with everything the government does even if he is from our side of the country.

Goes both ways.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> This is about half of what the population would warrant.
> 
> Meanwhile Ontario gets 24 as does Quebec. The population of BC and Alberta combined equals Quebec, yet we get half the number of Senators. The Maritimes have about 1/3 the population of BC and Alberta yet they get more than twice the number of Senate seats.
> 
> Not very representative to me. tptptptp


Again, the Senate was never meant to be "rep by pop", but "rep by region". It allows for a balance of power. Smaller provinces with fewer seats in the Commons have more say in the Senate, where the regions are supposed to be balanced. However, Mulroney gerrymandered the Senate and made it far more out of balance than it was prior. In the US, the Senate has two Senators per state, no matter the size or population. This allows smaller states, like Rhode Island and Delaware, a fairer chance at representation. Larger states have the same number of Senators, but would have far more in the House. In Canada, the numbers in the Senate have never been "repaired". When Alberta and Saskatchewan joined Confederation, they were entirely happy with the number of Senators that gave them a voice; but now that people actually live in those provinces, the story is much different. If every Province had 10 Senators, and each Territory 1 Senator, plus two Senators to represent the First Nations, we would have a far more fair balance of power. Add to that that they would need to stand for Election, and be subject to term limits, and we would have something approaching Democracy. Thus, it will never happen in this country.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I go back and forth but I often think we don't need the Senate.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> I go back and forth but I often think we don't need the Senate.


The more I see the malarkey that goes on in the Commons, what, with all of the fools and idiots that drown out any shred of reason or logic - the more I see that we need a real Senate. That is, a Senate that has elected members, and have an effective veto over the antics of the Commons.

We also need a real head of state that is both the head of state and the head of the executive branch of government. I have no idea why we have an unelected Prime Minister who runs everything out of the corrupt machinery of the PMO, and we have that person leave the country in order to represent Canada when, in fact, every member of the Commons needs to be locked in the Commons until they get some work done. We need a Senate to check over the malfeasance of the Commons, to make sure that any legislation is actually fair and required.

If we accepted your view, then we could get rid of the Senate, the Executive Branch, backbenchers, junior ministers... And after many iterations, we would end up with the most efficient (but least democratic) form of government known as a Dictatorship...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The more I see the malarkey that goes on in the Commons, what, with all of the fools and idiots that drown out any shred of reason or logic - the more I see that we need a real Senate. That is, a Senate that has elected members, and have an effective veto over the antics of the Commons.
> 
> We also need a real head of state that is both the head of state and the head of the executive branch of government. I have no idea why we have an unelected Prime Minister who runs everything out of the corrupt machinery of the PMO, and we have that person leave the country in order to represent Canada when, in fact, every member of the Commons needs to be locked in the Commons until they get some work done. We need a Senate to check over the malfeasance of the Commons, to make sure that any legislation is actually fair and required.
> 
> If we accepted your view, then we could get rid of the Senate, the Executive Branch, backbenchers, junior ministers... And after many iterations, we would end up with the most efficient (but least democratic) form of government known as a Dictatorship...


I like having a Head of State not being an elected person. The reason is that being a Head of State shelters the elected person in many ways. If you use the US as an example, the President gets very little criticism and gets very softball questions from the media. In contrast, our PMs have to stand up in Parliament and defend themselves (not a PR person). Our media also is able to ask tougher questions. I don't care that the Queen is our Head of State as she doesn't interfere in our country. 

I think there are other ways of diluting power (if that is a goal), rather than creating more bureaucracy.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> If you use the US as an example, the President gets very little criticism and gets very softball questions from the media.


???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean to say that Mr. Nixon, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush (Sr), Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush (Jr) are rarely if ever criticized by the media? And these men never had any difficult questions from the media? Your quote is very, very funny indeed because it is entirely opposite what actually happens in the US.



> In contrast, our PMs have to stand up in Parliament and defend themselves (not a PR person).


And what a job they do - avoiding questions posed by the Opposition, and rarely if ever giving any real answers to those questions. I'd rather save the world from the global warming caused by those windbags and forgo Question Period. And that is why it is called Question Period - it is a period of time that is entirely constipated with questions. Perhaps they need Answer Period, where the PM gets TASERed into answering even the most simple questions that the people wish to ask. It is just a sham for the media to cover, to continue the illusion that we have an actual process that approximates a vestige of democracy.



> Our media also is able to ask tougher questions. I don't care that the Queen is our Head of State as she doesn't interfere in our country.


Perhaps Peter C. Newman (and a small handful of others) ask tough questions - then dig up answers on their own. But overall, the media is controlled by those who wish the public not to be informed or enlightened. This country's media is a circus looking for freaks for the sideshow, and most "media outlets" simply will not make any stand against the government. They put up with all of these "publication bans" because the media is a tool of the Established Order to hide the sins and crimes of those in power. Only in those circumstances when someone can "score political points" does the public gain a small glimpse into the sad state of corruption in this country. The recent AECL Scandal... They were told to install equipment, order to do so by the same government that covered up that all of the money disappeared and given to those who peddle influence, probably in Quebec. People have suffered and died because of this fiasco, and the dude in charge gets off easy by being allowed to "retire" and take a bunch of cash with him. He should be shot by a firing squad at dawn - the proper punishment for someone who condemned the infirm and ill to their deaths. The media is a joke, they don't care, so long as they can grab easy cash by peddling commercial advertisements. You never see the National Post spoken in the same breath as real newspapers - the New York Times or the Washington Post...



> I think there are other ways of diluting power (if that is a goal), rather than creating more bureaucracy.


It is not "dilluting" power, but rather, tempering power by devolving it in a rational way. The 20th Century saw a movement towards Unicameral legislatures based on the though that it would be "cheaper" and would run "smoother" and would tend to be easier to reform. However, that trend has ceased, and as it stands currently, most of the nations of the world have Bicameral legislatures. The notion of a lower and upper house leads to a system of checks and balances, and that legislation needs to have a concurrency of majority in order to be passed. If applied to Canada, a reformed and empowered Senate would be a powerful tool to counterbalance "western alienation". We would not have had the miserable scandal of the National Energy Policy (a policy that did no good at all) because the Commons would not have been able to ramrod bad legislation through so quickly.

In The Hammer, we used to have a system of local government where we had City Council, and above them, the Board of Control. Well, the Board of Control went up in flames because they "were too expensive". Property taxes skyrocketed as a result because Council could hatch any of their hair brained schemes without anyone else checking out the facts. Then we had "two tiered regional government". Well, the Region went up in flames because it was "too expensive". Since we got rid of all that expense, property taxes have more than doubled! And not only that, we are proud owners of the world's most expensive highway ever built...

I for one will never believe that a government devoid of checks and balances is a good and cost effective government. The faster we have a real Senate, the faster we stop letting the PM leave the country to embarrass us on the world stage, and the faster we stop allowing unjust legislation and acts of class warfare - the better we all shall be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Stupidity comes home to roost - 



> Tories, Liberals statistically tied in new poll
> Updated Wed. Dec. 19 2007 11:16 AM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


definitely the champagne is off.......


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> definitely the champagne is off.......


I had champagne for breakfast this morning during a meeting.  

It looks like Dion thinks he has an issue to run with now... Climate Change. Let's see him take that into the next election. 

I predict another Conservative minority. After that I would say a Conservative majority is the second most likely outcome followed by a Liberal minority.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

actually, he may have a number of things to run on. One, the conservative's holier than thou trumpeting was really a big sham. And two, the conservatives are showing themselves quite incompetent at important things, and the best they can do is try to blame someone else. (we've heard the wascally wiberals lament way waaaaay too many times now...). And let's not forget that nice big lie about income tax trusts. 

Incompetent, and liars. Oh. yea.

then there's climate change.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> actually, he may have a number of things to run on. One, the conservative's holier than thou trumpeting was really a big sham. And two, the conservatives are showing themselves quite incompetent at important things, and the best they can do is try to blame someone else. (we've heard the wascally wiberals lament way waaaaay too many times now...). And let's not forget that nice big lie about income tax trusts.
> 
> Incompetent, and liars. Oh. yea.
> 
> then there's climate change.


And do you think those things resonate with voters?

You need to take your personal opinion out before you make political predictions. What percentage of voters do you think care about the income trust issue? What percentage of voters do you think will actually not vote Conservative because of it? It's insignificant politically. I am not saying it isn't an important issue in reality, it just doesn't make the radar screen of most voters. 

The opposition can't just call an election for the 'hell of it'. The public would punish them severely. The opposition need an 'issue' to run on. Something they can take to the public with a new agenda (the issues you have presented are not it). For the most part, the Conservatives have run our federal government the same way the Liberals did. The differences have only been at the margin (5 to 10% of issues) and that's why the public isn't outraged about anything (in the way they were about Sponsorship). Remember, Western democracies throw parties out and don't vote them in.

The problem the Liberals face is their 'issue' must also be compatable with the needs of the NDP (since they need their vote to bring the Cons down). Climate change is not a matually benefiting issue for them because it draws support over to the Green Party. Arguably, the Climate Change issue could split the vote between Liberals, NDP and Green which could give the Conservatives the odd seat here and there. 

The vocal minority of people who feel very strongly about Climate Change would never vote Conservative anyways. Your average voter does want to see progress made and most polls show this. Don't mistake the lack of a strong Conservative position on Climate Change to be a negative issue for them. If the Conservatives make a few token changes, I think the public will move on to other issues that are more important to their immediate lives (e.g. taxes). 

So, I don't see this as a winning issue for Dion. What else does he have to run on? This minority government could have legs unless the Liberal Party decides it's time to throw Dion to the wolves and get the inevitable over with (i.e. leadership change).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And do you think those things resonate with voters?
> 
> You need to take your personal opinion out before you make political predictions. What percentage of voters do you think care about the income trust issue? What percentage of voters do you think will actually not vote Conservative because of it? It's insignificant politically. I am not saying it isn't an important issue in reality, it just doesn't make the radar screen of most voters.
> 
> ...


"You need to take your personal opinion out before you make political predictions."

Buddy. Look in the mirror.

I simply said that there would be a number of other issues the liberals could use in an election. Regardless of whether you like them, or not.

What the hell is thing bring the government down stuff? I thought we were talking about an election, and what the liberals could use should one happen.

Holy smokes your post is just dripping with the cons are the king of the castle and the liberals are the dirty rascals. Come one man, you asked what the liberals could use to run on in an election, and I pointed out a handful. I don't know what the outcome of the election would be, I'm afraid my crystal ball is outta commission.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> "You need to take your personal opinion out before you make political predictions."
> 
> Buddy. Look in the mirror.


Go back on my posts for the last 3 years and you will see that my predictions have been pretty good. I never predicted a Conservative majority last time around although I wanted to see one. I was pretty close on the seat count as well. I was able to separate my beliefs from my prediction.



groovetube said:


> I simply said that there would be a number of other issues the liberals could use in an election. Regardless of whether you like them, or not.
> 
> What the hell is thing bring the government down stuff? I thought we were talking about an election, and what the liberals could use should one happen.
> 
> Holy smokes your post is just dripping with the cons are the king of the castle and the liberals are the dirty rascals. Come one man, you asked what the liberals could use to run on in an election, and I pointed out a handful. I don't know what the outcome of the election would be, I'm afraid my crystal ball is outta commission.


Dion is hinting he wants to take the government down this Spring. It doesn't look like the Coservatives are going to push for an election right away. They have lost support in the polls since the Fall. 

Do you really think the Liberals would take the Conservatives down with the issues you posted? NONE of those issues resonate with voters. Climate change DOES resonate with voters. It's a major issue for a lot of people. But, I don't believe it will affect the Conservatives or significantly benefit the Liberals (see above). 

I don't know what the outcome will be either. I can only predict based on how I see the issues. My current prediction is another minority with a small chance of a majority.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well the latest poll seems to disagree with you. 30% for the conservatives, and 32% for the liberals.

I don't think climate change is, or will be the only issue for the liberals, and the conservatives would be foolhardy in thinking so.

Recall what issue was Harper's real advantage in the last election? Liberal corruption. Even then, it still only gave him a slim minority. Do you think that issue will be quite as strong for Harper this time around? I'm thinking not really now.

And I will repeat, my crystal ball is out of order.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> well the latest poll seems to disagree with you. 30% for the conservatives, and 32% for the liberals.
> 
> I don't think climate change is, or will be the only issue for the liberals, and the conservatives would be foolhardy in thinking so.
> 
> And I will repeat, my crystal ball is out of order.


Uhhh no... That's my point. The Climate Change issue resonates with voters. I think part of the dip in Conservative support can be attributed to what happened in Bali. 

The Liberals are going to interpret this poll as a green light that Climate Change is an issue they can and should run on. 

My point is that they don't have anything else. Last summer, they thought Afghanistan was going to be that issue, but the Conservatives did a good job of damage control. Now that opportunity has passed short of something major happening over there. 

If you read the second part of my commentary you will see why I don't think the Climate Change issue is actually going to hurt the Conservatives when it comes time for an election, regardless of what the polls currently say. 

The Liberals can feel free to make the same mistake Martin did (twice) and pretend that every issue is a priority and not really run on any real issues. I think we will see a much more focussed Liberal Party next election. Fewer issues, more soundbytes, controlled message, etc... The will learn from the success of the Conservatives in this area.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

um, ok I don't know exactly what the hell your point is.

'part of the dip Conservative support can be attributed to what happened in Bali.'

So what was the other part?

Again. I don't know what the liberals will actually do. I don't know if they will copy the astounding success of the conservatives one slim minority over the last 15 years. (Sorry for the sarcasm I can't seem to help myself.) 

But as I have said 3 times now, there are a number of issues the liberals could use effectively. And I sincerely hope, regardless of whatever outcome that some real important issues such as healthcare etc. don't take a backseat.

As for what the liberals will actually do, I really haven't the foggiest.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> um, ok I don't know exactly what the hell your point is.
> 
> 'part of the dip Conservative support can be attributed to what happened in Bali.'
> 
> ...


The point of this thread is to discuss.... the coming election....

The point of my post was to discuss just that. 

I think the other part of their drop in support is likely the normal +/- of a poll (i.e. =/- 5%). I suspect this poll has a slightly lower mean than reality. This can't be proven either way statistically so let's not debate it. My rationale is that the hard core Conservative base is in the 30% range. It would be very difficult for them ever to fall below that level. I don't feel they have 'hit bottom' just due to the Climate Change issue. It would take a lot more to push them down to the support level and I don't see that other issues are out there right now that could cause it. But, again, the mean has significant uncertainty about it (I don't have this poll handly but say +/- 5%).

The Conservatives ran a very good campaign last time around. Ask any political observer and they will tell you that. The Conservatives were disiplined and on message. The Liberals were not. From that persepective, they were quite successful. I think it will be hard to repeat it again, but the Liberal Party is also divided and I view Dion as a weak leader. So, he might have a difficult time keeping his party on message.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Neither do I beyond VD always seems to think trashing the Cons is somehow implicit support for the Liberals who are far from a cohesive force of any sort.

The Cons clearly have no interest in making a respectable climate program work.....the provinces have shamed them as well as the world.

Dion clearly has it as a priority and would get support from the Bloc and NDP as we've already seen occur.

What it calls into question...again.....is Harper being far out of step with Canadian priorities and so not fit to lead the country.

While I like many Canadians were content to have a Harper minority at this point I no longer want it tho I do still want a minority.

My preference would be a proper coalition government as many other nations have and the clowns ( all of them ) in Ottawa have not learned to undertake.

If it takes an election with to lose both Harper and Dion so be it.
How much worse could it be.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ok, we get it. You think highly of the conservatives, see little chance of them losing, that polls mean nothing, particularly when polls show conservative numbers dipping a little below liberal numbers, and the fact that the conservative party has shown their share of division, well irrelevant. It's a point that really doesn't need further repeating. 10-4.

I think it's a very sad time if other issues, very important issues were not made large in an election whenever it happens, and I would hope the liberals highlight a number of key issues in the next election.

Now you asked what the liberals could use, and I said what I think. If you want to continue thinking climate change is the only possibility, well, all I can say is I bet a lot of liberals are likely hoping the conservative party thinks so too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Neither do I beyond VD always seems to think trashing the Cons is somehow implicit support for the Liberals who are far from a cohesive force of any sort.


yes he's made that clear, a number of times.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> ok, we get it. You think highly of the conservatives, see little chance of them losing, that polls mean nothing, particularly when polls show conservative numbers dipping a little below liberal numbers, and the fact that the conservative party has shown their share of division, well irrelevant. It's a point that really doesn't need further repeating. 10-4.
> 
> I think it's a very sad time if other issues, very important issues were not made large in an election whenever it happens, and I would hope the liberals highlight a number of key issues in the next election.
> 
> Now you asked what the liberals could use, and I said what I think. If you want to continue thinking climate change is the only possibility, well, all I can say is I bet a lot of liberals are likely hoping the conservative party thinks so too.


Why so negative? Why are you so hostile towards me? Why are you making stuff up and trying to put words in my mouth?

I never said polls were irrelevant. Quite the opposite. I said the Conservatives are paying the price in the polls due to the Climate issue. I will ask you nicely once again... please read my posts before you respond in a knee jerk reaction. You haven't provided any sort of coherant response to any of my points nor have you demonstrated any sort of understanding.

The Liberals can use all sorts of issues if they want. It doesn't mean it will resonate with the electorate. Please tell me what issue currently resonates with the public right now. Climate change is definitely one of them. I can't think of any other big ones that work against the Conservatives. Going into an election without an issue or an agenda is suicide. Dion knows this. That's why he is going to use the Climate Change issue. You haven't 'sold me' on the other issues you posted or provided any rationale as to how they resonate with the public. 

For the most part Canadians like the direction that our federal has taken. And yes, this is mostly due to the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party has maintained the status quo for the most part. The Liberals really don't offer much different in that respect.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Neither do I beyond VD always seems to think trashing the Cons is somehow implicit support for the Liberals who are far from a cohesive force of any sort.
> 
> The Cons clearly have no interest in making a respectable climate program work.....the provinces have shamed them as well as the world.


Do the Conservatives take climate change as seriously as the other parties? No. Have the Conservatives made progress on the issue? Yes. The Clean Airt Act was passed and the Party now believes the evidence of man caused climate change is compelling. 

I think the Andrew Coyne article has a lot of truth to it. Sometimes it takes an unwilling party to do what the public watns (e.g. a Liberal to slash and cut department budgets). I think the same is going to be true of the Conservatievs on climate change. They will kick and scream but at the end of the day we get what we need. 

In this case, you got what you wanted (i.e. agreement in Bali).



MacDoc said:


> Dion clearly has it as a priority and would get support from the Bloc and NDP as we've already seen occur.
> 
> What it calls into question...again.....is Harper being far out of step with Canadian priorities and so not fit to lead the country.
> 
> ...


Yes Dion would get support is he were the leader of a minority government. However, I am not convinced he will get support to take the government down on this issue. As you already know, the Liberals are fractured and the Green and NDP are equally credible on the climate issue. The NDP is less credible than the Green Party and has been floundering in the polls. I don't think they want this to be the election issue. It could be divisive internally for them as well. For example, a lot of union jobs are tied to manufacturing which isn't doing to well with the high dollar. Tough climate chagne legislation might not sit well with those union jobs. 

Do a majority of Canadians support the Conservatives? No. Do the Conservatives have the highest level of support of all the parties? Yes. Do they have the largest number of seats? Yes. Well guess what? That makes Harper fit to be the PM. If the opposition doesn't like it, they are free to call an election. 

MacDoc, my preference was a coalition government as well. I said at the start of this government that the Conservatives and Liberals should sit down and make a deal. Let's also recall that Harper extended a hand to the other parties to this end but was shot down (e.g. Jack Layton's comments). Let's also recognize that the Liberals (and the Senate) have intentionlly dragged out legislation (e.g. new Crime Bill) for no reason other than political gain. The Liberals wouldn't even support raising the age of consent from 14. 

Yes, I know you have been clear that you don't always support the Liberals and have been consistent with your message of cooperation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Andrew Coyne....yeah right. 

This party is NOT doing anything right on the climate front in Canada and Canadians know it in spades........



> The news was especially bad for the Conservatives in vote-rich Ontario and Quebec, which are key to any hope of winning a majority government.
> 
> In Ontario, the Liberals scored 41 per cent support, widening their lead over the Tories who stood at 31 per cent.
> 
> ...


Harpers all wrong on climate and the most incredible thing is ....TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

It shows his lack of judgement both politically and in terms of what are priorities for Canadians.
For that he gets a failing grade from me and clearly from the Canadian people.

Time for a new leader. Lure Danny Williams from NL - there's a guy with some moxie and leadership skills.

There is STILL a need for a small c party in Canada.....Harper's Cons ain't it.

He was warned by Preston Manning and even I suspect by Mulroney about "owning green". He ignored them and the Canadian people.
Butt headed stupid stubborn pig headed WRONG....you name it.

Harper has proven himself to be an ideologue never more than now.
Bali was a disgrace and one that cannot now be erased.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Why so negative? Why are you so hostile towards me? Why are you making stuff up and trying to put words in my mouth?
> 
> I never said polls were irrelevant. Quite the opposite. I said the Conservatives are paying the price in the polls due to the Climate issue. I will ask you nicely once again... please read my posts before you respond in a knee jerk reaction. You haven't provided any sort of coherant response to any of my points nor have you demonstrated any sort of understanding.
> 
> ...


it isn't so much negativity as frustration. You asked a question and then I have to listen to you state the same thing over and over again. I get that you think the liberals only issue is climate change. for the what 4th time?

I don't agree. 

It's hard to know what can be a hot button issue. For the conservatives the last time, it was liberal corruption. Good luck on that one next time though.

Healthcare could easily be one. Harper promised it as one of his 5 priorities, how is that 'priority' going? It certainly ranks up high on Canadians' list.
How about the economy? Now I know you may think people are satisfied with the conservatives, however, should there be some economic uncertainty, the liberals could easily capitalize on the fact that they have a very strong record economic record, and from the tory lie on income trusts costing many Canadians a LOT of money to uncertainty with the tory vision for Canada's economy, this could play well into Dion's hands.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the possibilities are. I think it's ridiculous to state that climate change is Dion's only hand at this point, and I'd say that even though I think the liberals are still pretty weak, that'd be a mistake on Harper's part. But, it's just speculation on my part at this point.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> It's hard to know what can be a hot button issue. For the conservatives the last time, it was liberal corruption. Good luck on that one next time though.
> 
> Healthcare could easily be one. Harper promised it as one of his 5 priorities, how is that 'priority' going? It certainly ranks up high on Canadians' list.
> How about the economy? Now I know you may think people are satisfied with the conservatives, however, should there be some economic uncertainty, the liberals could easily capitalize on the fact that they have a very strong record economic record, and from the tory lie on income trusts costing many Canadians a LOT of money to uncertainty with the tory vision for Canada's economy, this could play well into Dion's hands.
> ...


The corruption issue was a one time thing. However, closely related to the corruption issue is the desire for change and a new party. I think the Conservatives still have the 'time for a change' thing going for them. They definitely don't have the 'vote them out' sentiment going against them.

I don't see Healthcare as being a huge issue right now. Harper has given the provinces more money to put into it. Let's remember that Health Care is a provincial responsibility and that they provide the vast majority of funding. The feds just top them up. I am not seeing that as an issue... for now.

The economy is definitely something that can help the Liberals. They had a pretty good record for the last 10 years (balanced budgets and no recessions). Although the world economy and the US is slowing down, I don't think the Federal government risks going into deficit, nor do I think we risk a recession. Rather, any economic downturn is likely to be localized and likely related to manufacturing or forestry. I think Ontario is at serious risk because Canada has not invested significantly in productivity for the last ten years and the shift of manufacturing overseas. Union jobs have a tough time competing against Chinese jobs (especially when China doesn't have to worry about GHG costs... couldn't resist that jab) and so the economy needs to adjust. The Liberals could regain some of their losses in Ontario should the economy turn and should they play it right. But, there are a lot of 'ifs' before we get to that point and it isn't presently an issue Dion can run on.

So basically we agree.... there aren't any other big issues right now, but more could come in the future. 

That means that Dion is going to keep pushing the climate issue because it is all he has.

Now, how do the Conservatives respond? Do they change the issue or do they put climate change to bed now?

As somebody who supports GHG reduction and the Conservatives, I hope they make climate change a greater issue.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good Q&A at the Globe and Mail with Jeffrey Simpson. I gotta say I agree with most of his commentary and his opinions seemed aligned with mine.

globeandmail.com: Jeffrey Simpson on the year in federal politics


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

All.......that's a crock....there is this small issue of unacceptable poverty, total failure of public housing, 130 billion dollars in infrastructure needing attention,, ....sure nothing else.

Simpson IS a centrist and long way from where you 

••

Shades of Mikey Harris



> *Tories caught in isotope fiasco fallout*
> 
> TERRY PEDWELL
> Canadian Press
> ...


*

Instead.....what did Harper do.....try and blame the Liberals.....AGAIN.

Harper still doesn't get.....HE'S RESPONSIBLE.

Playing stupid partisan games is what he's about....not governing responsibly.
He's a bullheaded light weight.......next please....*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So VD.....you agree with Jeffrey on these?????



> Rep by pop, unless you're an Ontarian
> 
> Peter Van Loan, the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform, represents the Ontario riding of York-Simcoe.Mr. Van Loan practised law before winning his seat. *He'll need all his lawyerly skills, and more, to persuade his electors and other Ontarians that a bill he has presented on behalf of the Harper government does not discriminate against them. *.


of course it's blatant discrimination....



> *The GST cut: A triumph of politics over economics*
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a master's degree in economics. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attended Princeton University, an elite U.S. Ivy League school. They are both well-educated, intelligent men. *How then to explain their support for an idea so demonstrably stupid that, had they defended the idea in an undergraduate term paper, they would have flunked the course.*





> *Canada's economic future could have been so much brighter*
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...


Gee...._an idea so demonstrably stupid_...sounds like me 

Shall we review YOUR stance on these oh great defender of all things Harper ...........??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> So VD.....you agree with Jeffrey on these?????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why not take a night off and head down to the food court of your local mall, or a neighbourhood pub you've never been in, or have a coffee in a Zeller's restaurant and talk to average Canadians?

You will find you are alone with your views and thoughts. I know. I do such things every week to get feedback for my Blog and columns. Everyday Canadians simply don't share your vision of government or passion for climate change.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So VD.....you agree with Jeffrey on these?????
> 
> Gee...._an idea so demonstrably stupid_...sounds like me
> 
> Shall we review YOUR stance on these oh great defender of all things Harper ...........??


I already made a statement about representation by population. I said I found it timely that you discovered this issue when it affected you. BC and Alberta have been dealing with this for years with no progress in Ottawa over the last decade. I never heard you comment about how unfair it was before. My stance on this issue goes back to the Reform party. I have always supported electoral reform including changes to the Senate. So to answer your question... yes I agree with Jeffery.

****

RE GST - I don't disagree with what economists have said about tax cuts and that GST cutting wasn't the optimum solution. But, the vast majority of Canadians liked the idea and the Conservatives cut both the GST and income tax. It's not as if cutting taxes is mutually exclusive. I think this is an academic debate between good and better. Both options are good, one was just a little bit better. So, I wouldn't go as far as you in criticism of the Conservatives. A little bit of good and a little bit of better still sits well with me.

****

RE - 'Supporting all things Harper'.

Do I really need to defend myself here? I am very up front with what party I support, including with $$$. How many opponents of Harper on this board are willing to stick their neck out and state what party they support? Have you? It's easy to be a critic and point flaws in any given platform. That makes me an easy target here, no? But, I believe the adage that politics is the art of the possible. There is no such thing as a party that represents everybody's pet issue. Rather, as a voter and as a pragmatic person I have to make a choice and pick the party that best supports my point of view. That happens to be the Conservatives. The Liberals would be my second choice. I am not nearly as right wing as you would like to think. Politically, I find I am more aligned with the BC Liberal Party who fall somewhere in between the federal Liberal and Conservative Party. If you spent more time thinking about my posts (instead of trying to label me) I believe you would understand this. 

I doubt you will give me much latitude to this end, so in the interests of defending myself here is a list of key issues for which I don't agree with the Conservatives:

1. Gay Marriage
2. Marijuana legalization
3. Climate Change - I have always been compelled by the evidence and have supported climate change.

The major issues where my opinions are aligned with the Conservatives are as follows:

1. Free enterprise
2. Tax reduction
3. Electoral change
4. Support of military
5. Reform of justice system

Not sure how that qualifies me as a NeoCon under your definition. Using that level of leeway I could call you a communist. 

I think you are far too negative and ignore positive things that have been accomplished. How about a thread complimenting the Conservatives for doubling funding to Africa and supporting UNICEF initiatives? I felt proud as a Canadian when I saw Harper visit those countries. How about a thread complimenting the Conservatives on taking leadership in suggesting South America a 'third way' somewhere between extreme socialism and extreme capitalism and ties to the US?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> *Do you not ever tire of trying to blanket and smother every opinion on the board that does not fit in your ideal world?*
> 
> Why not take a night off and head down to the food court of your local mall, or a neighbourhood pub you've never been in, or have a coffee in a Zeller's restaurant and talk to average Canadians?
> 
> You will find you are alone with your views and thoughts. I know. I do such things every week to get feedback for my Blog and columns. Everyday Canadians simply don't share your vision of government or passion for climate change.


I'm amazed by the Harper regime you seem to be acting like little school vandals, destroying work that has been done as if they find it fun.

Almost as galling are the little Harperdroids that are rather creepy in their delusions of self-righteousness. Screeching monkeys is too kind a word....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> RE GST - I don't disagree with what economists have said about tax cuts and that GST *cutting wasn't the optimum solution*. But, the v_ast majority of Canadians liked the idea_ and the Conservatives cut both the GST and income tax. It's not as if cutting taxes is mutually exclusive. I think this is an academic debate between good and better. Both options are good, one was just a little bit better. So, I wouldn't go as far as you in criticism of the Conservatives. A little bit of good and a little bit of better still sits well with me.


Coming from someone who said that real leadership was making the hard choices... It seems that silly populist choices is your mantra....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> RE - 'Supporting all things Harper'.
> 
> Do I really need to defend myself here? I am very up front with what party I support, including with $$$. *How many opponents of Harper on this board are willing to stick their neck out and state what party they support?* Have you?


The BQ.... 
Done. Next.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I already made a statement about representation by population. I said I found iHow about a thread complimenting the Conservatives on taking leadership in suggesting South America a 'third way' somewhere between extreme socialism and extreme capitalism and ties to the US?


Now it's just silly season.... 
There has been a thread discussing that and how your glorious leader is backing anti-democratic thugs....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The major issues where my opinions are aligned with the Conservatives are as follows:
> 
> 1. Free enterprise
> 2. Tax reduction
> ...


I've already defined why you border on neocon - 
As for that list..... is it unintentional hilarity?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I've already defined why you border on neocon -
> As for that list..... is it unintentional hilarity?


And what aspect of those five issues does our resident separatist find humorous?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> And what aspect of those five issues does our resident separatist find humorous?


Pay no attention. It is merely the braying of a donkey.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Pay no attention. It is merely the braying of a donkey.


Oui, AS parle comme une ânesse.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*ahem*

Please keep it civil boys and girls.  

Keep it to the topic, not the member.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Do you not ever tire of trying to blanket and smother every opinion on the board that does not fit in your ideal world?
> 
> Why not take a night off and head down to the food court of your local mall, or a neighbourhood pub you've never been in, or have a coffee in a Zeller's restaurant and talk to average Canadians?
> 
> You will find you are alone with your views and thoughts. I know. I do such things every week to get feedback for my Blog and columns. Everyday Canadians simply don't share your vision of government or passion for climate change.


I don't know about that Sinc. I think it really depends on who you are talking too. The people I encounter across this country seem to be getting more and more tired of Harper, even a few friends have who were staunch supporters. (one of them lost a real pile of money in that income trust crap). There are absolutely a real significant number of Harper supporters that will not budge, and that's his base of support. But it seems to me I have been noticing a slow erosion of support within the soft vote. I don't know if that's enough to see a liberal win, likely not, yet perhaps.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And what aspect of those five issues does our *resident separatist* find humorous?


It’s amazing that you jump to the conclusion that I’m a separatist given that you decried the labeling because you support the Harper regime.
If I was a separatist, I’d be supporting Harper because he has done much to move Quebec closer to independence than any other PM.
The BQ, having the luxury of not being married to a partisan ideology, can actually support and propose common sense solutions. 
Harperdroids only seem to echo and defend party lines and not common sense.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

You gotta start hanging out in different pubs, SINC. I don't think I've ever encountered a real-live individual who supports Harper.

The Cons got where they are because the were 'anyone-but-the-Liberals' in the last election and they've done an admirable job of keeping their agenda hidden while they've been in minority. But it seems most Canadians remain skeptical of the conservatives, and they're going to have to run a campaign on something other than blaming-the-Liberals some time soon. 

If the Liberals had their political act together, they'd wipe the floor with Harper's crew, but, perhaps fortunately, the Liberals are still disorganized and fractured. I would say this is evidence of weak leadership, but I'm not sure any of the other potential Liberal leaders could've done any better.

If ever there was an opportunity for the NDP, the past few years have been it, and Layton's abject failure to capitalize on the situation is damning evidence of his inept leadership. Time to jettison him, and really re-examine what, if anything, the NDP stands for, and what, if anything, it can accomplish in Federal Politics. I've voted NDP in every election (federally and provincially) since I was 18, and the only way I could see myself voting that way in the next election is if, by some fluke, both the Conservatives and the NDP are serious contenders in my riding, and no one else is.

I haven't ever paid much attention to the BQ, so I don't have any opinion regarding their performance, but about the only hopeful sign I see for genuine leadership in Canada's future is coming from the Green Party (Elizabeth May for PM! Woot!). That being said, if there's any chance of a conservative being elected in my riding during the next election I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them, be it the Liberals, the NDP, the Green Party, or the Rhinos.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fair enough bryanc. I guess I see it much differently than you. Most people I encounter could not bring themselves to support the Liberals with Dion as leader. They would rather have the Harper they now know than a perceived lame duck like Dion.

Having once lived here though, it should not be hard for you to imagine that Harper does indeed have supporters in Alberta.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This whole exchange speaks volumes about the prevailing political inclinations where each of us live. Not that it should come as a surprise, but it does point to how fractured by regionalism our country tends to be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I've voted NDP in every election (federally and provincially) since I was 18...


So *you're* the one!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> This whole exchange speaks volumes about the prevailing political inclinations where each of us live. Not that it should come as a surprise, but it does point to how fractured by regionalism our country tends to be.


you're absolutely right, and I think it also speaks a lot about the fact that Harper has not been able to be a leader for the whole country yet. Watching him cozy to Quebec from here in Ontario is just sickening, because it just looks like he has some kind of distaste for Ontario, and his love for Quebec is really a desire for a majority. How long will he be able to put that facade on before Quebecers see through it? If he truly was a national leader, we would have seen the polls reflect the support, but instead, all we've really seen, are reactions to the fact that the liberals haven't gotten their act together yet. wow. I've always thought a new government like Harper's conservatives would have seen soaring support after the election, particularly after 13 years of liberal rule with the corruption, and fatigue of voters desiring change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We've never had a national leader--just a figurehead holding the thing together.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Watching him cozy to Quebec from here in Ontario is just sickening, because it just looks like he has some kind of distaste for Ontario, and his love for Quebec is really a desire for a majority. How long will he be able to put that facade on before Quebecers see through it?


I don't know, but I agree with your sentiments....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Distaste - yes - it's called NO VOTE POTENTIAL and if he gives Ontario the seats it deserves which will all fall in the urban areas he can kiss any hope of a majority good bye for a long long time.

So what does Mr. open and honest gov due.......top up Alberta and BC - maybe ( tho not lately ) vote rich and short change Ontario..

Way to go Harpo.....

••

How well has it worked in Quebec?.....3rd and falling.
Ontario?- off a cliff.....

and what do Albertans think of Quebec pandering and Muloon......not impressed.

Time to get someone else before he mucks it up further.....

Someone promise him a fat Mulroney and encourage his moving on......


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Someone promise him a fat Mulroney and encourage his moving on......


I think a big knife in the back ala Martin/Chretien would be a little more interesting. But I think Dion will get that before Harper, I think there are a few hopefuls already at the grindstone waiting for their oportunity.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

*Still Waiting For The Coming Election*

The knives are out, and not only in Ottawa where one would expect such shenanigans.

There are many untruths spouted. Harper is not hated by everybody. People did vote for him and his party, and I think that Canadians would much prefer a dose of thinking before acting. It does him no good to be identified with Lyin' Brian, nor does the spector of the fundamentalists assist either. Ontario does not hate him - Ontario is just confused, awaiting the next Willie Davis to come along and clean things up. People take their hatred of John Tory and his policies of class warfare and channel it against Harper, not knowing or realizing that the Province has little or nothing to do with Mr. Harper's balliwick. The West hates the a$$ kissing that Harper administers to Quebec, but Westerners realise that it is just some brown nosing; not the Full Monty administered by the Fiberals.

Dion's weakness is not a lack of ability or intelligence - but the fact that he was a made man, put quietly into place first by Mulroney, then noisily by Chretien. The only reason he is a Liberal is that there was an opening. He is a man devoid of integrity and has continually flip-flopped on his political ideologies over the years. The Party selected this dark horse because Ignatieff is too smart and has too many contacts at the St. James; while Kennedy is the pick of the minority (those who are not tories) at the Toronto and University Clubs. Dion could not overthrow their power base, and in embracing their temporary allegience, he set up the hornet's nest that is now the Liberals. Not to mention the formet Martinites, Chretienites, the Maritim Liberal factions and those who purchased their position within the party in Ontario.

Layton has struggled to rejuvinate a much splintered party. He is hindered by the special interests who wish to use the NDP as a vehicle of class warfare, the trade unions who continue to decline out of their own disunity and lack of vision, the loss of the Youth and Environmental vote to the Green Party, and those who have certain fears of Laytonian Socialism being to "centrist" for their own Marxist views. But Layton has recruited a number of important people, people who will probably be in Parliament for the long term based on their own integrity.

Duceppe is little more than the Ringmaster of the Circus known as the Bloc. The only real threat to him is the fact that there is much talk of a renewal of the old Social Creditiste party, of which the core of the Bloc is founded upon. Plus those inalienable facts that he can not carry much of the Youth or Environmental vote; the fact that the Conservatives and the NDP have made important inroads in Quebec; and the fact that the hard core separatist fringes of the party persist in their pursuit of outmoded and hateful racial policies that drive votes away from them. Duceppe has engaged in a pragmatic policy of dealing with the Conservative through accommodation while riding out the current situation in the Province. He is well aware that Mario Dumont and the ADQ could really hurt the Bloc and make that opening for a renewed SC party that would rob him of the conservative and rural block of voters - those voters that vote for the Bloc in the first place.

So I am still waiting for the Coming Election. There is not one party right now that wants to be sullied as being the trigger for the Election. Canadians have long waited for the opportunity for a Minority, for a rest from the constant acts of class warfare that have been exhibited by Majorities of Chretien, Mulroney, and the farcical administration of Martin. The majority of Canadians may not like Harper, but they like the fact that he is on a very short leash. Mulroney is a sideshow, for our amusement, simply because everyone knows the scandal and corruption that followed him around ever since Deifenbaker was cancelling the Avro Arrow...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts, amusing bit of fiction as usual.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> EvanPitts, amusing bit of fiction as usual.


Some substance in your disagreement please, AS--your prior comment was a will-o-the-wisp.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Some substance in your disagreement please, AS--your prior comment was a will-o-the-wisp.


Given that engaging MF in a debate is akin to debating hockey with a root vegetable, I find that rich.

Is there anything else you'd like to whine about? I mean why not continue in you normal vain, your motto seems to be "pointless argumentation"... So apart from trolling do you have any other waste of time you'd like to address? I'm sure you have many silly assertions and tropes you can post here (without facts) and we can continue on....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Whining and responding reflexively to bells.....how very canine.
I do like the root vegetable analogy...goes along with head in sand very well.

••

So NOW Harper wakes up to the debacle unfolding around the world - if he had set up some infrastructure funding instead of dufous tax cuts and debt paydown Canada woudl have been in better shape.

but no the champagne bubbles blinded him I guess......visions of sugar plum seats danced in his head.......



> PM worried about economy, but not national unity
> Updated Thu. Dec. 20 2007 5:10 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


oh really  -where was that with the election pork mini budget a month or so back.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> There are many untruths spouted. Harper is not hated by everybody. People did vote for him and his party, and I think that Canadians would much prefer a dose of thinking before acting.


I agree with that. I use my father as a bellweather for Canadian voters. He is a centrist Liberal and has always Liberal and ran for the Party in the 70's. When my father says good things about Harper (which he has) I know things are going just fine for the Conservatives. 

His circle of acquaintances includes the 'looney left' crowd and for the most part they don't rant about Harper and the Conservatives. They would never vote for him, but they are a good litmus test for whether people are angry and want to boot the government out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You disagreed with EvanPitts and claimed his post was a falsehood. Tell us why, AS.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You disagreed with EvanPitts and claimed his post was a falsehood. Tell us why, AS.


I am still waiting on quite a few answers as well. He found a recent post humorous but he dares not say why.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave like the connies because they are so good with our money...



> *Tories paid $25 billion in grants and subsidies over first year in office: report*
> 
> he group says the 100 largest payments, doled out by 16 different departments and agencies, total $3.3 billion - much of it spent "questionably, inefficiently and, in some cases, outright irresponsibly."
> 
> ...


Tories paid $25 billion in grants and subsidies over first year in office: report - Yahoo! Canada News

It reminds me of stealing from the middle class and giving to the rich... 
(Apart for some of the monies, much is corporate welfare).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the liberals were just as bad.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> the liberals were just as bad.


Definitely, but they did not run on stopping such endeavours...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep same cats, different colour...I'm so fed up with the Feds I'd love to see a Constitutional Conference and a change in powers.

In Sweden 50%+ of the taxation power resides in the muncipalities including income tax.

8% in Canada.

It's ludicrous and we are worst in the G8 for high reality taxes.

Wonder how the municipalities are going to wean off the income flow when houses drop 30 points or more in the near future.

Not only is the ship of state a patched together inefficient politicized hulk but the crew and prisoners are madmen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't want to b e Sweden, and if that pork had been handed to the provinces for infrastructure, you'd be applauding them MacDoc.



> Wonder how the municipalities are going to wean off the income flow when houses drop 30 points or more in the near future.


MacDoc, the taxes in Ontario aren't based on the total value of real estate. They are apportioned to each property based on the relative value of one property to all others.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave like the connies because they are so good with our money...
> 
> 
> Tories paid $25 billion in grants and subsidies over first year in office: report - Yahoo! Canada News
> ...


Welcome to last month, I think MD beat you to this one a long time ago. Nice to remind everyone how much TO "isn't" getting, and being from QC, why are you complaining, how else are you going to keep jobs there? And what do you two have against Natives, Olympics, soccer or the Red Cross?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

A little reading, and you may understand that I don't think our tax dollars should go to pay private industry... maybe you like that....

As for being from Quebec, I should line up at the government tit and suck whatever I can get? Goes to show what kind of mentality you have. I'd be pretty ticked off if I live in another province and saw the blatant vote buying.

Keep jobs there? Funny, I've always said that if you can't make without a handout, then you should not be in business. Again only goes to show how most Connies like to take public money for private risk - the kind where the public pays for private industry...

Soccer? Let the private sector pay for it....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: And you want the government to assume control of Atomic ´nergy production--despite the fact that this is run privately elsewhere? Why should government money be involved in something for which the private sector can assume the financial risk?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

In the words of a friend of mine:

It is important to realize that isotopes were being used for diagnosis and therapy long before the discovery of nuclear fission, and that even after the discovery of fission cyclotrons and other types of particle accelerators were widely used to produce isotopes for medical and scientific research purposes.

But AECL has deliberately worked over the years to create a market for specialized isotopes that are produced in nuclear reactors, chiefly cobalt-60 and molybdenum-99. Cobalt-60 is a “hard” gamma emitter and is used outside the body to irradiate tumours and to sterilize medical instruments, for example. It has a half-life of 5.3 years and so loses about 13% of its inventory in one year through radioactive decay.

Molybdenum-99 has a half-life of 66 hours, and it decays into a metastable (short half-life) isotope called technetium-99m (the “m” has to be included) which has a half-life of only 6 hours. The technetium-99m is used internally for many many diagnostic purposes. Tc-99m can easily be attached to various molecules which can then be injected into patients. The gamma rays given off by Tc-99m are a lot “softer” than those from cobalt-60 so they give a good “picture” without giving too high a dose to the patient. Because of its 6-hour half-life, Tc-99m does not pose a long-term radioactive waste problem. The Mo-99 is used as a “cow” which can be “milked” to give Tc-99m over a period of many days. Just a few micrograms of Mo-99 is enough to produce enough Tc-99m to be used to diagnose
10,000 patients. However, the supply of Mo-99 has to be uninterrupted or they will run out of Tc-99m in a short time.

The downside to this is that Mo-99 (called “moly” for short) is only produced, now, in a very high-intensity neutron field, which means a nuclear reactor that uses weapons-grade uranium (over 95% enriched!!). AECL’s Maple-1 and Maple-2 reactors were designed specifically to produce Mo-99 using weapons-grade uranium as fuel. NGO’s in the US went to court to stop the shipment of HEU (highly enriched uranium) to Chalk River because there is a US law which is supposed to halt all shipments of weapons-grade materials to other countries. AECL has been told by US authorities that they must develop technologies to produce Mo-99 that do not use HEU; but MDS-Nordion (a private company that markets the Mo-99 that is produced by AECL) shows little sign of taking this seriously.

Another problem: in the past, HEU irradiated fuel has been returned to the USA (Savannah River) from Chalk River where it has been recycled into the bomb program (which uses HEU as “driver rods” in plutonium-production reactors to produce the plutonium needed for warheads). So in this sense, Mo-99 is like a piece of candy that is produced as a byproduct of the nuclear weapons business. Without nuclear weapons it would be too expensive to produce the HEU in the first place, and without the cash credit obtained by returning the HEU to the USA the costs become prohibitive also. I am not sure whether this practice of returning the irradiated HEU is still going on.

Yet another problem is that the Maple reactors cannot be operated safely and so they are at least 6 years behind schedule. The reactors do not operate as the AECL designers said they should, and the difference is a matter of safety — instead of being “self-braking” when the power of the reactor is increased, the Maple reactors accelerate in power when any attempt is made to just increase the power a little bit. This makes the reactors too unsafe to operate.

The NRU (National Research Universal) reactor started up in 1957. It was about 10 times more powerful than the earlier NRX (National Research eXperimental) reactor that started up in 1946. The Gov’t of Canada was reluctant to spend the money to build the NRY reactor, but AECL argued that they could help defray the cost be selling plutonium produced in the reactor to the USA. And that’s what they did — sold plutonium that was of course used in the American bomb program. But the main purpose of the NRU was to produce isotopes of various kinds by using ingenious “loops” that would allow you to insert non-radioactive materials into the loops without shutting down the reactor or opening up the core of the reactor so as to irradiate those materials and make them radio-active. The NRU was also used to test various fuels and components of CANDU reactors. But it is 50 years old now and should have been retired years ago. Since the Maple reactors are not running, NRU has had to be the workhorse, delivering the Mo-99 to the market.

Which raises another question: who makes the profits from this?

In 1988, the Gov’t of Canada privatized the only really proftable part of AECL’s operations, which was the radio-isotope production. AECL sold Nordion International Inc. (formerly the AECL division known as the Radiochemical Company) to the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) for eventual privatization. In 1991, CDIC sold Nordion to MDS Health Group Ltd. for $165 million, and it was reported that AECL received $150.5 million from CDIC, and that this “together with interest earned thereon between the dates of receipt and disbursement, has been distributed to the shareholder (i.e. gov’t of Canada) by way of dividends”.

So AECL is responsible for designing and building and operating the reactors to produce the isotopes that MDS-Nordion sells for a profit. This also means that the radwaste and the decommissioning of the reactors is a public responsibility through AECL whereas the profits are a private matter for MDS-Nordion.

As of now, it would be difficult to replace the Mo-99/Tc-99m isotope business with something else, but I believe that if nuclear weapons were phased out the entire isotope business as currently practiced would be unaffordable.

There, does that answer your question? 

Now go clean your room and stop bothering the adults.
--------------
Harper has managed to mismanage once again and my objections are there. Thanks for trying to change the channel again...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You've just copied your friend's post...why? Don't you understand the nuclear business yourself? 

Let me ask you again--why do YOU believe that the government should hand out money to a volatile enterprise that continues to lose money--and one for which private enterprise is willing to assume the risk?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Trying to be obtuse or are you really that stupid?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe you should ask your friend to explain it to you again.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Apart from pissing all over discussion threads with inane comments and acting like a ****tard, are you really that stupid? I sometimes wonder if you have a functioning brain...

If you seriously wanted to discuss the "question" you bring up, you would of done it here:
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/59261-partisan-politics-over-competence.html


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Apart from pissing all over discussion threads with inane comments and acting like a ****tard, are you really that stupid? I sometimes wonder if you have a functioning brain...
> 
> If you seriously wanted to discuss the "question" you bring up, you would of done it here:
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/59261-partisan-politics-over-competence.html



AS... take a couple of weeks off. You have had repeated offenses. This is the last warning before you are not invited back to ehMac.ca.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Maybe you should ask your friend to explain it to you again.


a volatile enterprise?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> a volatile enterprise?


I was wondering if anyone would pick up on the small double entendre.  

The nuclear business in Canada has been far from steady and relies largely on government subsidies and huge cheap loans to buyers to keep it afloat. There's nothing wrong with the product--it's just that producing and selling them hasn't been a viable business. AECL's latest reactor hasn't generated the sales interest it had hoped for--even Ontario has been looking at GE reactors for its next purchase. It's not like a car company that has a dozen models ready to pick up the slack. If you design something you can't sell over a few years, you've pretty much had it.

The way nuclear reactor sales are arranged, private enterprise has to sign a large number of risk and performance guarantees. In Canada, the People of Canada assume the financial risks for sales to the People of Ontario.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hmm. As far as I understand it, the private nuclear company is not on the hook for liability whatsoever.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: In a "design-build" contract, the private company is on the hook for the construction of the plant, cost over-runs etc. AECL has to gurantee the same thing to its clients to ensure that it will build them in a timely and efficient manner.

That's different from a "design-build-operate" contract in which performance guarantees are introduced in the contract with heavy penalties in place for filing to produce target quantities of energy, down-time, etc. The private company posts bonds and has financial backing in place to ensure that the penalty amounts can be collected for failure to perform.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper playing politics again.....



> Harper announces four March byelections TheStar.com - News - Harper announces four March byelections
> December 21, 2007
> Joan Bryden
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


TheStar.com - News - Harper announces four March byelections


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The nuclear business in Canada has been far from steady and relies largely on government subsidies and huge cheap loans to buyers to keep it afloat. There's nothing wrong with the product--it's just that producing and selling them hasn't been a viable business. AECL's latest reactor hasn't generated the sales interest it had hoped for--even Ontario has been looking at GE reactors for its next purchase.


The CANDU reactor is an excellent design, but has had many failures in practical use. For one, they scaled the size up in order to produce more power, which lead to any number of materials failures. Instead of settling on a stable design (as the French did), AECL helped bankrupt Ontario Hydro over the whole scandal at Darlington, where the cost oveerruns dwarfed the initial budget for the project. AECL has been dain bramaged for many years, having become a haven for the cronies of the Liberal Party establishment. AECL has had problems selling their product overseas, often to nations that could not purchase a nuclear program anywhere else, like in Romania and North Korea. Ontario really can not afford another CANNOTDU reactor, they need something that is affordable and reliable. Five year shutdowns to fix "engineering flaws" will not wash in the end.

The whole affair at AECL is a sad scandal. They were ordered to install a backup power system... So AECL bought the equipment and partially set it up, then money was misappropriated and probably spent on special executive luncheons and fancy new office desks. I sure hope those lunches and desks are of high quality because people have died of cancer when they could not be treated during the shutdown. This is no different than from any other government scandal. Jobs are given to the incompetent and clueless because of special ties to friends that are in a Party; and it is the public that suffers for this malfeasance. Everytime I look at my Hydro bill, I recall the money that was wasted on Strong's special luncheons in Brazil, Clitheroe's kid getting a special limosine to UCC, defective pumps that nearly lead to a nuclear catastrophy in Darlington, and a thousand other fiascos.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

*Still Waiting For The Coming Election*

We have all seen the posturing that the politicos of this land made before their Christmas sojourn. All of them are eager to have an election - but not one of them has the guts to pull the trigger. They all know that the person who starts the ball rolling through a non confidence vote will be severely punished by the Electors, Electors who for the most part, are entirely happy with the Minority situation. The Minority has been good for the nation. We have had a break from all of the shenanigans of ramrodding laws through Parliament. We have had a break from the profane acts of class warfare that seem to accompany Majority rule. We have had a break from scandal, pork barrel politics, and high levels of corruption. Sure, we have Mulroneygate; but that really is news for an earlier era. One can not say that Canadians did not know about corruption - the Electors _preferred_ it!

With half a day left of 2007 - I am still waiting for the coming election; one that can be quite a ways off yet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Same cats.....



> Tories' cronyism rampant, critics say
> 
> *Two important provisions of the much vaunted accountability act haven't been implemented*
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Tories' cronyism rampant, critics say


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

They don't take a day off, must be a slow news day.

So _how many_ is _many_? 1, 5, 1132? And who are these critics? NDP/Liberal MP's? Sounds like a lot of fluff and no substance to back it up. I think Richard needs to do a little more digging and come back to us when he has more than one example.:yawn:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: Why hold Richards to such a high standard? All EhMacers need is to see something in print and they're all over it!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see Harpo's folly is a big hit 

Every economist rightly calling him a fool and a big yawn from the populace.

Brilliant......NOT.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

And what does your post prove MacDoc? 

This is basically what an economist would predict. A 1% reduction in price will only marginally increase demand. 

The $12 billion that doesn't go to the government this year will go back into the pocket of tax paying Canadians. Surely, you can't think that is a bad thing. 

Or do you think the government do a better job of spending my money than I do? Are you afraid that everybody will blow their savings on beer and popcorn?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

What it proves is that, unlike some of the Harper Fan Club, MacDoc can provide evidence to support his contention that the government's economic policies are both ill-advised and ill-recieved.

Harper &co do really have one very good thing going for them at the moment: no competition. If any of the opposition parties were able to find their collective butts with both hands, a party like Harper's Conservatives would be wiped out (except in Alberta, where it's traditional to vote for the worst candidates under any circumstances). Unfortunately, I don't see much hope of a competent opposition arising anytime soon.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Evidence? :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I could have sworn I received a sales update from your company telling people to take advantage of the GST reduction. Maybe I was mistaken.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Evidence?


While it certainly wouldn't meet the standards of _scientific_ evidence, it's certainly credible support for an argument in this context. You could reasonably argue that the evidence isn't compelling, but you can't argue that he isn't providing support for his position.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

People like to gamble too....I heartily encourage voluntary taxation. 
I also compete.
We do after all have to deal with the fallout of the foolishness.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I see Harpo's folly is a big hit
> 
> Every economist rightly calling him a fool and a big yawn from the populace.
> 
> Brilliant......NOT.


Maybe it's because retailers, *like yourself MD*, have offered to save the GST early. If saving 1% GST wasn't so important to consumers, then why oh why MD, would you use it as a marketing ploy? :lmao:

For those who don't receive the email:
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/MD_Hypocrisy/MD_GST.png


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> If saving 1% GST wasn't so important to consumers, then why oh why MD, would you use it as a marketing ploy? :lmao:


Pwned... :clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> A 1% reduction in price will only marginally increase demand.


Every cent counts - the reduction on GST will provide me with an extra three or four coffees a year - as long as the greedy bastards don't increase the price of coffee because of "Frosts in Brazil" or "$100 Oil". I think the greedy should pay, stringing them up along Bay and Richmond would make quite the sight. Of course, Conrad would be the first...



> The $12 billion that doesn't go to the government this year will go back into the pocket of tax paying Canadians. Surely, you can't think that is a bad thing.


The Liberal controlled media, and in particular, the Canadian Banana Company, are making alot of hay out of the fact that the average family will only score a measily $200 on the GST reduction. If they keep going, they could get rid of the whole obscene tax and save me over $1000. Instead, they should tax the stupid and clueless morons of the country. Perhaps a tax on dummies that buy Windoze...



> Or do you think the government do a better job of spending my money than I do? Are you afraid that everybody will blow their savings on beer and popcorn?


Beer is an important industry in Canada. What is good for Labatt's and Molson's is good for Belgium and St. Louis...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Maybe it's because retailers, *like yourself MD*, have offered to save the GST early. If saving 1% GST wasn't so important to consumers, then why oh why MD, would you use it as a marketing ploy? :lmao:
> 
> For those who don't receive the email:
> http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/MD_Hypocrisy/MD_GST.png


for precisely the same reason Harper and gang is using it as a marketing ploy.

People are often idiots.

So we have a government that is using the same tactics as the brick to woo voters.

Such a happy day for Canadians.





god that was too easy...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can woo me with a tax cut any day. Whichever party offers me the most shiny toy baubles at my own expense (supposedly free services) loses my vote.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh if only everything were that simple...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> for precisely the same reason Harper and gang is using it as a marketing ploy.
> 
> People are often idiots.


Is that true MD? Do you think we are idiots? Could it be true that MD and Harper are cut from the same cloth?

GT I suspect you are donating your 2% GST savings on all of your purchases to your favourite charities?



groovetube said:


> So we have a government that is using the same tactics as the brick to woo voters.


Please, haven't you ever seen political commercials during an election, The Brick is way above the tactics used during those times. I'd love to see The Brick lower their standards and start slinging mud at Leon's, it would be quite humorous. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Is that true MD? Do you think we are idiots? Could it be true that MD and Harper are cut from the same cloth?
> 
> GT I suspect you are donating your 2% GST savings on all of your purchases to your favourite charities?
> 
> Please, haven't you ever seen political commercials during an election, The Brick is way above the tactics used during those times. I'd love to see The Brick lower their standards and start slinging mud at Leon's, it would be quite humorous. :lmao:


Oh jesus what are you mumbling about now...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GT: I don't think you can claim, this time, that you can't understand what are fairly straightforward comments .


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

straight forward? You call that straight forward?

A bunch of nonsense about what I do with my gst savings or some crap about Leons?

Who cares.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> straight forward? You call that straight forward?
> 
> A bunch of nonsense about what I do with my gst savings or some crap about Leons?
> 
> Who cares.


I guess you were right, people are often idiots.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I guess you were right, people are often idiots.


to fall for that nonsense? absolutely.

Sort of like how everybody bought Harper saying he was going to be accountable.

Now *that* is what I call... pwned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ...some crap about Leons?


Well, you made it clear earlier that you are more comfortable referencing "The Brick."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, you made it clear earlier that you are more comfortable referencing "The Brick."


oh jeez.

ouch.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) being competitive means offering a similar 1% discount to individual *consumers.*
Most clients it's irrelevant they get their GST back anyway - 5% 6% who cares it's meaningless for them.

b) structural macro finance errors as Harper has made in several instances has nothing to do with an individual who can save $25. Why shouldn't consumers use general Harper stupidity to their own individual advantage. 
Wake up - you're irrelevant.

We'll see now if Harper avoids the deficit he's setting himself up for.
He better hope oil prices stay very high.



> The department said revenue was up 5.3%, or $6.8-billion, for the first seven months of the fiscal year, primarily from corporate income tax and "non-tax revenues." It said spending was up $6.9-billion, or 6.8%


Harper has increased the spending...that does not go down in a recession.



> OTTAWA -- *The federal government ran a $2.7-billion deficit in October*, reducing its annual surplus up to that point to $6.6-billion.
> 
> The Department of Finance said October's deficit compared with a surplus of about $500-million a year earlier.


He has now cut another point from GST revenues AFTER this.

So lower revenues
Higher gov spending

Not rocket science to see where this is heading when the slowdown hits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: You need to find some more pictures to accompany your pithy entries. Those are getting mighty tired.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

too easy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Repetitive juvenile behaviour deserves redundant reminders.

"pithy".....word of the day???.....almost to three syllables....

Here .... practice - do some good. FreeRice


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Sure offer it, but to blatantly post it as a selling feature shows the merit it has to consumers. And remember it isn't 5 or 6%, it's 5 or 7%, I hardly doubt saving 2% on most purchases isn't meaningless to consumers.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> So lower revenues
> Higher gov spending
> 
> Not rocket science to see where this is heading when the slowdown hits.


So you feel more comfortable with gov't bringing in higher profit and lower gov't spending? It didn't take a rocket science for the gq public to figure out they were being bent over the table, not a position I'm personally fond of.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Sure offer it, but to blatantly post it as a selling feature shows the merit it has to consumers. And remember it isn't 5 or 6%, it's 5 or 7%, *I hardly doubt saving 2% on most purchases isn't meaningless to consumers*.


Means absolutely nothing to me. 
I'd prefer that Harper reverse the trend in tax contributions between corporations/individual that is at 20/80 (it used to be 50/50 in the 70's).

That 1% is nothing when you look at social parasites such as big corporations and some of the ultra rich....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> So you feel more comfortable with gov't bringing in higher profit and lower gov't spending? It didn't take a rocket science for the gq public to figure out they were being bent over the table, not a position I'm personally fond of.


Given that those in power are the biggest spenders ever all the while delivering much less, I wonder how this falls into prudent money managers?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Given that those in power are the biggest spenders ever all the while delivering much less, I wonder how this falls into prudent money managers?


Is this as fictional as your "retailers absorbing the GST cut" brain fart or do you have substance to prove that the Liberals offered more?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Is this as fictional as your "retailers absorbing the GST cut" brain fart or do you have substance to prove that the Liberals offered more?


What does this have to do with Liberals?

I'm surprised that you don't decry this from the conservatives


> Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for a $650,000 ad campaign that boasts about a one-cent cut to the GST - a campaign that opposition members say is nothing more than pre-election advertising for the Conservatives.
> 
> Those who visit the website suggested in the ad will be presented with the headline: "Conservative government fulfills commitment to reduce GST to 5 per cent." It sits above a picture of Prime Minister Stephen Harper announcing the tax cut on New Year's Eve at the same consumer electronics store in Mississauga where he originally promised to cut the GST during the 2005-06 election campaign.


globeandmail.com: Opposition says GST ads amount to Conservative advertising


This bit of partisan hackery is simple disgusting


> Since coming to office, *the Conservative Government *has taken action to cut sales, income and business taxes, reducing the overall tax burden for Canadians and


GST Cut
Yup, it's a gov web site - one for all Canadians in theory - being used to dissapate nonsense...

More of my tax dollars being wasted for cheap propaganda by third rate managers...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Given that those in power are* the biggest spenders ever all the while delivering much less*, I wonder how this falls into prudent money managers?


*Delivering much less than who?* Well seeing that the Liberals were the last ones in power one has to assume that your comment is saying the *Conservatives are delivering much less than the Liberals*. If I have this wrong please correct me, but unless you have proof, it is just another brain fart. But feel free to post a bunch of deflections again and avoid the question.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Harper and fiends are the biggest spenders all the while cutting social services/programs.

Their choices will hurt Canadians in the long run. 

Like I said, third rate managers. I can't wait to see them blame the state of the economy in a few months on the US when they previously stated it would hardly affect us. Heck, Harper is already setting that up. Mind you, he should of known how dependant we are on the US... but anything for big oil, right?

As for the GST bribe and other notes......


> According to the fall economic update, at the end of the 2008/09 fiscal year the three-year spending increase will exceed $32-billion. *That is a cumulative increase of 18.5 per cent in the size of the federal government since the Conservatives came to office.*


Taylor and Williamson â€¢ Keep cutting taxes


> Did you notice the stampede of shoppers swarming the downtown area yesterday, eager to take advantage of the newly-reduced Goods and Services Tax?
> 
> Me neither.
> 
> ...


Harper government takes wrong turn on tax policy




> Back in November, which in economic forecasters' time already seems like an eternity ago, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty presented a fairly sanguine outlook for the year ahead. For 2008, he saw growth moderating just a little, from 2.5 per cent last year to 2.4 per cent.
> 
> Turns out he was far too optimistic.
> 
> ...


 TheStar.com | comment | Tax cuts empty Ottawa's coffers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Is there a night school class in posting long winded meaningless responses that don't answer questions that I don't know about?


ArtistSeries said:


> Harper and fiends are the biggest spenders all the while cutting social services/programs.http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/290804


Proof/examples?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Since you like fresh news, how's this for transparent?


> HALIFAX - It's taking in excess of a year for some Canadians to obtain government documents because the federal information commissioner isn't demanding swift action from departments that are bogged down in increasingly lengthy reviews, say critics.
> 
> Several recent requests under the *Access to Information Act have been returned to applicants with a notice that they require a 240-day extension - a delay three times the previous average*, making data outdated and often useless when it is released.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press: Government stymying efforts to obtain info, commissioner failing to help: critic


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let Flaherty chew on this piece of gristle



> Canada purchasing activity falls, shakes dollar
> Reuters
> 
> TORONTO — Purchasing activity in the Canadian economy contracted in December for the first time in a year, according to the Ivey Purchasing Managers Index released Friday, sending the Canadian dollar below par with the U.S. dollar for the first time in two weeks.
> ...


and this recession lead up hasn't even BEGUN to bite.

Now about that $130 billion in infrastructure needed.....shall I go out and fill a pothole with my GST "savings"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the conservative apologizers can fart all they like. But it'll be interesting to watch as we see who can manage the countries finances, and who can't. I believe Clark said it best, 'the devil you know'.


It gets more and more amusing watching Harper supporters deny all the lying and nonsense from their party as things progress.

Amusing. And sad, all at the same time. All those years of tightening to turn things around and to watch the tories pee it all up a tree so damn fast. Even I didn't think they'd work so fast...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Even I didn't think they'd work so fast...


I fail to see why given the speed these bastards effed up Ontario when they were in power provincially...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

martman said:


> I fail to see why given the speed these bastards effed up Ontario when they were in power provincially...


And I though Dion was running the Fiberals - Rae doesn't even have a seat. (But wait until he does, the Feds have a bunch of things he could put under...)


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Still avoiding the question AS? Nice to see an article from a "critic." :yawn: Deflecting :yawn: 

Better sound the alarm bells MD, housing market is next to crash too.  

EP, you mean Rae effed up Ontario too? Don't say that too load cause he's a Liberal now, so he'll be so much better at running a country.  :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> "pithy".....word of the day???.....almost to three syllables....


Nice going...two syllables is almost three, and I congratulate you on your astute observation.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

martman said:


> I fail to see why given the speed these bastards effed up Ontario when they were in power provincially...


what are you smoking?

They're in power now and they balanced the books, something the conservatives, failed to do. Surprise!

Last time I checked, it was Harris' conservatives that lied and left a deficit even after all their common sense BS.

And... in my Canada at least, it was the federal liberals that turned things around, even conservatives had said Martin as finance minister was a good thing.

I'm not hearing may good things, about Flaherty, who incidentally, was the finance minister in the conservative liars escape here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Is there a night school class in posting long winded meaningless responses that don't answer questions that I don't know about?
> Proof/examples?


The Connies are the biggest spenders and they have made cuts to social programs. That "long winded" answer should of been enough but since you seem be suffering from the same short attention span as most Connies, I don't think I can muster a sound byte that will please you. 
As a sidenote does anyone have JumboJones translator? I'm sure it would help in whatever this person is trying to communicate....

As for Rae, I'm quite sure that Harper be blaming the world economy for the downturn that Canada will be taking. 
Last time Flaherty did a good job of ruining Ontario's economy with no outside help...

But he's really good at giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poor and middle class... (how's that for the champion of the people?)


> It will take years before the federal government can bring in the kind of historic tax reductions for ordinary Canadians that it delivered for businesses in October, says Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
> 
> But while his Oct. 30 mini-budget set Canadian companies on track to be among the least taxed in the G7, reducing the corporate income tax to 15 per cent by 2012, it will take time for ordinary Canadians to see that degree of tax relief, he said.


CTV.ca | Big consumer tax relief years away, says Flaherty


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Tories break promise on lobbying*

'cause somehow it's different when they do it....



> Draft law fails to require ministers to register all communication
> 
> The Harper government broke its election promise yesterday to require ministers to record their contacts with lobbyists, instead ordering lobbyists to file monthly reports on their oral communication with federal officials.
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Tories break promise on lobbying


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *United Nations: Nordic Countries Best Place to Live in the World*
> 
> The Nordic countries have the best standard of living in the world, as per the Human Development Report published by the United Nations
> 
> ...


As Hazel McCallion said to Eves - "it's NOT lower taxes Canadians want - they want better value for their money from their tax dollars."

Flaherty didn't listen

ALL of those nations listed above have tax regimes higher than ours.

We have ALL the right factors in place to join those nations except at the federal level a government that understands that Canadians value an egalitarian society.

Flaherty was wrong headed in Ontario.......old dogs et al

Come the recession......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc, those studies are done with predetermined outcomes to tout UN goals. I don't believe Canadians value an "egalitarian" society, nor do they favour higher taxes. That's a hippie pipe dream of Euro-socialism.

Thank heaven we're not following that nanny state blueprint.

I will admit that your shaking rage combined with a touching case of adolescent Euro-envy makes for an amusing picture.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no we prefer to go down the US style road of 'screw 'em'.


no one favors higher taxes, but Canadians do, favor things like better health care. But Harper is betting on the fact that we'll forget all about one of his priorities involving health care.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GT: You can have the best health care in the world if you want to pay for it. 

But "egalitarian" can mean a lot of things--same wages? same income?--right on down to pure state communism. It needs a more careful definition before one can declare that Canadians approve of the concept.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> GT: You can have the best health care in the world if you want to pay for it.
> 
> But "egalitarian" can mean a lot of things--same wages? same income?--right on down to pure state communism. It needs a more careful definition before one can declare that Canadians approve of the concept.


what on earth are you yammering about? When did anyone say anything about communism? What a load of fear mongering horse crap.

Good grief can you spin the merry go round any harder?

And you accuse MD of adolescence??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Read a little more carefully GT--I said that the term "egalitarian" means many things to many people. The devil is in the details. When we say that Canadians favour an egalitarian society, we must also define what aspects of elgalitarianism they embrace. Pleass don't jump because I mentioned the word "communism."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Read a little more carefully GT--I said that the term "egalitarian" means many things to many people. The devil is in the details. When we say that Canadians favour an egalitarian society, we must also define what aspects of elgalitarianism they embrace. Pleass don't jump because I mentioned the word "communism."


No, I think you jumped to conclusions by mentioning communism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> No, I think you jumped to conclusions by mentioning communism.


In his Communist Manifest, Marx said communism would occur in three phases:

1. Bloody Revolution:
2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
3. Egalitarian Utopia:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Make it simple for the simple minded.

A low GINI index - say around 25 in a first world economy. 

Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Gini index

Norway and Sweden 25
Denmark 24


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The GINI index assumes that income equality of itself is a good thing, no matter how it is achieved. It's a bit of predetermined Euro-fluff designed to provide an accolade for heavily taxed societies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree MF, the term egalitarian is completely loaded. It means nothing to me unless the person using it provides a definition of what they mean by it. It could fit anywhere between libertarianism and communism.

I also don't buy that income disparity is a good measure to use.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> In his Communist Manifest, Marx said communism would occur in three phases:
> 
> 1. Bloody Revolution:
> 2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
> 3. Egalitarian Utopia:


Of course this has nothing to do with the discussion...

As for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:


> The key fact, which was going to bedevil the history of the term, is this: in the middle of the nineteenth century the old word ‘dictatorship’ still meant what it had meant for centuries, and in this meaning it was not a synonym for despotism, tyranny, absolutism, or autocracy, and a*bove all it was not counterposed to democracy.*


The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' in Marx and Engels by Hal Draper 1987

Or if you prefer


> The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie (propertied class). This transitional stage is also referred to as socialism by many Marxists.


Dictatorship of the proletariat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe we should explore Smith and see where he advocates government intervention....

Points for trying MF... One of the best ways of understanding capitalism is to read Marx and Engels, so maybe you are opening up...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe Canadians value an "egalitarian" society, nor do they favour higher taxes.


I do. Provided the taxes are spent on improving the welfare of Canadian citizens in general, rather than providing subsidies to profitable corporations.

I'd love to see Canada move in the direction of Norway or Sweden (they even have good hockey teams... we have a lot in common with those countries).

Cheers


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harper and fiends are the biggest spenders all the while cutting social services/programs.


Then name one white elephant that the Conservatives have wasted money on; and at the same time, name one social service that has been chopped out of existence??? Basically, all they cut back on was all of the corruption that Chretien engaged in; and they also cut out all of the class warfare nonsense that was peddled by the Martinites.

Canadians deserve a more fair tax system. GST helped ruin the economy of the nation, driving many jobs underground or out of the country. Cutting it back, even if it is only a percent, is an indication that we now have a government who wishes to treat people with a degree of fairness, and to end the ceaseless acts of class warfare engineered by the past forty years of liberality.

The snippets you posted only show that Canadians are subjected to a liberal controlled media with no freedom of the press. The only thing better than the1% GST cut is to eliminate the sinful tax in the first place. GST ruined New Zealand; and it nearly destroyed us - except for Alberta, who took a stand and chose to not attack the citizens through sales taxes that feed the corruption machine. The day they brought in PST in Ontario was the day the decline started...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> As Hazel McCallion said to Eves - "it's NOT lower taxes Canadians want - they want better value for their money from their tax dollars."


McCallion is a corrupt old windbag who basically destroyed Peel County, and is living (if I can use that term lightly) proof that we NEED term limits for politicians. Eves was a wannabe Conservative, but was entirely RED LIBERAL in all of his policies. (His wife did a much better job, running TVO and getting the job done there) Eves wasn't the man for the task because he never wanted to take the drastic measures that were needed. But then, McGuilty, barely a man himself, choose not to fix any of the problems either.

It is plainly evident that McCallion is stupid because Canadians are tired of being overtaxed - and we have lost many talented people to the US and other places because people want to earn money, not give it away to be spent on willy-nilly pet projects that have no place in the nation.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe we should explore Smith and see where he advocates government intervention.


Of course Smith was opposed to government intervention; but then, Smith indicates that the best profession to be in is that of Executioner, because you get paid a fair amount of money and really do not have to do much work. Of course, you have to Execute people, but you get paid the same whether the crime rate is up or down...

So perhaps Smith's theories of 250 years ago are perhaps outmoded; just like Galen's theories about bodily humors being out of balance...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to see Canada move in the direction of Norway or Sweden


Right now, we are moving the other way - towards Mongolia, which should be off of the coast of BC in perhaps 120 Million Years...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see
*Mayor Hazel.*
Voted in with 90+ percent majorities for 30 years and second best mayor in all the world by her peers.
Somehow your opinion doesn't carry much weight against those that live here....especially how framed.

••••••

*"I don't think Canadian's want......"*

65% + - currently.... 70% favour parties with strong egalitarian, social program planks in their policy statements but of course YOU know better. 

••

What Canadians are tired of is "do nothing" pols in Ottawa failing to give value for money, allowing gov to grow while failing to address numerous social issues such as public housing and ECE and continuing to hand out corporate welfare to the likes of the oil patch. They are not afraid to control predation and because much is local based there is an "in your face" aspect to being held accountable at the community level.

One reason the Nordic countries succeed is the balance of economic power between communities and central gov is about equal.
In Canada it's about as far as possible from equal.

Have/have not provincial transfers are deeply embedded ( read egalitarian program ) and by and large that gap has been reduced significantly over time but has left Ottawa with far too much power.

The third party at the table, the municipalities have been left out by the provinces ( Ontario has finally stepped up ) and the Feds notably under Harper.

What Canadians want is value for money at all levels of gov and fair distribution of power between Feds, prov and municipalities.

Instead we've seen poverty worsen, the rich/poor gap widen and municipalities starved for funding while Ottawa grows fat. Time for change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> As for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:


AS: Why on earth are you lecturing at great length about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? The purpose of the original post was to show that Marxist communism favoured egalitarianism as a goal. You are at times a mystery.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I do.


Bryanc: I have no doubt you do, in a sort of bloodless way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In his Communist Manifest, Marx said communism would occur in three phases:
> 
> 1. Bloody Revolution:
> 2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
> 3. Egalitarian Utopia:


Macfury, it's about context. It's really really quite simple. k.

Think about it. For a little while.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: You really ought to live in a Scandinavian country. I think you would really be happy there. Pretending that Canadians value the heavy hand of government in the same fashion as the effete Europeans is pure fantasy made up of tiny bits of polling data. 

I know, I know--you want someone else to pay for your hydrogen grid idea and to build a little house for you to live in and run transit up to your door. Sorry, pal--not here. We are moving farther awat from your ideals, not closer. Even the previous Libereal government saw to that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Macfury, it's about context. It's really really quite simple. k.
> 
> Think about it. For a little while.


GT: Seriously, if you've missed the point, I can live with it. Perhaps you weren't aware of the nature of undefined egalitarianism as it is lauded by a broad range of political thought.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> AS: Why on earth are you lecturing at great length about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? The purpose of the original post was to show that Marxist communism favoured egalitarianism as a goal. You are at times a mystery.


Yes we know what your intent was, it's just that no one here gives a crap, and as I said, wrong context.

Hello kettle...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> GT: Seriously, if you've missed the point, I can live with it. Perhaps you weren't aware of the nature of undefined egalitarianism as it is lauded by a broad range of political thought.


no. I was well aware of the context, which you seemed to have missed. 

I realize that you have knowledge of the term and it's possibilities and it's nice to show people that, but it's out of context and perhaps interesting in another thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, GT, Don't worry about it any more. Your last two posts are probably dangerously close to the "pot-kettle" stuff you want to avoid.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

really? how?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Because if discussing the many forms of egalitarianism after someone heralds it here as a key Canadian value is off topic--then certainly devoting post after post to explaining why such things are off topic, is even more off topic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Because if discussing the many forms of egalitarianism after someone heralds it here as a key Canadian value is off topic--then certainly devoting post after post to explaining why such things are off topic, is even more off topic.


because you don't get it.

It's just sooooo simple Macfury. We don't give 2 craps that you are interested in going in circles on the topic of egalitarianism like some excited first year uni student. I think we can easily figure out what macdoc was talking about, and the context.

Now get back to the topic, and stop going in circles about communism. It's just annoying.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GT: How about posting something you think is on-topic to encourage others instead? These "kettle" posts of yours are getting longer.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: You really ought to live in a Scandinavian country. I think you would really be happy there. Pretending that Canadians value the heavy hand of government in the same fashion as the effete Europeans is pure fantasy made up of tiny bits of polling data.
> 
> I know, I know--you want someone else to pay for your hydrogen grid idea and to build a little house for you to live in and run transit up to your door. Sorry, pal--not here. We are moving farther awat from your ideals, not closer. Even the previous Libereal government saw to that.


holy smokes. What the hell kind of nonsense rant is that?

Context Macfury, context. I don't think I ever got that from any of macdoc's post. 

Calm down.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> GT: How about posting something you think is on-topic to encourage others instead? These "kettle" posts of yours are getting longer.


when you stop ranting bout communism and building little houses for macdoc to live in, perhaps, I will.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GT: Seriously. Give it a rest. If you don't understand the context, then just write it off as not directed at you, OK?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you know when people start playing that little game of repeating you it's time to laugh.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just laugh then and get it over with.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> GT: How about posting something you think is on-topic to encourage others instead? These "kettle" posts of yours are getting longer.


Coming from you MF, that's really special....


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

About to head out for a bit, but this discussions decorum is dropping too low, so it is being closed until I have a minute to read through it.


----------

