# Harper legacy



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One wonders how long it will take to get from under his pall....



> *Child-care report card: Canada fails*
> December 11, 2008
> 
> Laurie Monsebraaten
> ...


ParentCentral.ca - News & Features - Child-care report card: Canada fails

last!!!???? of 25 nations......... Harper tore up the agreement Martin had with the provinces for a national program.

AND

Harper will go down as Bush and Stelmach's lap puppy on the environment....international pariah. 



> *Canada criticized for lax approach to environment*
> 
> MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Canada criticized for lax approach to environment

Time for ABC to go national......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Harper will go down as Bush and Stelmach's lap puppy on the environment....international pariah.


Ah yes, the dog thing again:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> last!!!???? of 25 nations......... Harper tore up the agreement Martin had with the provinces for a national program.


It was a good thing too, since Harper put an end to Martin's class warfare shenanigans. If people want to have kids, then they should raise them themselves, like in the old days. People without kids shouldn't have to pay to raise other people's kids. Real school is another thing, like from Grade 1 on. No kid should be shoved into school before the age of six.

It is absurd to force children into institutional environments, into nonsense like pre-nursery school, nursury school, pre junior kindergarten, junior kindrgarten, kindergarten, senior kindergarten, advanced kindergarted, etc.

If we are the last of 25 nations, it's because we are always the last of 25 nations in most things; and the root cause of that is government interference into people's lives, and the slack regulation of the dole which leads to a multi-generational welfare kultur.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

If people want to have kids they should pay for them like I did. If you can't afford them then don't have them. 

Birth control is readily available to everyone, even free for those on welfare.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well said adagio. We too paid friends to look after our kids when we both worked and my wife stayed home for seven years while they were small. We went without many things to accomplish this and today we have an appreciation for self reliance.

We never did let our wants outstrip our needs like so many today who must have everything they want and insist the government (we taxpayers) support their lifestyles.


----------



## norrab (Apr 29, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> If people want to have kids, then they should raise them themselves, like in the old days. People without kids shouldn't have to pay to raise other people's kids.


Your same logic should be applied to healthcare in this nation as well correct? I'm sure "People without illness shouldn't have to pay to heal other people"? 

It is a very narrow and selfish view of the world we live in to say such things. A very typical Conservative / Consumerist view that does nothing for the greater good. The "old days" are called such because that is what they are, old and gone. It's simply not feasible for a large number of families out there to have only one working parent AND afford a roof over their heads. You speak of Harper ending Martin's class warfare, but this type of thinking is exactly what creates class warfare. The "have's" can afford the best childcare and enjoy the benefits that come from continuing their career's while the "have not's" must find the cheapest childcare solutions in order to work, or stay at home if they can afford it. 

Staying at home instead of working with affordable childcare does nothing to contribute to the tax base of this nation.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> If people want to have kids, then they should raise them themselves, like in the old days.


Right on!! Let's bring back the Old Days-things were SO MUCH better in the Old Days. Everyone was smarter, and more moral, and just, well, just better!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Illness isn't a choice. In almost every case, having a child is. Having children is a service to nobody but yourself. If it is not feasible for people to have a roof over their heads AND have children, then let them choose between the roof and the children. 

If you can't afford to look after them, how is it moral to shift the cost onto others who are also making difficult economic choices?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

There are conversations about what funding means, who qualifies and who pays that are key to all of it. Nonetheless there is a need for a high quality system of child care and early education. Investment in children is good for all of us-it benefits our society in the long run, IMO. 
Also, subsidized day care allows lots of single parents to work who otherwise would just be on welfare. It's partly about removing disincentives.

My point in my sarcastic post was that the world has changed dramatically, and a clarion call to the old days is just simplistic and unrealistic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

norrab said:


> Your same logic should be applied to healthcare in this nation as well correct? I'm sure "People without illness shouldn't have to pay to heal other people"?
> 
> It is a very narrow and selfish view of the world we live in to say such things.


People don't choose their illness, but they do choose to have children either deliberately or by poor birth control practices.

It is a very narrow and selfish view to have me and other taxpayers burdened with their poor decision making process. Bottom line, if you can't afford them, don't have them.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> People don't choose their illness, but they do choose to have children either deliberately or by poor birth control practices.
> 
> It is a very narrow and selfish view to have me and other taxpayers burdened with their poor decision making process. Bottom line, if you can't afford them, don't have them.


This is just dreaming in technicolor. Let's deal with what really happens. The people who can often least afford to have kids have them, and in one way or another, our society subsidizes them. This is not going to go away simply by our saying, if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Canada is not going to completely dismantle our social safety net and abandon the poor.

I also think that it is a very narrow and selfish view to refuse to recognize that healthy well educated children contribute to our society in ways that go beyond our individual families.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Emphasis should be placed on birth control, not supporting the unhappy and endless stream of progeny from baby machines. In the overpopulated 21st Century, we simply have no need for anybody's children, well fed, educated or otherwise.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> This is just dreaming in technicolor. Let's deal with what really happens. The people who can often least afford to have kids have them, and in one way or another, our society subsidizes them. This is not going to go away simply by our saying, if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Canada is not going to completely dismantle our social safety net and abandon the poor.
> 
> I also think that it is a very narrow and selfish view to refuse to recognize that healthy well educated children contribute to our society in ways that go beyond our individual families.


I have news for you. I also think that "healthy well educated children contribute to our society in ways that go beyond our individual families".

But our social safety net is NOT designed to have taxpayers on the hook for the sexual antics of the irresponsible who cannot afford to raise children. MF is right about birth control education.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> People don't choose their illness, but they do choose to have children either deliberately or by poor birth control practices.
> 
> It is a very narrow and selfish view to have me and other taxpayers burdened with their poor decision making process. Bottom line, if you can't afford them, don't have them.


Actually, people DO choose their illness. They choose it when they smoke, drink, caffeinate their bloodstream with endless coffee, don't brush their teeth, and eat bad food loaded with fat and sugar (or both).

Why should I have to pay for somebody else's lack of healthy lifestyle? Heck, why should I have to pay for someone else's welfare cheque for that matter?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Manny: I do agree with you, but let's take these down one at a time, OK?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Manny: I do agree with you, but let's take these down one at a time, OK?


But it's more fun this way.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

This IS fun, actually. 

If you actually go back and read the OP from the Globe, it's really about a whole lot more than subsidized day care. We are focusing on who has to pay for child rearing, which really isn't the point.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

norrab said:


> Your same logic should be applied to healthcare in this nation as well correct? I'm sure "People without illness shouldn't have to pay to heal other people"?


But the inverse, as applied to your view on healthcare, would be for the public at large to pay for all cosmetic surgury procedures, like face lifts, boob jobs, liposuction, or whatever. Where would you draw the limits when it comes to public funding?

Plus, the health care analogy is kind of a poor one, since we are paying top dollar for a dysfunctional system that is entirely unable to provide timely care and an adequate manner...



> It's simply not feasible for a large number of families out there to have only one working parent AND afford a roof over their heads.


We already have programs for such things - but to mandate mandatory day care for all children on the public dime is an act of class warfare.


----------



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

Part of his legacy could be a more conservative Senate. This just in from CBC.com

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to fill all 18 vacancies in the Liberal-dominated Senate before Christmas, a spokesman for his office told CBC News.

The move came under quick attack from opposition parties, who questioned whether Harper has the right to make patronage appointments while Parliament is suspended.

"This is quite shocking to fly in the face of the confidence motion on the table, that he would think that he could do any of these kinds of things," Ontario Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett said Thursday in Ottawa.

"He pulled the plug on his own government .… And this government has no money to spend now and yet he's going to appoint Senate seats. I mean, it's appalling. He has no moral authority to do anything."

The move signals a change in Harper's position on the Senate. The Tories have not appointed anyone to the upper chamber since coming to power in 2006 due to disagreements with the way appointments are made, but has not been able to pass any legislation to change it.

Harper has called for Senators to be elected rather than appointed by the prime minister as is the current practice, or for the body to be abolished if changes can't be made. "


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dude's pulling out all the stops, isn't he. Kind of ironic, given his party's long-held stance over Senate appointments. Now he's going over the wall, guns blazing. I feel like I'm watching an old Western. Or maybe a bad opera. Cue the tears!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Iggy would have no problem making those appointments. PM dude is just being realistic here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Faaaaaar out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well said adagio. We too paid friends to look after our kids when we both worked and my wife stayed home for seven years while they were small. We went without many things to accomplish this and today we have an appreciation for self reliance.
> 
> We never did let our wants outstrip our needs like so many today who must have everything they want and insist the government (we taxpayers) support their lifestyles.


back when families can survive on one income and the wife did the dishes?

Ahhh. The good old days...


You guys need to wake up it's 2008.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's 2008 for sure. Can't expect a wife to stay home and do the dishes and you can't expect others to pay to raise your kids either. Solution: have fewer kids or have none at all.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Who said anything about staying home and doing the dishes? I worked.

The difference between me and those who have their hands out to the government, and feel entitled to other folk's money, I had *ONE* child that I could afford. I made darn sure it stayed that way.

If you can't afford them, don't have 'em. There are plenty of remedies before and after conception available.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Only the rich should have children. Perhaps an economic means test should be applied before you receive your procreation permit?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You don't need to be rich to raise a child--just committed. But if you want all of life's other amenities AND children too, you'll have to make adjustments to your "needs" list.


----------



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

Max, I agree. As well, the rationale that Harper gave, mainly that his appointments would make the Senate more effective, is such rhetoric. I support the abolition of the Senate, or at least an elected Senate. Of course, getting rid of the GG's office would be high up on my wish list as well. I don't see that office as being abolished unless she decides to hand the government over to the coalition rather than call for an election. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If she handed the office to the coalition, I surely doubt they would suddenly eliminate the position--they might need her again some day.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Or the conservatives. Mind you, should they ditch that office, they'd simply find another way of going about mucking with the country. They're very ambitious, you know!


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Iggy would have no problem making those appointments. PM dude is just being realistic here.


If he said that an elected senate was what he intended, then making 18 appointments while parliament is suspended is one or more of:
cynical
opportunistic
disingenuous
arrogant

Harper is just making a world of hurt for everyone with this warrior behaviour.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

mc3251 said:


> Harper is just making a world of hurt for everyone with this warrior behaviour.


You have to wonder what he's going to do once all options are exhausted. Pick up a rifle and go postal in the house? I wouldn't put it past him. Power at all costs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> If he said that an elected senate was what he intended, then making 18 appointments while parliament is suspended is one or more of:
> cynical
> opportunistic
> disingenuous
> ...


So, if the coalition grabs power, they wouldn't make the appointments? 

Any PM caught in the same situation would make the appointments, regardless of his political spots. One party's as cheezy as the other when it comes to senate appointments.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> So, if the coalition grabs power, they wouldn't make the appointments?
> 
> Any PM caught in the same situation would make the appointments, regardless of his political spots. One party's as cheezy as the other when it comes to senate appointments.


I love the justification. Harper's doing it, _but they would do it also_. Even though it's Harper who's doing it. 

How do we know they would do it also? We don't. I guess the logic is that because Harper is an arrogant scum, they must be also. Hmmm....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The assumption is that the Liberals have now shown they are capable of anything. Fool me once...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I love the justification. Harper's doing it, _but they would do it also_. Even though it's Harper who's doing it.
> 
> How do we know they would do it also? We don't. I guess the logic is that because Harper is an arrogant scum, they must be also. Hmmm....


It is your logic that is flawed if you really believe the Liberals wouldn't. The have way more experience at being arrogant scum. ie: We'll cancel the GST and Adscam for example.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> It is your logic that is flawed if you really believe the Liberals wouldn't. The have way more experience at being arrogant scum. ie: We'll cancel the GST and Adscam for example.


No actually it's yours that is flawed. You are justifying. Plain and simple. Deal with what Harper is doing. Don't backtrack and talk in circles. Unless of course, you're a politician also.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It was generally accepted that the winner of an election would be allowed to govern without fear of an "unofficial coalition" grabbing power.That move has changed the political landscape forever. This is the new normal.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> So, if the coalition grabs power, they wouldn't make the appointments?
> 
> Any PM caught in the same situation would make the appointments, regardless of his political spots. One party's as cheezy as the other when it comes to senate appointments


Didn't your Mom teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

This is all just pure justification. The coalition is so evil that ends justify means in dealing with them. Give me a break.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> t was generally accepted that the winner of an election would be allowed to govern without fear of an "unofficial coalition" grabbing power.That move has changed the political landscape forever. This is the new normal.


The "winner" as you say, won a MINORITY. This means that you don't get to just dictate stuff like you have a majority. It also means that you have to pay SOME attention to getting the rest (uh, that would be the majority?) to agree, or at a minimum not enfuriate all of them at once.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> No actually it's yours that is flawed. You are justifying. Plain and simple. Deal with what Harper is doing. Don't backtrack and talk in circles. Unless of course, you're a politician also.


Like I stated, any PM caught in the same circumstance would make the appointments. You have no way of proving they would not.

Unless of course you go in circles or backtrack.

By the way, how does one "talk in circles" on this forum? I've never seen it done before. Type perhaps, but talk?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Tha "majority" is not "the majority" until they unite. I never saw the coalition as a majority because the Bloc refused to join it officially.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Like I stated, any PM caught in the same circumstance would make the appointments. You have no way of proving they would not.


And you have no way of proving they would. Ergo, flawed logic.



SINC said:


> Unless of course you go in circles or backtrack.
> 
> By the way, how does one "talk in circles" on this forum? I've never seen it done before. Type perhaps, but talk?


Oh dear. Is this really the best you've got?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All one needs is the likelihood that such a thing might happen. Dion's foolishness has lowered the bar on what is likely.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh dear. Is this really the best you've got?


Apparently is was _your_ best. I simply pointed it out.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Apparently is was _your_ best. I simply pointed it out.


Oh SINC... keep trying.


----------



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

Harper's legacy? He shall go down as one of the finest Conservative PMs of the 21st century ............. or at least be considered the first Conservative PM of the 21st century. Either way, he goes down in the history books. Children will learn about him in the years to come ................ We shall see.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

The Rod Blogojevich Hair Institute has reserved a place for the study of Harper's 'do, that much is certain. Harper's hair will reside just down the hall from the Phil Spector and James Trafficant Wing, next to the Flock of Seagulls Hall.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Actually, people DO choose their illness.


Then I would choose Paget's Disease - because it would be handy to have a six inch thick skull just in case some axe murderer comes up behind me at Young and Eglinton...



> Heck, why should I have to pay for someone else's welfare cheque for that matter?


I don't think anyone begrudges having a safety net, for those that become disabled on the job, or families that are adversely affected by job losses - but it's another thing when a family is into the fourth generation on the dole, and believes that Coke and Fritos makes for an excellent start on the day. Talking about ancestors must be interesting: "Yes Johnny, your grandfather Smith was on pogey for two years before he landed on the dole for forty two years before he retired..."


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Harper has to stuff the Senate, not only so he can reform the Senate, but to balance the weight of Sharon Carstairs - before Parliament starts tilting over like the Tower of Pisa. 18 may do the trick, so long as he appoints sumo wrestlers. beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> You have to wonder what he's going to do once all options are exhausted. Pick up a rifle and go postal in the house? I wouldn't put it past him. Power at all costs.


What works for Mugabe could work for Harper...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think they will get rid of the Senate or the Governor-General. I base that on the fact that we still have a Privy Council - which is an "institution" that was originally dedicated to wiping the royal tuckas and keeping it clean.

These days pretty much everyone has universal access to toilet paper - but still we have the Privy Council on call, just in case...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Steve Steve Steve.....

globeandmail.com: Tories filled 25 positions day after fiscal update



> OTTAWA — The Harper government approved 25 appointments to federal pension tribunals and employment insurance boards a day after it tabled an economic statement that nearly led to its defeat in the House of Commons.
> 
> Government records show the appointments, all to agencies that are used as traditional patronage rewards for party faithful, went through cabinet on Friday, Nov. 28, as opposition outrage over the Conservative plan began building.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Made me laugh....

Good read

globeandmail.com: Harper has some sober second thoughts

tagline



> Hundreds? You mean thousands. This is the biggest treasure trove of Conservative patronage since Brian Mulroney's time. The lobbying for these Senate appointments is ferocious, shameless and ubiquitous."
> 
> ]"Fred, didn't Mulroney tell John Turner that patronage was a bad, bad thing, and he would do better?"
> 
> "He did better, all right, but not in the way Canadians thought. Mulroney stood in a long line of prime ministers that now includes Mr. Harper who, as leaders of the opposition, denounced patronage, until they arrived in office."


 ..same old same old....I wonder what Preston Manning thinks of Harper these days....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Tories filled 25 other jobs*
> 
> OTTAWA–The Harper government approved 25 appointments to federal pension tribunals and employment insurance boards a day after it tabled an economic statement that nearly led to its defeat in the Commons.
> 
> ...



TheStar.com | Canada | Harper's Senate plan blasted


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah Bush north.....the creeping contagion...classic Flaherty...



> *How high-risk mortgages crept north*
> 
> The untold story of how elements of the first Conservative budget in 2006 encouraged big U.S. players such as AIG to make a push into Canada, creating our version of subprime mortgages
> 
> ...


here is the rest - an illuminating read....

globeandmail.com: How high-risk mortgages crept north


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Tha "majority" is not "the majority" until they unite. I never saw the coalition as a majority because the Bloc refused to join it officially.


Right-which is why if you have a potential majority on the other side of the house you need to pay just a little attention to not enraging everyone at once. Unless of course you are so arrogant that you just think that if you say it, people will do it without question.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Like I stated, any PM caught in the same circumstance would make the appointments. You have no way of proving they would not.
> 
> Unless of course you go in circles or backtrack.
> 
> By the way, how does one "talk in circles" on this forum? I've never seen it done before. Type perhaps, but talk?


I think you've managed it very well, here. See above...you are saying that he can't prove they wouldn't? Of course not. And you can't prove that any PM would.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Steve Steve Steve.....
> 
> globeandmail.com: Tories filled 25 positions day after fiscal update


This is the stuff that makes me mad. Here we have Harper and Flaherty promising a "line by line" scrutiny of federal budgets and costs, combined with an attempt to remove fed civil servants right to strike, while at the same time just blindly filling vacancies with expensive patronage appointments.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

mc3251 said:


> This is the stuff that makes me mad. Here we have Harper and Flaherty promising a "line by line" scrutiny of federal budgets and costs, combined with an attempt to remove fed civil servants right to strike, while at the same time just blindly filling vacancies with expensive patronage appointments.


Anyone who believes they were just trying to save us poor taxpayers a little money by getting us into this mess is either gullible as all get out, dumb as a door mat or so indoctrinated they have lost all critical faculty. 

Or they're from Alberta  .


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Agree completely. Being p***ed off about it is stating the obvious, I guess, but it still makes me angry, because it is dishonest and misleading. They count on the good will and forbearance of Canadians to suck it up and swallow the "strong medicine" that we need, and then they gush patronage dollars and featherbedding all over their friends. Disgusting.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's not like we'd save money if Harper didn't fill the patronage jobs - the jobs have to be filled anyways. The only way is to reform the Government entirely and abolish patronage jobs - but that would require a huge effort, and the proposal to do that entirely derailed the Clark Government.

The last PM to carry out such a reform was Robert Borden, and Canadians are not prepared to make the kinds of changes that we need to put a much needed technocratic system into play within the Civil Service. Just like when the diplomatic core was entirely gutted by the actions taken on that day in Cairo fifty years ago...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mc3251 said:


> Agree completely. Being p***ed off about it is stating the obvious, I guess, but it still makes me angry, because it is dishonest and misleading. They count on the good will and forbearance of Canadians to suck it up and swallow the "strong medicine" that we need, and then they gush patronage dollars and featherbedding all over their friends. Disgusting.


How soon they forget:



> *'The King Of Patronage'*
> 
> Seven years after vowing to review the appointment process, the Chretien patronage machine is humming along, beating even Brian Mulroney at the political 'game of friends.'
> 
> ...



Jean Chretien - The King of Patronage


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> How soon they forget:


But SINC, the Reformatives said they were going to be different. That's why people voted for them. I guess they're not different at all. Possibly even, , worse.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> But SINC, the Reformatives said they were going to be different. That's why people voted for them. I guess they're not different at all. Possibly even, , worse.


Read the story above your last post. You'll find it states that the Liberals were going to be different too. 



> *And in the 1993 Red Book of election promises, the Liberals vowed to restore integrity to government and review the appointment process to ensure jobs were filled on the basis of competence.*


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

It's all disgusting.
No one is ever completely different, whatever they claim when they are running. But the blatant disregard of promises made and expectations created is part of why we all become so bloody cynical about our political leaders.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> But SINC, the Reformatives said they were going to be different. That's why people voted for them.


The Reform party folded eight years ago, after it was determined that people *wouldn't* vote for them outside their base in the West.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of being not *that* different.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> The Reform party folded eight years ago, after it was determined that people *wouldn't* vote for them outside their base in the West.
> 
> The Conservatives ran on a platform of being not *that* different.


That's correct, and for the sake of truth in advertising, they removed the word "progressive" from the original Progressive Conservative brand.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> It's not like we'd save money if Harper didn't fill the patronage jobs - the jobs have to be filled anyways. The only way is to reform the Government entirely and abolish patronage jobs - but that would require a huge effort, and the proposal to do that entirely derailed the Clark Government.
> 
> The last PM to carry out such a reform was Robert Borden, and Canadians are not prepared to make the kinds of changes that we need to put a much needed technocratic system into play within the Civil Service. Just like when the diplomatic core was entirely gutted by the actions taken on that day in Cairo fifty years ago...


So I guess we'll just have to wait until the youngest senator turns 75 before we can embark on any real senate reform. Or President Harper could just admit that he's a hypocrite and leave it at that.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Someone should start a Patronage and Hypocrisy Party, if truth in advertising is what we are after.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> So I guess we'll just have to wait until the youngest senator turns 75 before we can embark on any real senate reform. Or President Harper could just admit that he's a hypocrite and leave it at that.


Senate Reform is a Holy Grail that will never be attained - seeing that it was as early as 1869 (two years after Confederation), that it was observed that the Senate was nothing more than an expensive but useless drinking club - a status it still enjoys.

It's like one of those dangling moles that some people get - looks bad but is harmless, so it remains ignored because it would take effort to get rid of it.

I think important reforms would include making the size of the Cabinet, and the Baliwick of what the Cabinet Ministers do - regular, like they have in the US, rather than this constant fluctuation of size and who does what...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Read the story above your last post. You'll find it states that the Liberals were going to be different too.


So, the tories are just as bad as the liberals.

Saw this on the G&M today...
globeandmail.com: How high-risk mortgages crept north

Seems Harper and co. has made it possible for us to be nailed by this crisis as well.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Saw this on the G&M today...
> globeandmail.com: How high-risk mortgages crept north
> 
> Seems Harper and co. has made it possible for us to be nailed by this crisis as well.


Read the article again - a lot of the groundwork was laid during the Liberal era.


> The days of a CMHC-Genworth duopoly were numbered. In the fall of 2005, a tiny paragraph buried in a 280-page federal government estimate of expenditures signalled a new era of competition in the industry.
> ...
> Ultimately, Parliament did not vote on the Finance Department's proposal, thanks to the 2006 federal election...


It looks as though the Liberals were ~starting~ to go down the road to Canadian sub prime mortgages, but were "saved by the bell" when the Martin government fell. The Conservatives then cheerfully finished what had been started.

While I agree that 40 year / 0 down mortgages are a bad thing, and I'm appalled at how much influence US corporate interests have on our policy, I don't think either the Liberals or the Conservatives can claim the high ground on this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Read MY post again. I think my first line says it all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Buttons du jour



















SUCH a beloved PM


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> So I guess we'll just have to wait until the youngest senator turns 75 before we can embark on any real senate reform. Or President Harper could just admit that he's a hypocrite and leave it at that.


Real Senate reform would require changes to the Constitution - and we all know that changes to the Constitution can only happen after Quebec has been thoroughly pandered to in all respects, and established in the Constitution as a Jim Crow segregationalist province with a set of powers completely different from the rest of the Nation.

I would suspect that we will have to wait much, much longer than for the youngest Senator to turn 75. In fact, it may be 75 years after Hell has not only frozen over, but after Hell has been turned into a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

Reform of the Senate would also need to be part of a package of real reforms that would see to the election of the Governor-General, the abolition of the Privy Council, the regularization of the Cabinet, nomination hearings for all senior civil servants and Cabinet ministers, subject to the veto of the House and Senate, etc... 

Seeing that we can't even get effective sentences for drunk drivers - I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Zinger out of the Globe today on Harper's megalomania



> *The Canadian finance minister who wasn't*
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...


The little dictator's barking dog......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh my, the Globe? And they are such staunch supporters of the Conservatives too!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Having endorsed Harper the last few elections, I guess you could say they were.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Extremely lukewarm endorsements in the age of Dion. They're waiting for a Liberal to really get behind.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oh my, the Globe? And they are such staunch supporters of the Conservatives too!


I'd say it has more credibility than The Sun for example. The point is, Steve has fewer and fewer places left to hide.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I keep coming back to this thread to see how y'all are doing.
I see the "My politician is less evil than your politician" contest is still on. Good!

One question: EP what in the heck is a "Bose-Einstein Condensate"? It's probably something I should know, but what the hell...I'm imperfect.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Next election lets choose between Satan, Lucifer, and Belzeebub.
> 
> It's less evil than any of the current offerings.


Certainly a more open and transparent evil than the current offerings.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> One question: EP what in the heck is a "Bose-Einstein Condensate"? It's probably something I should know, but what the hell...I'm imperfect.


Matter that is so entirely frozen that it acts as a single atom, and is created by freezing a gas to fractions of a degree above absolute zero, then pushing out any atoms that are still vibrating with a laser. It is the closest thing to absolute zero yet created...

Bose - Einstein condensate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> Certainly a more open and transparent evil than the current offerings.


At least they'd only steal your souls - keeping your wallet intact...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Matter that is so entirely frozen that it acts as a single atom, and is created by freezing a gas to fractions of a degree above absolute zero, then pushing out any atoms that are still vibrating with a laser. It is the closest thing to absolute zero yet created...
> 
> Bose - Einstein condensate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Right!! I knew that...


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

This thread was in interesting read. I've got two points for you guys to ponder:

1) I think it's too early to determine what Harper's legacy will be, but at this point I think it's safe to say that whatever the legacy becomes, it will include the prorogation of parliament if for no other reason that it was unprecedented.

2) The fact that some people seem to think that the politicians in Ottawa are there representing your best interests and doing what's best for Canada is an interesting one. Let's be clear about one thing: Mr. Harper, Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton Ms. May and all the rest are not there to represent you. They are not there to help you. They are not there to do what's best for Canada. They are there because they are the most skilled of career politicians in the country. They're there to look after themselves first and foremost. Not you, not me, not the country.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Amiga2000HD said:


> 1) I think it's too early to determine what Harper's legacy will be, but at this point I think it's safe to say that whatever the legacy becomes, it will include the prorogation of parliament if for no other reason that it was unprecedented.


That will be nothing more than a trivial footnote - like then Joe Clark let the bells ring for a month to try to kaibosh some of Trudeau's stunts. Perhaps it will be studied - as an example of how Dion made a move that so perfectly fragged himself, how Layton looked like more of a glad handler than imaginable, and how Harper entirely set up the Coalition for the big fall without even a flaw in the execution of his plan.

Canada has no greater student of Machiavelli than Stephen Harper (and no policies fresher or as progressive than that of the Borgias).



> Let's be clear about one thing: Mr. Harper, Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton Ms. May and all the rest are not there to represent you. They are not there to help you. They are not there to do what's best for Canada. They are there because they are the most skilled of career politicians in the country.


That doesn't say much of the skills of the other career politicians in this country...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> Let's be clear about one thing: Mr. Harper, Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton Ms. May and all the rest are not there to represent you. They are not there to help you. They are not there to do what's best for Canada. They are there because they are the most skilled of career politicians in the country.


It is inherent in our political system that in order to do what is best for Canada, one has to get elected and stay elected. This may seem blindingly obvious, but it has many implications that drive politicians' actions. It also explains much contradictory and manipulative behaviour as well.

I do think that many politicians want to do what is best for their constituency, but getting agreement on what is best is always difficult. There is also the role that the very human qualities of egotism and lust for power play-one only has to take a look at Ottawa and Washington to see this in living colour.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I get the distinct impression Harper is "in bad odour" with the Globe and Mail....I'd be surprised if he gets their endorsement anytime in the future

One zinger after another.....



> GLOBE EDITORIAL
> 
> *New policies, familiar rhetoric*
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: New policies, familiar rhetoric


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

> globeandmail.com: New policies, familiar rhetoric


Sounds like the Globe And Mail is keeping to a safe path, by altering policies to fit their rhetoric, just like they bend their stories to fit their peculiar agenda...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Sounds like the Globe And Mail is keeping to a safe path, by altering policies to fit their rhetoric, just like they bend their stories to fit their peculiar agenda...


The media as well is not immune from bias and preference. Their editorials and columnists are definitely writing opinion pieces. Their overall reporting is of a pretty high caliber though, IMHO, and I for one am glad they are there. It is always caveat emptor, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> OPINION
> 
> *Canada deserves its 'Colossal Fossil' award*
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Opinion | Canada deserves its 'Colossal Fossil' award


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, global warming all right:

Toronto's snow woes spark flight delays across Canada

The big chill: Western Canada remains in deep freeze

Feels like -50 C as deep freeze settles on Prairies

Western deep freeze curbs CN Rail operations

Deep freeze continues in southern Manitoba


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's been said a thousand times Sinc. Global warming can cause extreme weather on either side of the thermometer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Add the snow in Las Vegas to those woes. I'm cool with being the biggest fossil in the universe.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> It's been said a thousand times Sinc. Global warming can cause extreme weather on either side of the thermometer.


Absolutely, although sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Add the snow in Las Vegas to those woes. I'm cool with being the biggest fossil in the universe.


It's nothing unusual - wasn't it last winter when they had that blizzard in Saudi Arabia???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Global warming cannot cause consistent extreme cooling while the global average temperature declines--and still be global warming.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yep, global warming all right


For the 1,000th time at least: global warming does not refer to, nor have anything to do with, the temperature outside your house today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

COTU at play - they never have understood ENSO. 
A cool winter was called for due to a cool eastern Pacific 










ENSO forecast is verging on renewed La Nina.



> A majority of the SST forecasts indicate ENSO-neutral conditions (Niño-3.4 index of -0.5°C to 0.5°C) will continue into the first half of 2009. Several models, including the NOAA Climate Forecast System (CFS), suggest the development of La Niña during December 2008- March 2009


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

But SPEAKING of the weather today, Victoria has had snow for a week now, with more on the way. I haven't lived here long enough to know, but locals tell me that's VERY VERY ODD.

Changing weather patterns, no question.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Changing weather patterns, no question.


They ALWAYS change.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How many pensions for how many years 

same cat, different stripe....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
If they banned the inclusion of Carbon into gasoline - we would no longer have a problem with CO2...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The smart money says Harper exits this year*
> 
> If he does, he'll join a tiny club of Tory achievers who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state


globeandmail.com: The smart money says Harper exits this year

good riddance


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm starting to believe that anyone Maccy D hates this much is probably good for the country.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I don't like Harper much, frankly. I don't think that he is the ultimate evil though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Trouble his HE might think so... Petty tyrant n'all


----------

