# The Coming Election - Part III



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Now that Parliament is back at it, after a lengthy Yuletide vacation, it is time yet again to prognosticate on the chances of an Election on the horizon.

King Harper probably should have called an Election in October, now he is sitting atop a number of pretty big scandals. Afghanistan is on the mind of the press, but I think the real blood is in the whole AECL / Chalk River Reactor, which is a major scandal because the nuclear regulators were manipulated, money for installation of safety equipment went missing, the whistle blower lost her job because she was doing her job, and thousands of radiotherapy patients were forced to wait for important, lifesaving treatments. Harper may have made critical errors that will doom him to life on the other side of the house. And what ever happened to Senate reform? Can the government actually legislate limits on the amount of draught beer that any Senator may drink during the sitting of the Red Room?

The Liberals probably should have picked Ignatieff, though Dion will be a convenient scapegoat if they fail to get elected. Will the party pull together and pull off something in the election, or are they doomed to interminable backstabbing and unclear policies?

Duceppe continues to lead the circus known as the Bloc, and does so with a fair degree of civility. I think he prefers to deal with the Federalists on an issue by issue basis, rather than having to deal with the freaks and nut jobs that back Segregation. Can he defend the core of his party from the federal Liberals? Can he defend himself from attacks by the provincial Liberals and their support of the federal Conservatives? Can he keep the NDP from making further inroads into the turfs of the Bloc? And can he keep the party from splitting into factions, which could place the Social Creditists back into politics?

Layton keeps adding to the strengths of his party, but can he stem the loss of the Environmental and Youth vote to the Green Party? Can he gain the support of the trade unions?

Can Elizabeth May show that she is a true leader of the Greens, or does she show her cards as a usurper in a party better handled by her predecessor? Will the Greens present policies that will actually work, rather than just making statements ranting about the environment?

And perhaps most of all, will anyone get out there and vote - to make a difference in the destiny of this nation? Well, if there is a vote...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Layton keeps adding to the strengths of his party...


He does? What are these strengths, and how is he adding to them?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I totally love how Jack Layton upsets the very core of conservatives.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'd love to see the Greens develop some strong policies outside of their environmental bailiwick. As a young party, they can cherry-pick the best of the fiscally conservative economic policies, and combine them with the best of the liberal social polices and become the 'natural governing party' for the 21st century.

That certainly seems to be the direction they're headed, but it will take time, and it certainly won't be happening in this election. Still, I'll probably vote for them unless it looks like the Cons have a shot in my riding, in which case I'll vote for "Anyone who can beat the Conservative" (I'll even hold my nose and vote Liberal if that's what it takes).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I totally love how Jack Layton upsets the very core of conservatives.


Jack Layton isn't upsetting, he's a soporific. He's just the kind of guy conservatives like to see in charge of the NDP.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh really. For someone supposedly "soporific", I see a lot of conservatives taking a whole lot of time heaping scorn on the guy.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Oh really. For someone supposedly "soporific", I see a lot of conservatives taking a whole lot of time heaping scorn on the guy.


Like?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

are you serious?

Read any conservative blogs lately? Does Taliban Jack ring a bell?

holy smokes Martha...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to see the Greens develop some strong policies outside of their environmental bailiwick. As a young party, they can cherry-pick the best of the fiscally conservative economic policies, and combine them with the best of the liberal social polices and become the 'natural governing party' for the 21st century.
> 
> That certainly seems to be the direction they're headed, but it will take time, and it certainly won't be happening in this election. Still, I'll probably vote for them unless it looks like the Cons have a shot in my riding, in which case I'll vote for "Anyone who can beat the Conservative" (I'll even hold my nose and vote Liberal if that's what it takes).
> 
> Cheers


I agree. The Greens lack coherant policy on issues outside of the environmental realm. Part of the problem is that their base of support and candidates came from varied backgrounds which include people from both the extreme left and the extreme right. If they are to advance, they need to get past this. It won't be easy but somebody needs to make tough choices.

Personally, I would like to see them position themselves as small c Conservatives with a strong environmental agenda. That would be something I could support.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> are you serious?
> 
> Read any conservative blogs lately? Does Taliban Jack ring a bell?
> 
> holy smokes Martha...


I guess you read more conservative blogs than I do. Jack's name doesn't come up at all in my circles.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MF, you don't need to read blogs to see this. I have been amused at the the way conservatives have guffawed at Jack Layton, reported in mainstream news, and in forums/blogs ie: seeing the two of you jump to attention the minute someone dared say he might be improving his fortunes.

a wee too much protest?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: I'm not protesting at all. Saying he was improving the party's fortunes struck me as intriguing, with the party stuck in the basement. I hadn't thought of Layton in months. I imagine part of the process involves removing accumulated cobwebs.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

from 'soporific' to, intriguing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, EvanPitts' comments were intriguing, in light of Mr. Layton's soporific qualities.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Actually I think most Conservatives wish that Layton could up his game a little. The NDP should be peeling off support from the Liberals while they tear themselves apart...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Personally, I would like to see them position themselves as small c Conservatives with a strong environmental agenda. That would be something I could support.


Agreed!

If an election were held today, I would expect that Parliament would look pretty much as it does today - i.e., another Conservative minority.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see the Cons are polling below the Libs......that says much for the entire bunch of clowns in Ottawa.



> *Liberals back in the lead in latest poll, as see saw battle continues*
> 
> Source: The Canadian Press
> Jan 28, 2008 15:56
> ...


and just up.......same cats different stripes. Toss the lot in my view 



> *PM's aide intervened for Montreal developer*
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> 
> ...


do we detect a pattern here.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I see the Cons are polling below the Libs......that says much for the entire bunch of clowns in Ottawa


What did it say for them when they were polling much higher than the Libs in December?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Personally, I would like to see them position themselves as small c Conservatives with a strong environmental agenda. That would be something I could support.


It would be a little weird, but I think I could get over the fact that we'd be voting for the same party 

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If their environmental agenda were backed up with an overall decline in government spending across the board, I would back the platform in a heartbeat.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If their environmental agenda were backed up with an overall decline in government spending across the board, I would back the platform in a heartbeat.


It's a little difficult to get a read on it, but I think the Greens are fairly fiscally conservative, and I think they'd definitely reduce overall government spending (especially if you consider corporate tax breaks an expense).

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Since Harper has managed to both grow gov spending and remove program headroom with regressive tax policy why are you his lap puppy MF.???

He had his chance for a revenue neutral green program that if he had followed the government panel recommendations would have neutralized the issue.

At this point his credibility is in shreds - typical Bushie - overspend at gov, tax cut mantra and climate denier despite his own party's eminence gris warnings about "owning the green agenda".

Setup for the dustbin of history as a failure. Good riddance


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I just couldn't believe Harper's insistence that the opposition would be a party of 'big spenders'.

Wow, the shoveling of manure is so ridiculously blatant.

Then I read this, yet another, report of er, entitlements?

PM's aide intervened for Montreal developer

source


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Since Harper has managed to both grow gov spending and remove program headroom with regressive tax policy why are you his lap puppy MF.???


I don't support a progressive tax structure--just a flat one. I have used the "drunken sailor" analogy for Harper's spending many times.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> He does? What are these strengths, and how is he adding to them?


His first strength is in recruiting talent to the Party. In The Hammer, one NDP candidate destroyed three Liberals: Keyes, Copps then Valeri. He has managed the same thing elsewhere, in Essex Co. where they were so very close to a major revival, and in Quebec where they stole a riding that was "not winnable". If the Layton brain trust can continue to find quality candidates, especially in Toronto where they have had a number of key weaknesses, they could very well make inroads. This said, Layton does have to work to distance himself from corrupted provincial NDP figures. He is is very real trouble in the West, where corrupt NDP governments have corroded the public trust. This is even more evident where, fifteen years after the fact, Bob Rae and his brand of malfeasance work against a restoration of the party grassroots.

His second strength is the creation of a policy base that is actually rooted in Socialism. Too many policies were created to gain a wider support over the years, which watered down the very manifesto of the Party. Too many supporters drifted away, disillusioned or perhaps just plain bored with a Party that had completely sold out to the special interests. Layton knows that he needs to make the Party both relevant and socialist, to rob the Liberals of the Left Wing that they have long exploited. He also knows that the Party must bring back the support of the Trade Unions, in order to make any gains whatsoever. He also knows that the NDP can not just "oppose" the Government at any turn, that he and the Party must make certain accommodations. The last Session of Parliament showed that very evidence, where Layton and the NDP were careful not to topple the Minority, but at the same time, careful not to side too much with the Harperites. This gives them the very important tool of being able to say that they have followed a pragmatic course in the fulfillment of policy while at the same time being able to say that they worked to keep the legitimately elected Minority in power.

The coming election will be: a measure of the cohesion of the NDP machine; a measure of how well they can fend off the Green Party and regain the defectors, the Youth and the Environmental vote; a measure of how much they can regain the Leftist vote from the Liberals; and a measure of how much trust the public has regained for a Party that had at times sold its soul to the special interests, as well as a Party that was severely damaged by the defection of the Trade Unions and the corruption of the Rae government in Ontario.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Actually I think most Conservatives wish that Layton could up his game a little. The NDP should be peeling off support from the Liberals while they tear themselves apart...


With all of the backstabbing going on in the Liberal Party, they can destroy themselves without the need of assistance of the Tories or the NDP. Chretien knew how to manipulate the Liberals and knew all of the old school tricks of those who had been advocates of the People during the dark years of Saint-Laurent and Duplessis, those who had been faithful to the cause ever since the Asbestos Strike.

Martin though he knew better, and instead of letting Chretien hang out and dry for the corruption of the peculiar regime, he assumed the whole ball of wax. The Party Machine was corrupted and faltering. As a result of the copu d'etat, Martin saw to the ejection of key Liberals, and the rigging of key riding nominations that did nto good for the declining reputation of his regime. Harper did not destroy Martin, in fact, Martin was only victorious in his ability to surrender that which he could have had, a legitimate coalition government.

The succession to the Liberal Party has been plagued with problems. Not only is Dion, a man who had a varied political background (separatist, fascist, soc-red, and later, an advisor to the Mulroney kleptocrats before his "rehabilitation" by Chretien who needed a key seat in Montreal), not a natural leader of men, is a man who is completely out of the water when it comes to cobbling the menagerie that is today the Liberal Party. He is backed by Ignatieff who is at once ready to topple his leader and eager to fly the party flag and salute it; and backed by Kennedy, who is the selection of the minority (those who are admitted Liberals) of the old, smoked filled clubs of Toronto, the St. James, and the University. And it does no good for the party when the former Whip, now defrocked, is trying to pave over the final acres of virginal land in a city that is spending untold million in the quest to restore the waterfront.

Really, all the Conservatives have to do is let the Liberals destroy themselves, which as Mr. Martin showed, is something they are supremely talented at. As for the NDP, they just need to keep showing their Socialist cards, and keep working at regaining the grassroot support that they have lost over the years.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The Conservatives are now being dogged by that very thing Harper tried to keep them from: Scandal. Parading out the relics of the old kleptocrat Mulroney was bad enough, casting a shadow upon the whole idea of the Conservative Party itself; but knowing that Harper is not prepared to do anything about it is yet another. Harper should have shoved Schreiber on the first plane to Berlin and let the Germans deal with him. Keeping him here under special house arrest was foolish.

Then this whole fiasco at AECL has turned into the living nightmare. The point is we have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission which issues licenses; and that Commission is charged with making sure that any nuclear facility operates within the terms of the license. And it came to pass that the rather ancient NRU reactor at Chalk River did not have a power backup system to keep the pumps running in the case of a power outage. Nor it is a Candu reactor design in which the reactions can be stopped "by other means", so it does need the pumping system to be fully functional. So as a term of the license, the Commission said that they needed to provide for backup power. None of this is scandalous.

Money was provided by a special apportionment of the Budget, as passed by a Cabinet Order (ie., not passed by Parliament but internally by the Government). Money was spent on the equipment needed, but the rest of the money was spend "elsewhere", lost in the web of corruption, either at AECL or somewhere else. So this equipment was sitting in a room at Chalk River, but not connected to anything. The Inspectorate found this, and issued an order to connect the equipment. AECL was given time to do this, as a part of a revised license. But it went unconnected as there were no funds left to do the work. The Regulators pulled the plug, as they are bound to under the law.

With this reactor down, hospitals were now without isotopes for radiotherapy programs, the Government fired the person that, by force of the law that regulates the Regulation Commission, is charged with doing that exact action that led to her dismissal. A scapegoat! So now, Ottawa is entirely filled with intrigue about the matter. Harper ran on a platform of not being corrupt, not doing those very things that he has been caught with. And the people of Canada, through the override crammed through Parliament, places us in even more financial jeopardy over this whole issue.

Then the comedy crew comes out. Clements telling the public that people were dying by the thousands because of the lack of isotopes while not acknowledging the fact that if the NRU went China, that millions would suffer and perhaps die, a la Chernobyl, made him look silly. And Harper, well, he blames the other parties for it. I am sure that Duceppe and the Bloc should have spend a weekend with a few cases of beer and installed the system themselves...


So if one wonders why the Conservatives have slumped - it is only because Canadians know that even in the most foolish moment, the Liberals would never have sunk to such a level of corruption as to steal the money that they had given to a program in the first place. Chretien was right, if you want to be corrupt, set up a new useless and unproductive program that will not affect things like nuclear reactors...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harpo maturity level is about correct as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Power changes outlook on proper ways to use it*
> 
> Feb 01, 2008 04:30 AM
> Chantal Hébert
> ...




The whole federal Gov needs adult supervision  - toss the lot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAcDoc: Are you really surprised? There's too much power invested in the federal government and that power is ALWAYS abused by whoever iherits it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

fair comment :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That is a fair comment on the media's ability to investigate news instead of running opinion pieces and press releases.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow. you saw all of that in there did you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lap puppies are all seeing.  He's wearing Harper's secret decoder ring in his nose after all.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Perhaps the whole wait for the coming election would be more exciting if we had something like Super Tuesday. We should be able to select those who lead the parties, and elections should have run offs like in other more democratic countries. King Harpo doesn't even have torch burning ceremonies - BORING!

Perhaps the election would be more entertaining of we had a Big Brother style of election. Seal all of the leadership contenders into a house and let them battle it out, with one voted off the island every week. And they would have to do the same kinds of stunts in order to be Head Of Household. They could be put into a room filled with free steak dinners, and the first one to "dig in" is voted out because of corruption (Mayor Jackson would loose in a split second). And they could debate environmental policies while "fresh Alberta Air" from Fort McMurray is pumped in... Instead of King Harpo, or freakshows like Dion or Duceppe - we would end up with Dick Donato, who would really tell NATO and the rest of the effemenate world organizations "where to go"...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts: NATO is not nearly as effeminate as the United Nations. Credit where it's due.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: Be honest--do you post these cartoons here because you find them well done, or are you like the librarian who posts all comics about libraries?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

upsetting isn't it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Entirely for the embarrassment of the NeoCons - "Harper can do no wrong" lap puppies. Sort of like a daily dose of salts - clears the system of ill humours.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I live in the single highest taxed municipality in Alberta, and likely Canada. Our mayor and council have raised taxes over 30% in the past six years in our city of 60,000.

Maybe it is time other cities did the same and stopped blaming senior government? If residents truly want the services they demand, they should be prepared to pay for them, just like we do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> upsetting isn't it.


It really is. It's sad to see the craft of political cartooning falling to such a low level of competence. When Duncan MacPherson skewered John Diefenbaker the art and nuance were brilliant. These are cheap cookie cutter sketches with lots of labels so stupid people can easily understand them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I agree. The cities have to get off their asses and their leaders have to act in a responsible fiscal manner. They weren't elected to sniff around and beg for hand-outs. They should be ashamed of themselves--"the only good dollar is someone else's dollar" seems to be their credo. Other than that, the tired old saw that they contribute more to the tax pool than they receive in benefits. I have news for them--so do most Canadians!!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> I live in the single highest taxed municipality in Alberta, and likely Canada. Our mayor and council have raised taxes over 30% in the past six years in our city of 60,000.
> 
> Maybe it is time other cities did the same and stopped blaming senior government? If residents truly want the services they demand, they should be prepared to pay for them, just like we do.


Surely you aren't implying the MD's hero Hurricane "Do no wrong" Hazel should have raised property taxes all of those years to fund the upkeep of Mississauga's current infrastructure, are you? :lmao:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EvanPitts: NATO is not nearly as effeminate as the United Nations. Credit where it's due.


Thank you for that very important correction!

The UN is pretty much utterly useless. They can not enforce any of their so-called resolutions, as various members decide that quick cash from petty dictators is far more important than any people's lives. For instance, Iran has been developing nuclear weapons for years - and if the UN really was useful, they would give Iran 48 hours to make a decison - that is to send all of the "mullahs" and "revolutionaries" to a special war crimes trial,and if they don't, the country should be sterilized. Same with Iraq and any other place that has been warned.

NATO has 2 million troops, but can not win in Afghanistan because the political leaders are afraid to kill the poor Taliban. If it was my decision, the Taliban would pray that they would get shot, because I think forced slave labour breaking rocks at some remote location on the Canadian Shield is appropriate torture for that scum.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I live in the single highest taxed municipality in Alberta, and likely Canada. Our mayor and council have raised taxes over 30% in the past six years in our city of 60,000.
> 
> Maybe it is time other cities did the same and stopped blaming senior government? If residents truly want the services they demand, they should be prepared to pay for them, just like we do.


that is what's starting to happen here in Toronto, but the conservatives are just screaming blue murder and yelling something about a socialist plot to steal our money or something.

Bottom line is, with all this yak about gst cuts, this tax cut, that tax cut, there really is just one wallet in my pocket. If the senior level gives 2% gst cuts that likely end up more in the pockets of those with lots of cash to buy stuff instead of giving more relief to cities and their respective infrastructures, those tax cuts will come back out of my pocket in the increased property taxes I have been, and are going to see a lot of now that McGuinty has lifted the freeze on property taxes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Senior government gets far too much % of the tax generated in the localities which leads Canadians to have the highest property taxes in the G8.

The structure is wrong and the bloody Feds are fat assed with money and over paid mandarins.

In other nations as much as 50% of the total tax load stays in the region that generate it and 30% is a good figure.
In Canada it's 8% that stays for municipalities to control.
The structure sucks - let the Feds beg for a while.
A tax revolt would do a world of good. 

Putting that 2% of foolish GST cut directly back to the municipalities where it was generated would do a world of good in restructuring the idiotic tax load setup we have here.

Having three separate tax collection regimes is idiotic in the extreme for this small a nation.

In my view real estate taxes should ONLY cover services and not be subject to market whims but to the service cost for the property - never should they have to cover infrastructure or rise because of selling price.
If the cities want a transaction tax ( as Toronto finally has ) that's a different issue and in my view a good thing.. the damn real estate industry have far too much income flowing their way and taxes on that go to the senior gov not the locality.

Until the structure is fixed ( and there is some small progress but it's mostly bandaid ) then expect the high level of friction and dissatisfaction.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Putting that 2% of foolish GST cut directly back to the municipalities where it was generated would do a world of good in restructuring the idiotic tax load setup we have here.


Because municipalities like Toronto are so fiscally responsible with the money they already get. 

Council Expenses


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So, what are we going to spend the next 10 pages finding links to the vast number of examples of money mismanagement at ALL levels of government now?

Will that somehow prove your heroes are kings?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: Do we need to say it again? The provinces could have raised a special sales tax to replace the GST cut and give the money to the cities, but they didn't. In Ontario blame McGuinty, because municipal infrastructure costs are much more closely tied to the provinces--who are closer to the situation and can provide better oversight--than the feds.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why on earth would we have to play that stupid game???

The fed cuts one tax and yells look we're cutting taxes!!! and then provincial government has to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall that came from the feds taking more than their share and not giving back?

What the heck kind of reasoning is that???


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> why on earth would we have to play that stupid game???
> 
> The fed cuts one tax and yells look we're cutting taxes!!! and then provincial government has to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall that came from the feds taking more than their share and not giving back?
> 
> What the heck kind of reasoning is that???


And what is the problem with it?

The feds don't need that much revenue and many provinces say they need more. If they want to shift taxes from the feds to the provinces, then now is the time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> why on earth would we have to play that stupid game???
> 
> The fed cuts one tax and yells look we're cutting taxes!!! and then provincial government has to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall that came from the feds taking more than their share and not giving back?
> 
> What the heck kind of reasoning is that???


groove, you say that the feds are taking more than "their share." Let's start by defining terms. At what point does the federal share cease to be fair?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well isn't this rich. A pair of Conservatives now saying the province should raise taxes, after listening to the caterwauling of the conservatives saying they had to slash everything in sight because the liberals cut transfer payments, apparently to balance Ontario's budget. Which I guess didn't happen so good now did it...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: I don't recommend that anyone raise taxes.I would rather roast in hell than see the Ontario sales tax raised. I'm merely pointing out that it's disingenuous for the provinces and municipalities to complain to the feds about what is clearly a province/municipal issue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, in side of your mouth, you say you'd rather roast in hell than raise provincial taxes. Then in the other side, you say it's a provincial issue???

Well hell's bell's, that is a *solution* if I ever heard one!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It's the fairest thing for each Province. We have people complaining that cities like TO are putting more in then they are getting back. What better way to ensure that taxes generated in Ontario stay in Ontario than raising Provincial taxes and not keeping high Federal taxes?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> so, in side of your mouth, you say you'd rather roast in hell than raise provincial taxes. Then in the other side, you say it's a provincial issue?


There's already a well-established mechanism for distributing provincial funds to municipalities. If it must be done, this is the way to do it--not through the federal government. I don't believe the cities need this money or should be given this money.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

nice way of wriggling out of that one.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow.

That makes 3 conservatives in a row that supports raising provincial taxes. Amazing.

So, I bet none of you were hurling cries of foul when McGuinty introduced the health premium correct?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> wow.
> 
> That makes 3 conservatives in a row that supports raising provincial taxes. Amazing.
> 
> So, I bet none of you were hurling cries of foul when McGuinty introduced the health premium correct?


Probably not as much as the Liberal nuthuggers that believed in all of McGuinty's promises.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hurled cries of foul when McGuinty introduced the health premium. 

There are established methods and channels for accomplishing the wrong goals. If you are mismanaging the health care system and building hospitals you can't afford to run, the repsonsibility should remain with the province that blundered. The blundering is inexcusable, but the debt is real.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wait a second, McGuinty introduced the health care tax when he first took office, how is it he mismanaged the health care system so quickly?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McGuinty wasn't responsiblr for the prior blundering, the province was, particularly under Eves. McGuinty continues the blundering, however, building a system funded by taxpayers AND by what amounts to a private style insurance premium collected publicly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

private style insurance premium? You mean, kinda like how ohip used to work?

What was it that Eves did that was a much bigger blunder than say Harris?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Eves started spending money like water. Harris did not. The OHIP tax is indeed like the old OHIP premium--added to the fully government funded model that we already adopted--so now we pay for our health care through hidden tax and tax premium.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Did anyone catch Mike Duffy when he was interviewing some fat Liberal skank-Senator about the crime bill that is being held up - and she said that she was in favour of children being raped by sex predators, and she said that stiff laws have never been proven to be a deterent to crime, so she is in favour of not having any kind of real justice system... My point is - she is the poster child for the fact that our Senate is utterly useless and needs to be elected and given a real job to do...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

did she say she likes to kill kittens too?

Yea I bet she did.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> did she say she likes to kill kittens too?
> Yea I bet she did.


She looked like she could pump back the drafts like the Bavarian champion in a Munich beer garden during "free beer day" - while eating some kittens for snacks. That is, she fits right in the the drunkards of the Senate.

It makes me angry when there is a Bill that is providing for changes to the law that the Canadian public wants, nay, has demanded for years and years, only to be held up because of some loosers that worry about the rights of criminals. Especially when they are blubbering all over the TV, looking like fools, and basically worshipping all acts of evil and crime, because they are worried about the innermost feelings of a drug abusing molester that can't keep his pants on within a block radius of a playground.

I think they should have a real Bill, a real law that would see to the execution of these kinds of scum. Molesters like Bernardo and Olsen should not be allowed to waste any more oxygen, and same goes to the filth that murdered Creba, or any of the other scum.

To see her on the TV telling the lies to the Candian public - that the Senate is being "thoughtful and considerate of the rights of the criminals", right after woofing down a bowl full of free bon bons - just is another reason to add to the dissolution of the Senate that is utterly useless and utterly stupid.

Not that I am a King Harpo supporter, because I think his cowardly bill is effemenate and does not go far enough. We need to return to public executions of the filth of the nation, and real punishment for criminals. But this will serve as a small stopgap that can stem the tide of liberality that threatens civilized life.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

With a Election looming over Parliament, the Fiberals decided to support their stand on crime - by walking out en masse. Not one of them had the guts to stand up for what is right, and that is to be tough on criminals and child molesters. We now know what their policy is, to let all of the scum out of prison because it hurts their feelings...

Next, Parliament should abolish the Senate, and deport all of the Fiberal Senators that have brought such disgrace onto the people of Canada. Shame, shame! And shame on the 27 who voted against the Government - those 27 who are in full support of crime and child molestation.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I heard this on the radio yesterday, what a bunch of children, walk out? Really? Is this the best way to represent the public that elected you? Can't wait to walk out of the next boardroom meeting I'm in when I disagree with someone. Disgraceful.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Now, correct me if.... I'm wrong.

It was my understanding, that the liberals agreed to fast track a number of those bills. If the tories were more interested in getting bills that protected people than playing politics and pulling the wool over Canadians eyes (see past comments...) perhaps they shouldn't have tied ALL of them together and allowed those that were fast tracked go through, and focus on say the dangerous offender bill. Stephen Harper's desire to ram through bills like this is stupid, dangerous, and could likely end up helping no one if the law becomes useless when ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The way the courts have been going I'm not sure that would happen:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...eal-allows-evidence-used-found-illegally.html

And if we were to use a Liberal timeline to approve these bills they would never get done.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Let's be honest here. They've had it for barely 2 weeks now? You talk like the senate has held it up now for 6 months.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Personally I think Harper is desperately afraid that HIS government policies are going to result in the first deficit in a very very long time.
Dion should just wait it out.......



> EDITORIAL
> *Flaherty's tight times*
> 
> Feb 13, 2008 04:30 AM
> ...


Flaherty and Harper *ignored* the advice of every single economist and put through that stupid GST cut.
He tried to BUY a majority by pork barrelling in October and put the government into deficit at that point doing so.

THEN he has a chance to mute that by putting in a carbon tax......once more he *ignores* his own government panel.

When are Canadians going to wake up to the *IGNORANCE* of this government


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> When are Canadians going to wake up to the *IGNORANCE* of this government


Likely about the same time you finally realize what they are doing will win them a majority next trip to the polls.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Likely about the same time you finally realize what they are doing will win them a majority next trip to the polls.


but is doing stupid things to get a majority good for Canadians Sinc?

That's the problem.

There is no reason, to trust Harper with a majority anymore than the liberals. period.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> but is doing stupid things to get a majority good for Canadians Sinc?
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> There is no reason, to trust Harper with a majority anymore than the liberals. period.


If Canadians give then one, you've got your answer gt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ha! In MacDoc's dream world Canadians are begging for a carbon tax...they'll elect anyone who promises to raise taxes, of course. Too much spending money does that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

canadians gave Cretien and overwhelming one, so much so the conservatives were left with 2 seats.

Was that good?

I don't follow Sinc. Even if Canadians did give them a majority, which looks less likely at the moment, being based on making unsound decisions can't be good for anyone.

Personally, I think there shouldn't be an election. The numbers show nothing has changed really, and has shown this consistently. Let's save the millions of dollars and have the 2 parties smarten up and govern according to what Canadians have given them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Trouble is, that Canadian Liberals have given us Dion and everyone knows he can't win an election. Now or ever.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ha! In MacDoc's dream world Canadians are begging for a carbon tax...they'll elect anyone who promises to raise taxes, of course. Too much spending money does that.


well some think about what would be a good solution that would actually work.

Unfortunately, the good solutions aren't necessarily hat gets you elected.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Trouble is, that Canadian Liberals have given us Dion and everyone knows he can't win an election. Now or ever.


I don't know what to say about that. But I wouldn't be 100% sure about that quite yet.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Personally I think Harper is desperately afraid that HIS government policies are going to result in the first deficit in a very very long time.
> Dion should just wait it out.......
> 
> When are Canadians going to wake up to the *IGNORANCE* of this government


More Canadians are happy with Harper than they are with any other political party. The polls show it time and time again.

If the tax cut was such a bad thing, then why did the Liberals sit it out when it came to a vote? If we go into deficit, which is quite unlikely, I don't see how it would benefit Dion. Assuming the GST cut was the difference between surplus and deficit, then he looks as bad as anybody else. At least Harper had some conviction and made a decision. Dion meanwhile, didn't act according to his beliefs.

Dion doesn't have many cards to play right now. He might as well wait it out because Canadians don't want an election and are mostly happy with the direction the country is going. He already backed down on the Afghanistan issue which may have been a card to play but has now since passed.

Canadians know that the Conservatives haven't done anything extreme or drastic and have mostly continued on the prior program of the Liberal government. The majority of Canadians see no reason to vote the government out. 

In the meantime, you can jump and scream all you want, but that's the reality.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I don't know what to say about that. But I wouldn't be 100% sure about that quite yet.


The only Dion Canadians can identify is Celine.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> More Canadians are happy with Harper than they are with any other political party. The polls show it time and time again.
> 
> If the tax cut was such a bad thing, then why did the Liberals sit it out when it came to a vote? If we go into deficit, which is quite unlikely, I don't see how it would benefit Dion. Assuming the GST cut was the difference between surplus and deficit, then he looks as bad as anybody else. At least Harper had some conviction and made a decision. Dion meanwhile, didn't act according to his beliefs.
> 
> ...


oh Vandave who are you kidding. Really now, you must be able to see that polls showing the tories and libs trading the slight upper hand in generally a statistical tie, consistently (!) does not show a Canadian public very satisfied with a new government! The conservatives should be showing a very clear well over 40% lead if Canadians were really, that happy.

We may not be ready to trade parties quite yet, but let's be real here.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sigh....  

Canada Federal Election 2008    Public Opinion Polls    National    Nodice.ca

If you take a running average over for the past couple months, the Conservatives would be sitting around 35%, while the Liberals at 30%.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, what does that show? Again, it does not show a public very happy with the conservatives. A percentage point or 2 past a statistical tie does NOT tell me you have a point. Traditionally a new party in power that the people like enjoy a large bounce well over the 40% mark. Harper has never seen it even in his first year.

Sorry. Sigh all you like.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: The Conservatives are not a "new party in power." The election happened two years ago. There's a big difference between stating what one would do in a hypothetical election without any issues or personalities, and whether one is generally satisfied with the current situation. 

It's like doing market research on what people might buy if a product comes to market. People may think they want the item until they see on the shelves and have to part with their hard earned cash.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

really macfury. You don't say.

please reread the content before posting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Harper needs to back off and do a little pretending...

My prediction. Should Harper get a majority, it will be one term. From what we've seen so far, Harper unshackled with a majority, won't be able to contain himself, and he will pay at the polls come election time after.

Worst case scenario, surviving 4 years.



> A less partisan, more moderate PM?
> BRIAN LAGHI
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> February 14, 2008 at 4:28 AM EST
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> so, what does that show? Again, it does not show a public very happy with the conservatives. A percentage point or 2 past a statistical tie does NOT tell me you have a point. Traditionally a new party in power that the people like enjoy a large bounce well over the 40% mark. Harper has never seen it even in his first year.
> 
> Sorry. Sigh all you like.


Try 5 percentage points, not 1 or 2. Feel free to do a running average yourself.

Traditionally has nothing to do with it. The country is very fractured along political lines right now and I don't see that it will change. A majority government seems like a steep hill to climb for anybody in the foreseeable future.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Try 5 percentage points, not 1 or 2. Feel free to do a running average yourself.
> 
> Traditionally has nothing to do with it. The country is very fractured along political lines right now and I don't see that it will change. A majority government seems like a steep hill to climb for anybody in the foreseeable future.


sigh. Let's get real here for a minute. Just, one, perhaps.

5% also includes the 3 to 4% allowed for error. So, don't give us this big 5% lead crap. You said "More Canadians are happy with Harper than they are with any other political party. The polls show it time and time again." 

Traditionally has everything to do with it. 'Fractured' you say. Nice try at explaining away why Harper has not seen the popularity he -should- be seeing as a new party, 'change' if you will, from the big bad tired corrupt liberal government. It must be frustrating to watch.

The truth is, often the polls swing the other way like recently to show the liberals ahead by a couple points. It's been doing that for some time now. One could say, more Canadians, no, a MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT like the conservatives. Which is technically true. But then I'd be playing your silly little game to prove some point I have which doesn't exist. In reality, Canadians are not showing much confidence in any party right now including your heroes in government. And they aren't flocking to the liberals and new leader Dion either.

So let's cut the crap hmmm?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> really macfury. You don't say.
> 
> please reread the content before posting.


You said the Conservatives had not experienced a new government bounce even in their first year--I'm pointing out that even a year is too long to talk about "new government" bounces.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You said the Conservatives had not experienced a new government bounce even in their first year--I'm pointing out that even a year is too long to talk about "new government" bounces.



Holy smoooooooooooooookes..... Now I see why people avoid these threads altogether.


I said "IN their first year" Macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Traditionally a new party in power that the people like enjoy a large bounce well over the 40% mark. _Harper has never seen it even in his first year._


Whatever....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes. Right there in black in white Macfury. IN their first year.

Now, I don't suppose things can move along at this point do you?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> 5% also includes the 3 to 4% allowed for error. So, don't give us this big 5% lead crap. You said "More Canadians are happy with Harper than they are with any other political party. The polls show it time and time again."


That's why you take a running average. It smooths out the +/- 3%. When you do that, the Conservatives have a good 5% lead.

Thus, one can say more Canadians support the Conservatives than any other political party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you can play your games with the numbers and spin it any way you like, but the result still says, no one is particularly enamored with either of them. Period.

Which is odd for a party when they take over in a climate where 'change' is desired, and the old party is tired, bloated, and corrupt. Sorry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

well, groovetube, you can spin the numbers anyway you want--can we move on from this?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

clearly not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> clearly not.



I thought not:

Conservatives take poll lead | Canada | Reuters



> The Conservatives lead in public support but the opposition Liberals are nipping at their heels, according to a poll released on Thursday.
> 
> The Leger Marketing poll for Le Devoir and the Montreal Gazette put the Conservatives at 37 percent and the opposition Liberals at 32 percent.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..bout right


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course the public isn't interested in an election MacDoc. As VanDave and I keep saying, they're relatively happy with the status quo.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

for love of god, the pair of you make a good couple.



> The Conservatives lead in public support *but the opposition Liberals are nipping at their heels*, according to a poll released on Thursday.


So what *else* is new???

Next week, someone ese will release a poll that says the liberals are ahead by x few points, but the conservatives are nipping.

Spin it any way you like over 20 pages.

No one wants an election, and no one is inspired by either party,

Now how is that, *happy*...

If the release a poll today saying Canadians prefer fat prime ministers you'd take it to mean the conservatives are on the verge of a majority.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Of course the public isn't interested in an election MacDoc. As VanDave and I keep saying, they're relatively happy with the status quo.


I'm certainly not happy with the status quo, but I'm not hoping for an election any time soon. The Conservatives haven't shown enough of their cards yet. The cagy bastards have done a pretty good job of keeping their evil plans (TM) concealed, so they aren't low enough in the poles that I'd risk a general election.

I can't see either Dion or Harper intentionally forcing an election at this time because it's just too risky for either of them, and the other parties don't have much to gain either.

But time is probably on Dion's side... sooner or later the muzzle will slip off some conservative back-bencher, or, even more likely, Harper will have to actually take some decisive action that shows his true colours. Even the general euphoria to the south that's bound to erupt when President Obama is elected is bound to hurt Harper somewhat (given his close ties with Bush), and the economic ripples made by the floundering US economy will also tend to drive Canadians toward more socially supportive politicians.

So the game of chicken will likely continue through to the fall.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> If the release a poll today saying Canadians prefer fat prime ministers you'd take it to mean the conservatives are on the verge of a majority.


Or Paul Martin is making a comeback.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Or Paul Martin is making a comeback.


lets hope not...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: The libearals have been "nipping at heels" for a long time. It's like that frog that keeps jumping halfway to its destination and never arriving.

bryanc: The Eeuphoria for President Obama will be akin to the euphoria over President Carter.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you just can't quite admit it, can you. You love your conservatives that much, that you are willing to go 10 pages arguing about something that cannot be any clearer.

Hey I like he liberals. But I'm not stupid enough to try and spin numbers to show why my party will win an election, even though I'd like it.

I think it's clear for anyone to see. And I'll say it again.

"No one wants an election, and no one is inspired by either party."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MFs ideal state would seem to be Afghanistan

free market in the poppy trade

who ever has the biggest gun charges tolls every 100 yards on their tribal roads....

after all - army, police why any gov at all are by nature social institutions


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody is inspired by either party. They're just relatively satisfied with the status quo and would replicate it, given the chance to vote again.

MacDoc: If the poppy trade were legal in this province, the Ontario Poppy Marketing Board would soon cripple the market to the point where it was no longer a problem.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: If the poppy trade were legal in this province, the Ontario Poppy Marketing Board would soon cripple the market to the point where it was no longer a problem.


I have to laugh simply because it is so true. Smart people like Sir Adam Beck devised a massive hydroelectric system that gave Ontario the most reliable and most inexpensive power on the Continent. Then they let the Government call the shots and money started to disappear. Then they let Bob Rae murder what was left, and Ontario Hydro is now defunct.

But the malfeasance did not stop there. We have to pay off the old debt while at the same time, provide ample money to the troughs at OPG and Hydro One for them to waste. Yes, the government can (and will) cripple any industry that it sees fit to ruin.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah the neoCon mantra - when uncomfortable with the reality change the topic  - consistent dogma......

Maybe they ate too much lead paint in those unregulated toys as kids I guess...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I'm certainly not happy with the status quo, but I'm not hoping for an election any time soon. The Conservatives haven't shown enough of their cards yet. The cagy bastards have done a pretty good job of keeping their evil plans (TM) concealed, so they aren't low enough in the poles that I'd risk a general election.
> 
> I can't see either Dion or Harper intentionally forcing an election at this time because it's just too risky for either of them, and the other parties don't have much to gain either.
> 
> ...


My sentiments exactly. 

I think the tension from Harper's standpoint is that while they must know waiting to go won't help them, they don't believe that they have enough support right now to do any better than last election, plus there's always the chance they could do worse. They know the extremists in their midst won't be happy holding their hands over their mouths forever, so that there could start to be some fracturing of their core Reform base. The more they try to keep up the farce that they are only slightly blue-er tinged blue Liberals the more their core supporters start to wonder if they really are no better than the Mulroney red Tories that they grew to despise.

Looking into the future it seems likely that the economic excrement will be hitting the fan big time this year down south, with resulting effects in Canada. It looks like they may have already burned up the Liberal surpluses with their various vote-buying exercises and they might be looking at some more austere budgets to come as tax revenues decline. Fair or not, when the economy is good the pols in power take credit and when bad they get the blame, so the Cons opponents will of course blame a worsening economy completely on the Harper Boys.

The climate change front will continue to deliver bad news and a demand for some real commitment to the problem, which Harper and Baird want nothing to do with. Canadians who aren't already suspicious of the fog of green spin coming from the Cons may start to get more suspicious as time goes on.

So the smart move would be to go right now, except they can't seem to ever get their polling numbers close enough for a long enough time to majority government territory. They have no idea why Backpack Boy can get support for his party that is comparable to theirs. They don't understand why the majority of Canadians don't just love them to death, even with all their GST breaks, pretend green policies and putting on their best "we really care - honest" face. They appear to have a dilemma.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dion should just wait it out- Flaherty's pork barreling in November is going to put him into deficit in the fall.

He's running scared already and his modest budget should have no issues for the Libs.

Dion is far too eager and far too mouthy.
Just shut up and let the Cons stew in their own juices......

Make Harper stick to his 2009 election - he wanted it - let him suffer the consequences.

This is all weakening the Federal gov and if we actually got a real conservative in there that would tackle the mandarin fat that has accumulated.....added to by Harper..then that is all to the good.

Grandfather out about 20% of the Federal jobs

Harper is all about power and ideology - not good government - lose the loser.
How about the Auditor General for PM.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The climate change front will continue to deliver bad news and a demand for some real commitment to the problem, which Harper and Baird want nothing to do with. Canadians who aren't already suspicious of the fog of green spin coming from the Cons may start to get more suspicious as time goes on.


What bad news are you expecting on climate change?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> What bad news are you expecting on climate change?


VanDave: apparently the world's average temperature will rise .001876 degrees Celsius and people will blame it on Harper.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I wasn't aware anyone said our climate change was Harper's fault.

I have heard people blame Harper for not doing anything to start doing something about the cause of it.

But then, this may require a higher level of discussion.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What bad news are you expecting on climate change?


Oh nothing at all, I'm sure the news about climate change will keep getting peachier and the Harper, Baird foot-dragging and greenwashing will be seen as justified by in coming decades. Hey, who needs all that useless ice at the poles anyway?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oh nothing at all, I'm sure the news about climate change will keep getting peachier and the Harper, Baird foot-dragging and greenwashing will be seen as justified by in coming decades. Hey, who needs all that useless ice at the poles anyway?


I wasn't sure what perspective you were coming from (e.g. political pressure, increasing emissions in Canada or natural events). I will assume you are referring to bad news from natural events. If so, I don't agree with you because climate change is a very slow process. It's a decade to century scale problem. Short term fluctuations will not necessary be consistent with the overall trend. The news could very well get better in the short term in that we could have a series of colder years ahead of us (2 steps forward, 1 step back). One such take:

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

If the polar caps keep melting over the next decade, everybody will point to it as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. If the polar caps stabalize or start building again in the short term, would you say the opposite? No. 

So I think those of us who believe in anthropogenic climate change need to be very careful when pointing out specific events (e.g. Katrina) as evidence. In isolation, such events are not evidence. Rather, it is a series of events over the long term. If you recall, many scientists predicted very active hurricane seasons after Katrina occurred. So far, is hasn't happened.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think Vandave most people are quite aware of the possibilities that weather patterns are also the result of other factors besides climate change. Whether or not you know what the definition of "anthropogenic climate change" is, or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah this year it's called La Niña .
NASA Observes La Niña: This 'Little Girl' Makes A Big Impression


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Me said:
> 
> 
> > Oh nothing at all, I'm sure the news about climate change will keep getting peachier and the Harper, Baird foot-dragging and greenwashing will be seen as justified by in coming decades. Hey, who needs all that useless ice at the poles anyway?
> ...


I apologize for the offhand sarcastic tone of my reply this morning but I misread the point of your question. I assumed you were trying to make a point denying human-caused climate change, although I should have known better based on previous posts. In my defence, I only had a few minutes to look at ehMac this morning and dashed off the reply.

The point I was trying to make about more bad news on climate change is that, since I've first heard about the issue it seems like I've heard scientists on a regular basis saying things like, "our previous conclusions may have been overly optimistic" and lately the surprise that that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps and sheets are disappearing far faster than previously thought. I don't really expect this will change in the short term, so on that assumption I would expect the pressure on the Cons to move faster will get more intense. I think that many Canadians, even those who aren't online news junkies believe the leadership isn't there. BTW, I'm not saying the Chretien government was any better, he just had less confirmed information coming from scientists and less pressure coming from the general public, but I don't think he was very interested in doing much beyond politically appeasing gestures either.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I apologize for the offhand sarcastic tone of my reply this morning but I misread the point of your question. I assumed you were trying to make a point denying human-caused climate change, although I should have known better based on previous posts. In my defence, I only had a few minutes to look at ehMac this morning and dashed off the reply.


No prob. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The point I was trying to make about more bad news on climate change is that, since I've first heard about the issue it seems like I've heard scientists on a regular basis saying things like, "our previous conclusions may have been overly optimistic" and lately the surprise that that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps and sheets are disappearing far faster than previously thought. I don't really expect this will change in the short term, so on that assumption I would expect the pressure on the Cons to move faster will get more intense. I think that many Canadians, even those who aren't online news junkies believe the leadership isn't there. BTW, I'm not saying the Chretien government was any better, he just had less confirmed information coming from scientists and less pressure coming from the general public, but I don't think he was very interested in doing much beyond politically appeasing gestures either.


The sun is a known factor to cause temperature effects on our planet and recent observations suggest sun activity is at a low point which in turn suggests lower temperatures in the short term. The historical record for CO2 is correlated with temperature and causation is only suspected via computer models and scientific prediction. I think observations on the scale of years is really meaningless and the variations up or down on a short time frame are probably more affected by sun activity. Over the long term, I believe CO2 will cause an increasing trend of temperature. Intuitively, the odds of temperature continuing to go up over the next few years in probably just better than 50:50. In 25 to 50 years, the probably is much higher. 

An analogy would be the stockmarket. In a short timescale stock prices go up and down based partly on speculation. Over the long term stocks trend upward based on fundamentals. 

So, I wouldn't bank on bad news continuing to come out. 

I think the Cons will act because they can't ignore the issue without being hurt politically. This is a minority government so the opposition is still free to defeat the government if they truly believe in it's importance.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that is a very simplistic way to look at it.

What would be the point of the liberals defeating the conservatives, if all it will do is have us spend millions and millions to likely see another conservative minority? (or god forbid a liberal one?)

Principles? 

Rather expensive waste if you ask me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Remedial reading VD - you're completely out to lunch. 
RealClimate
We're at the beginning of a new sun activity cycle yet 7 of the last ten years have been the warmest on record. Fewest sunspots show a small correlation with COOLER temps.


> The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% of the solar constant


Yet daffodils bloomed in London in January in 2008.
Mild winter convinces wildlife that spring has sprung - Times Online
and that's at the very trough of the latest solar cycle 

Models are understating the speed of change as there is now enough real data, not projected data to show that. Most scientist acknowledge the models are too conservative and mainly in the areas involving the poles as we saw this year with a far ahead of predicted opening of the Artic Ocean.
Global warming 'is happening faster' - Telegraph
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/12/ipcc_report/
Solar magnetic activity is NOT related to solar output in any meaningful way and if anything in regards to the sun the last 10 years as the last cycle waned the sun was cooling things in a very minor way - in other words counter trend of the measured GW increases.

The people that are worried about the new cycle which may be very intense are the satellite, GPS, space missions, airlines and electrical grid managers.
Sun cycle to flare back up in 2008

•••

An election would be a monumental waste - just adding to the cost of this 5 year malaise. Let Harper hang by his own rope.
He's itching for an election because the longer he waits the worse it is for him.
Dion would be an idiot to force anything now. I'd actually prefer to see Harper resign without an election and a coalition govern until 2009 and get a proper carbon management program in place amongst other things the opposition parties agree on- that's what sensible nations do. Our idjits play OK Corral at the slightly shift in a poll. 
Events are far outside the control of even a majority gov.
Let the debris rain down on Harper for the next 18 months. We'll see what stripe of cat he is when times are tough and there is no pork to dole out.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> What would be the point of the liberals defeating the conservatives, if all it will do is have us spend millions and millions to likely see another conservative minority?


I doubt the Liberals are in any hurry to bring down the government, as the most likely outcome would be not only another Conservative Minority but also quite possibly the end of Dion: globeandmail.com: Get seats or die trying: What the leaders stand to lose

There's also the (highly unlikely but not impossible) chance that the Tories will run a really effective campaign and win a weak majority.

So from where Dion is sitting there is not a lot to gain, and possibly a lot to lose, by calling and election in the next couple of months.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

And CO2 concentrations have gone up only 0.007% in the last 50 years. Aren't numbers fun?  

The effect of solar output is not necessary 1:1 with temperature on earth. A 0.1% increase might be significant to our overall climate. 

There is a proven correlation of solar activity and temperature on earth. It also happens to be external to all the systems on earth. Thus, causation is pretty obvious. It also suspected that temperatures are rising on other planets although I doubt the data is that robust. 

Nice anecdote with your flowers.  

I think being alarmist and pointing out silly examples like blooming flowers only hurts the cause of getting people to understand the problem. Anecdotes can be used both ways (by believers and skeptics) but are essentially meaningless in the overall picture. Those of us who believe in anthropogenic climate change would do well to not lower the level of discussion by using stupid anecdotes. It only will serve to create skepticism in people's minds.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly VanDave. If next year I pointed out that daffodils in London didn't bloom until May, I would be chastised and force-fed a dozen computer models to show that flower blooming was statistically insignificant. 

...Just like the record snowfalls and cold weather in Toronto right now.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If the polar caps keep melting over the next decade, everybody will point to it as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. If the polar caps stabalize or start building again in the short term, would you say the opposite? No.


I certainly would say it was _evidence_ that the climate was not warming. But that _evidence_ would have to be weighed with all other evidence, and the best-supported theory would be the one that we would have to accept as most likely to be true.

As much as it would be embarrassing for many scientists and the scientific community as a whole if it turns out that human activity is not significantly altering our climate, I sincerely hope that turns out to be the case. As I understand it, the data is very strongly supporting the anthropogenic climate change models, but I'd certainly rather this turns out to be a coincidence, because the idea that our species industrial activity can damage something as immense and essential as our global climate in just a couple hundred years is terrifying.

But what is most essential at the moment is that we act rationally on the most parsimonious and precautionary principles. That means doing everything we can to reduce our impact on the climate in the short term. If it turns out that this is unnecessary, we can return to 'business as usual' if we deem it beneficial. Fortunately, I expect that the technologies and social changes we make to protect our climate and ecosystems in the short term will turn out to be more profitable, more enjoyable, and all-round better than the status-quo anyway, so there's likely to be no reason to return to an oil-based economy once we get away from it. This, of course, is the reason the oil industry is exerting it's considerable influence to discredit climate-change science, spread FUD, green-wash themselves, and generally prevent significant actions on this front at all costs.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I certainly would say it was _evidence_ that the climate was not warming. But that _evidence_ would have to be weighed with all other evidence, and the best-supported theory would be the one that we would have to accept as most likely to be true.
> 
> As much as it would be embarrassing for many scientists and the scientific community as a whole if it turns out that human activity is not significantly altering our climate, I sincerely hope that turns out to be the case. As I understand it, the data is very strongly supporting the anthropogenic climate change models, but I'd certainly rather this turns out to be a coincidence, because the idea that our species industrial activity can damage something as immense and essential as our global climate in just a couple hundred years is terrifying.
> 
> ...


Very well said Bryanc. Thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: You'll find more oil companies hopping on board, once they figure out how to best profit from the perception.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh good.

Because currently, as bryanc mentioned, oil companies right now are spreading FUD and trying to get as many people as possible repeating it... everywhere.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GT: That's not true at all. MacDoc can cite plenty of cases where oil companies around the world are eager to make more money from global warming theorists--he keeps citing the President of Shell Oil begging for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not true at all macfury? Are you really trying to tell me no one, at any oil company is trying to even downplay the climate change issue? Really now.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> bryanc: You'll find more oil companies hopping on board, once they figure out how to best profit from the perception.


Good for them. What I'll be watching for is companies that are actually taking meaningful initiatives, bringing new technologies to market and developing new, sustainable products (obviously they will leverage their existing products and resources in these efforts). Hopefully, we'll see transformations of some of these extremely wealthy corporations into technological leaders for the next millennium. It'll be like watching tobacco companies getting into selling health-food.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> perception


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> perception


What, you think they would need proof if they saw a dollar in it???!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> perception


nice catch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nice catch? It was bloody piano I was dropping on your heads!

The oil companies will do everything you ask as long as you're willing to pay for it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's generally the idea - polluter pays - how many times has that been dropped on your head. 

Why do you think the industry wants a level playing field - you act as if it's some big conspiracy - I guess you skimmed the part where Norway has had a $55 a ton carbon tax on their industry......they're just in such horrible shape

They all know it's coming....just.Harper, Stelmach and a few lap puppies in denial....meanwhile Canada falls further and further behind in getting on with it.

Meanwhile back in Sweden where they ARE getting on with it.....



> *
> 
> *Mildest winter in 250 years*
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good exchange, gents. Point to MacDoc this round for speedily flinging piano back at MF. Nice restraint on the emoticon quotient too, MD... impressive technique. Half a point off, mnd you, for flogging dead horse again ("Canada falls further and further behind," etc. etc.).

[Hey, I like this reffing thing.]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: This is the point where I say that I'm happy not to be advanced to the state of taxation enjoyed by Norway or Sweden.

Doc's next move: get a really badly drawn editorial cartoon and put the words "'bout right" underneath it.

I wouldn't put up with the man at all, but he helped me a couple of times with Mac problems.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And a good man he is for that, too. Point to you, though, for showing grace under fire.

But soft! Methinks the Doc is even now preparing a fresh assault... feverishly rounding up some heavy links, no doubt. No sirree, we can't count anyone out with this match, folks!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I forgot to add that the cartoon must be under copyright:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Hey... it looks like it's on slow boil, too!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'bout right...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_No excuse..._

Whoops, where were we? Oh yeah, the coming election. Geez, I wish it were over and done with already.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The coming election?

Various posters show polls indicating that their party is making headway. Some say that the country is not unhappy. Others say the country is unhappy--no? Still others think the election will turn on the one issue they find fascinating. Most agree that the status quo is a likely result of the coming election. A few think things will change.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

My vote is on status quo. I think it almost impossible for any party to win a majority anytime soon. Voters are fairly entrenched with the parties they support and most Canadians don't seem to mind having a minority. 

Dion knows he only gets one election before being replaced by the Party. Therefore, he won't call an election unless he was fairly certain he could win a minority government. The Bloc and NDP are unlikely to garner any more seats and so they also see little need to call an election. 

I think Harper will continue to drive the agenda going forward. He has been very successful in keeping extreme elements of the party at bay and keeping the Liberals on the run. Whether you like him or not, you have to give him credit for his political skill.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Who needs the news anyway? It's all _manufactured_.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: It's true. At times I think Harper is posturing in a way that seems a bit silly, then I see Dion et al take the bait and run with it. Harper does know his enemy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heh. Good cartoon.

I read that the ghost of Cretien has returned to the halls of parliament to tell Dion to pull the plug.

Maybe Cretien knows Dion is not the right leader for the liberals and figures better to do it now.

I say let Harper continue for a couple more years. Let him reap what he sows.

If it's great, fine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I say let Harper continue for a couple more years. Let him reap what he sows.
> If it's great, fine.


So what you're saying is, if Harper governs in a groove-a-licious fashion...sweet!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, I'll give you points for trying, minus one for missing the real deal though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I say let Harper continue for a couple more years. Let him reap what he sows.
> 
> If it's great, fine.


If he sows groove-a-licious, should he not also reap groove-a-licious? If it's great, should it not be fine?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hey if it floats your boat, (and I suspect it might)...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So if Harper floats your boat...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jesus macfury it's not even noon yet...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes . . .


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i think he may be dumb enough to pull it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ..it's not even noon yet...


I'm celebrating "Family Day." It's sort of like Festivus, isn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The editorial cartoon I want to see, is Stephen Harper telling Dion "Pull my finger..."


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Too bad we couldn't vote a politician out of the scene. But then, I don't know if I'd vote Dion out for being a Taliban loving wuzz, or Bob Rae out because he'd work so hard to ruin the country the same way he ruined Ontario... Thinking about it, I think I'd vote out Rae because he is also a traitor, fleeing from the party he attempted to ruin, and becoming a Fiberal because he sees a great opportunity to ruin another party, and another level of government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The editorial cartoon I want to see, is Stephen Harper telling Dion "Pull my finger..."


Sorry, MF, this is the best I could do . . .


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the shoelaces tied together is a detail not to be missed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: That's not bad. Can you autograph the original and send it to me?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: That's not bad. Can you autograph the original and send it to me?


Gladly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Waking up in Alberta.....



> The biggest problem for the Conservatives now is a lack of enthusiasm among their own voters. Even influential Conservatives are turning away.
> 
> Last week Calgarian Ron Wood, once Reform party leader Preston Manning's press secretary, announced that he was not only going to vote Liberal but had a Liberal sign on his front lawn.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | Alberta Tories show their age after four decades in power

_
*"They're not progressive, they're not conservative,"*_...he's got that right....Federal or Provincial....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope McGuinty gets a faceful of water in the next panel. He's an appalling little man, and his finger-pointing at others over his own mishandling of Ontario's economy is an embarrassment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - your pet Flaherty left Ontario with a $6 billion deficit he tried to conceal that took McGuinty an entire term to resolve and sold off 407 for a few billion below market - brilliant management.

Now he's going to put the Canadian gov in deficit by mismanagement and against the advice of every economist. to not cut the GST.

He might have retrieved the situation by following up with a carbon tax that could have funded new areas of tech and job growth and been revenue neutral.
Again he and Harpo ignore the business leaders of the government appointed panel to institute a carbon tax. 

Ignorance is a crowning feature of Harper's management....as is growing gov....classic Bush style neoCon nonsense.

Sensible people know where the dumbass factor is alive and well in Harpenomics.....lap puppies need to grow up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I hope McGuinty gets a faceful of water in the next panel. He's an appalling little man, and his finger-pointing at others over his own mishandling of Ontario's economy is an embarrassment.


ah ha ha ha.

heh heh. snort.

sorry. I needed this laugh. I just can't believe the gall of the conservatives. Almost as bad as the liberals one might say. But, the irony, of a conservative just writhing and spitting malice on McGuinty about the economy next to Flaherty, who was the finance minister here and blew it. 8 years of booming prosperity and we still got left with a whopping deficit.

I hear a lot of talk about people here in Ontario remembering Bob Rae. I'm thnking people's memories aren't exactly short when it comes to Flaherty either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Again he and Harpo ignore the business leaders of the government appointed panel to institute a carbon tax.


And be thankful they did. :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I thought it was kinda funny hearing Harpy praise BC, and then hearing the next day that BC is introducing a carbon tax.

Fun times.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> He might have retrieved the situation by following up with a carbon tax that could have funded new areas of tech and job growth and been revenue neutral.


Thanks, MacDoc. I am so grateful you only have one vote.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> But, the irony, of a conservative just writhing and spitting malice on McGuinty about the economy next to Flaherty, who was the finance minister here and blew it. 8 years of booming prosperity and we still got left with a whopping deficit.


Groovetube: The problem is the large amount of taxing and spending power vested in our various levels of government. How old are you? By now you should realize that they ALL do this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Groovetube: The problem is the large amount of taxing and spending power vested in our various levels of government. How old are you? By now you should realize that they ALL do this.


never mind how 'old' I am Macfury don't insult me.

And they all do WHAT? They all leave ballooning deficits when they promised they'd balance the books? What? What is this bibble babble about taxing and spending power? And how does that relate to the fact that the conservatives left a mess for the liberals to clean up, TWICE, federally and provincially?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: They all play the game, first spending too much, then taxing too much, then blaming the previous party in power for the mess they inherited. As you grow older and wiser you will learn this--and will stop using embarrassing, arcane terms like "bibble babble."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Groovetube: please keep up with the "bibble-babble" usage. It's cool, it's useful, and if it annoys Mister Stuffypants? Why, that can only be considered a bonus. Besides, he _loves_ old arcane stuff. Man's just run out of ammunition, that's all. Carry on, good sir!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAx: Enough of your "bibble babble." Now where's the next shuffleboard tourney?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MAcfury: dunno. I think it's after lawn bowling.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

maX: If you continue wth the dilly-dally, we will miss them both.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's about bloody time we get some consensus governing instead of the food fight we've got in Ottawa most times.



> PM unveils compromise motion on Afghan mission
> 
> Updated Thu. Feb. 21 2008 1:25 PM ET
> 
> ...


Now if he would listen to the carbon tax panel.........


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would give him 100 on these two issues if he followed through on the Afghan resolution while ignoring the carbon tax panel.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I dont't know why the government wants to stay in Afghanistan when they are not willing to give the proper weapons to the forces that they have deployed there. But then again, being government policy, it is entirely logical. Like having a "carbon tax". My car doesn't burn "carbon", it burns gasoline, so shouldn't it be a "gas tax"?

We should levy a tax on Parliamentarians, a "stupidity tax" that is proportional to their stupidity. We'd be able to grab all of the money back from the Fiberals, and most of it back from the Bloc. And after reading the leaked documents concerning the whole Chalk River reactor scandal - Mr. Clement and Mr. Lunn would need special loans to pay their stupidity tax. I mean, somehow they said that running an unsafe reactor was entirely necessary for the protecton of the people's health, even though the inevitable meltdown would basically mean everyone in Ottawa and Montreal would be killed by the radioactive materials that would be flushed down the Ottawa River...

Come to think about it, we'd have more money with a stupidity tax than we can make with income taxes. Half the drivers in The Hammer would be bankrupt...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts: Why not put a tax on political promises? Or better yet, place a tax on offers of "change."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Groovetube: please keep up with the "bibble-babble" usage. It's cool, it's useful, and if it annoys Mister Stuffypants? Why, that can only be considered a bonus. Besides, he _loves_ old arcane stuff. Man's just run out of ammunition, that's all. Carry on, good sir!


cool, well. I just figured it fit only too well. 

So what if I indulged me a smile over some coffee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think it's far more important to engage me in "Bibble-Babble" rather than wasting time writing to your local politician to "get things done" for you. 

Bothers me no end.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think it's far more important to engage me in "Bibble-Babble" rather than wasting time writing to your local politician to "get things done" for you.
> 
> Bothers me no end.


Actually, I was just waiting for you to, wait what was it.. oh right.



Macfury said:


> snip...provid*[e]* *[me]* with precious time to appeal to some level of government to beg for what _ want._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Actually, I was just waiting for you to, wait what was it.. oh right.


So what did you ask them for?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So what did you ask them for?


where's my precious time?

cart before the horse as always.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> cart before the horse as always.


I think they've granted you a $200 rebate on the cart, but you have to buy a small horse to go with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

see.

you just answered your own question.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My question was what you asked them for. You answered the question. I see logic is not your strong suit. Please "bibble babble" on.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh MF.

That was so 3 posts ago.

I gotta go groove, so you have the evening to review.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good night groovetube. Have pleasant groovin' eve. 

Anyone with a weird cat avatar can't be too bad.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The Tories are good with the bludgeon, but where's the beef?
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> February 21, 2008 at 3:14 AM EST
> ...


globeandmail.com: Canada's National Newspaper

vacuum headed ideologues....

Despite some meeting of minds on Afghanistan it's clearly ONLY because there is political capital to be gained instead of thoughtful good governance.
That's the continual miasma that hangs over Harper, truculence and "I'm only doing this because I HAVE TO"

He hasn't changed his stripes one pixel since his Family Coalition - lets go into Iraq days - Alberta firewall days.
Indeed he's made all the clearer he's protecting the cesspool swimming Stelmach.
Peas in an oil defiled pod.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> He hasn't changed his stripes one pixel since his Family Coalition - lets go into Iraq days - Alberta firewall days.
> Indeed he's made all the clearer he's protecting the cesspool swimming Stelmach.
> Peas in an oil defiled pod.


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 

Same old drum beating.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Peas in an oil defiled pod.


SINC: You've got to give the ol' voodooo doc at least some credit for coming up with the above ungainly phrase. That's at least new!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Looks as if "The Coming Election" thread still has legs! King Harpo managed to deflect two prongs of attack at the same time. 

First, Dion had nothing to say against the Budget, considering that next to the crazy saving scheme (you pay taxes on the money, then it is tax free - isn't that the way income works already?), there was nothing remarkable about it. Mr. Flaherty wearing resoled shoes was so overshadowed by the news that Mr. Smitherman is going to wear diapers in some kind of "test of capacity" while sitting at Queen's Park.

Second, only 35 of our overpaid Senators bothered to show up for a vote on the omnibus crime bill that they had so delayed. I suppose that many of them were down at the pub, doing their Pilates with some Molson Export, and they were having so much fun playing darts (and trying to hit the picture of King Harpo in the nose with them) that they "forgot" they were supposed to be working. Either that, or Senator Carstairs became wedged in the doorway, and they missed the vote because they had to wait for the fire department to show up with the Jaws of Life to cut them out.

And actually, there is a third reason - that Dion realized that he would be viewed as a coward and Taliban-lover if he pushed too hard on the whole Afghanistan thing...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Evan: What I enjoyed about the budget was the pre-announcement by both the Bloc and NDP that they would refuse to support it, sight unseen. That left Dion holding the bag entirely on a future election. He handled it with typically dithering grace.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Evan, the savings account idea is very, very, very, very good proposal.

The math isn't hard to do. If you save for a long period it makes a BIG difference. I only wish this existed ten years ago.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The savings account is a very good idea other than it caters to the well established.

Paying down the debt with holes in the roof and a storm coming is a very BAD idea.


bout right.....










nothing better than putting the effort into affordable housing on every single block ...exactly as important as building the water system, the libraries and schools and roads.

No vision.....vacuum headed in Ottawa.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> nothing better than putting the effort into affordable housing on every single block ...exactly as important as building the water system, the libraries and schools and roads.
> 
> No vision.....vacuum headed in Ottawa.


And why should the feds be involved in housing? What does Ottawa know about problems at a local level?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You wouldn't get it would you.

Take your statement...fill in any ____________________________ 



> Apartment Units Being Built Under Canada-Manitoba Affordable Housing Initiative will Benefit Brandon
> 
> Brandon - October 17, 2003 - Brandon area residents will soon have access to more safe and affordable housing when 36 units of housing are completed. The projects are made possible with more than $533,000 in funding from the Canada-Manitoba Affordable Housing Initiative.
> 
> ...


When the imbalance of tax flows at the threee levels of gov is changed then MAYBE you have a minor point....until then - just stick with being Harpo's lap puppy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You wouldn't get it would you.
> 
> Take your statement...fill in any ____________________________
> 
> ...


Either that Vandave or stick with accepting the know-it-all opinion of a single ehMac poster.

Your choice.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When the message is uncomfortable divert the conversation...how very trite....
most get past that stage in Grade 4 .......some apparently don't.

•••



> *Political bribes and economic foolishness*
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


not much indeed...at home or abroad......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank heaven the feds are staying out of public housing--this feeds into MacDoc's delusion that public housing represents some sort of desireable "asset" and not a hideous liability that will suck the money out of whoever builds it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> *When the message is uncomfortable divert the conversation...*how very trite....
> most get past that stage in Grade 4 .......some apparently don't.
> 
> •••
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You wouldn't get it would you.
> 
> Take your statement...fill in any ____________________________
> 
> ...


FAIL. Nice try at an answer though. 

Again I will ask the question.... why do the feds need to be involved as opposed to municipalities or provinces?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> FAIL. Nice try at an answer though.
> 
> Again I will ask the question.... why do the feds need to be involved as opposed to municipalities or provinces?


Because the European countries MacDoc idolizes do it that way, VanDave. Why if you take a closer look at Norway...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Now that the Fiberals have been caught having secured Cadman an insurance policy, and the fact that the insurance payout is double what he would have received of there was an election... It goes to show that in the eyes of those in Parliament, the people of this nation are nothing more than minions that deserve to be ripped off and assaulted with profane acts of class warfare...

But then the Tories were not much better - having offered Cadman a very generous $60,000 in election funding and a promise not to run a candidate against him if he voted in favour of the Tories...

All of them are quite greedy and utterly corrupt - they even gave themselves a rather huge pay raise on the sly. Their pay raise is about the same as the average Joe makes in total in a year; but then, the average Joe actually has to do work, most probably for an idiotic boss that is boss because of nepotism. (Perhaps I just worked at Sobey's for far too long?)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

um.

Should I tell him?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

groovetube said:


> um.
> 
> Should I tell him?


Oh yes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Go for it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh what's the point.

carry on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think that EvanPitts will be demoralized by the news, given his state of expectation after years in the Hammer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From one pole of stupidity to the other.....



> *Liberals hint at toppling government over Cadman affair*
> 
> STEVE RENNIE
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


can we just send them ALL home and try a different lot 

..let the police and courts do their work and get on with some rational governing instead of this stupid partisan brinkmanship.

That said I could do without Flaherty but think he should hang himself as he did in Ontario. Not much to be done as he's stripped the cupboard bare.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

of course.....












> Hasty end to auto rebate program
> 
> Feb 29, 2008 04:30 AM
> CAROL GOAR
> ...


  ...indeed...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> It is true the Harper government cuts taxes well and pays down the debt efficiently.


I would vote for the Liberals if they could do it faster.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

see this is where you have to pause macfury, and ask yourself, why is it that Harper has the ability right now to cut taxes, and *continue* paying down the debt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think it requires much of a pause--Harper is collecting more money than the country needs to pay for its current programs. Martin collected still more.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

see this is why this sort of back and forth can really only be made fun of macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: Now you can supply _your _clever answer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not in the "train business' either.....










Had to get one pork rind in there.......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ottawa's destructive tendencies
> 
> Mar 04, 2008 04:30 AM
> JAMES TRAVERS
> ...


vacuumheads......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're right MacDoc--Ontario was doing a fine job on its own, telling the world that it can't attract businesses without hand-outs from Ottawa.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah the i know you are but what am i begins.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> TheStar.com | comment | Canada lacks housing strategy
> Canada lacks housing strategy
> Email Story Email story
> Print Print
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | Canada lacks housing strategy

Just about as bad as if the statement read

_Canada is the only major country in the world without a national education strategy_


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> _Canada is the only major country in the world without a national education strategy_


I'll ask again... why does a housing strategy have to be federal?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

pass the buck is the best you can come up with?

First why not let us know how a province, or a municipal government can come up with a national housing strategy.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> _Canada is the only major country in the world without a national education strategy_


You can pretty much change the "education" word into any word - Canada is deviod of any real objectives or plans - every possible project is simply some prostitution on the part of the Parties to be reelected. The last real plan we had was to build the transcontinental railway. Wait, that was some prostitution activity on the part of MacDonald in order to attract British Columbia...

King Harpo had a pretty good plan when it came to seizing power, but has no strategy other than to hold power, and it shows. Not that the ther "leaders" would be any better, since they have no strategies other than the same plan to grab power and use it for some graft and corruption.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> pass the buck is the best you can come up with?
> 
> First why not let us know how a province, or a municipal government can come up with a national housing strategy.


Are you serious? That's your response?  If so... FAIL.

It has nothing to do with passing the buck. It has to do with Constitutional roles and responsibilities. Different levels of government have different responsibilities. Housing is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution. Given that municipalities are an extension of the provincial Constitution, they are also granted powers to this end.

Please quote where in our Constitution it states that housing is a federal responsibility.

There is a reason why MacDoc keeps dodging my question.... It's because he knew what the response would be. You didn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Are you serious? That's your response?  If so... FAIL.
> 
> It has nothing to do with passing the buck. It has to do with Constitutional roles and responsibilities. Different levels of government have different responsibilities. Housing is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution. Given that municipalities are an extension of the provincial Constitution, they are also granted powers to this end.
> 
> ...


oh wake up and clicky the link.

Canada Mortgage and Housing | Société canadienne d'hypothèques et de logement


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah learn your history........



> TORONTO STAR – EDITORIAL
> 
> A 3-point strategy for better housing Oct 28, 2007
> 
> ...


1993 ......hmmmmmmmm founding document......sure...... 
It's not up to me to correct your historical misapprehensions.

It's a national disgrace and it will take ALL THREE levels of government a decade to bring us to even a modest success in affordable housing.

Martin downloaded to aid in reconstructing Canada's macro finances.
That work is done.......housing needs to go back on the front burner - the solutions are there, they can be revenue neutral over time, there is a vacuum in Ottawa......mostly centred around Flaherty' head and Harper's ideology.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> it will take ALL THREE levels of government a decade to bring us to even a modest success in affordable housing.


I could live with two decades. Keep the feds out of housing. Thank you.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> housing needs to go back on the front burner - the solutions are there, they can be revenue neutral over time,


Oh no, not another scheme to render us neutral. You tried that with trading imaginary carbon credits and that doesn't work. Now you think it works with housing which first and foremost should be a local government issue.

Feds peeing around where they don't belong NEVER results in anything revenue neutral. It's called tax overload.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: MacDoc is of the mistaken opinion that these public housing sinkholes represent valuable assets instead of horrible fund-sucking liabilities. If you want to create these, then don't try to sell the idea as revenue-neutral. If housing is expensive, you have to give away expensive housing to achieve this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> oh wake up and clicky the link.
> 
> Canada Mortgage and Housing | Société canadienne d'hypothèques et de logement


And what is the point of linking to CMHC? Do they quote the Constitution on their webpage?  

Again, I will ask my two questions to both you and MacDoc:

1. Why should the feds be involved as opposed to the provinces and municipalities?
2. Where in the Constitution does it state that the feds have a role in housing?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And what is the point of linking to CMHC? Do they quote the Constitution on their webpage?
> 
> Again, I will ask my two questions to both you and MacDoc:
> 
> ...


You can roll your eyes all you like, but your little rant about it not being constitutional for the federal government to be involved in housing is simply nonsensical. The existence of the CMHC laughs in your face.

Perhaps you can tell us why federal resources should not be used in a large problem.

Why are you insistent that it ONLY be provincial or municipal.

A 'sinkhole' is still a sinkhole regardless of which level of government supports it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Groovetube: That was a lazy link. Show us what you mean about the CMHC and a national public housing strategy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> You can roll your eyes all you like, but your little rant about it not being constitutional for the federal government to be involved in housing is simply nonsensical. The existence of the CMHC laughs in your face.


That's circular logic.  Just because the feds overstep their jurisdiction does not mean they have the right to do it. Again, please quote the Constitution. 



groovetube said:


> Perhaps you can tell us why federal resources should not be used in a large problem.
> 
> Why are you insistent that it ONLY be provincial or municipal.


Have you been involved in any government projects where multiple layers of government had overlapping jurisdiction? Didn't think so. If you had, you would not be asking the question. Three levels of government trying to do one thing is stupid. We have limited tax dollars. Let's use them wisely.

I happen to believe that people have a right to ACCESS housing (not necessarily free) and that people shouldn't HAVE (they have responsibilities to not trash public property) to live on the street. I also happen to believe that as a taxpayer my money should be spent to it's maximum effect. 

Housing should be provincial and municipally run because they control all the laws relating to it. I also think cities know how best to manage themselves rather than some bureaucrat in Ottawa.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That's circular logic.  Just because the feds overstep their jurisdiction does not mean they have the right to do it. Again, please quote the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. You tell us. I'm not going to go waste my time.

You have made the assertion that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in housing on a national level, so you show us.

If you can show this then yes, I'll have to agree that without constitutional amendments the feds can't be involved AT ALL.

And yes I have, and I don't care what you believe.

So lets have it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> No. You tell us. I'm not going to go waste my time.
> 
> And yes I have, and I don't care what you believe.
> 
> So lets have it.


A negative can't be proven. So sorry, I can't satisfy your request. That means you have to show me the money.

Why don't we get the UN involved as well then?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Groovetube: That was a lazy link. Show us what you mean about the CMHC and a national public housing strategy.


exaaaaactly. You're quick...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> A negative can't be proven. So sorry, I can't satisfy your request. That means you have to show me the money.
> 
> Why don't we get the UN involved as well then?


no, you said it was unconstitutional.

prove it.

Otherwise, give up on that, and stand on your other arguments against it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> no, you said it was unconstitutional.
> 
> prove it.
> 
> Otherwise, give up on that, and stand on your other arguments against it.


Here, your province can tell you who is responsible for what:

Your Local Government - Government In Ontario

Should I read it to you as well?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Read it yourself. I don't see 'housing' under the Powers of Parliament. Yet, property rights are covered under Item 13 of Powers of Provincial Legislatures. Note that item 2 does not refer to housing but rather federal land assets (e.g. ports, airports, etc..).

POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada	91.	It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
1.	Repealed. (44)
1A.	The Public Debt and Property. (45)
2.	The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
2A.	Unemployment insurance. (46)
3.	The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
4.	The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
5.	Postal Service.
6.	The Census and Statistics.
7.	Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8.	The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
9.	Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10.	Navigation and Shipping.
11.	Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
12.	Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
13.	Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
14.	Currency and Coinage.
15.	Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
16.	Savings Banks.
17.	Weights and Measures.
18.	Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19.	Interest.
20.	Legal Tender.
21.	Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22.	Patents of Invention and Discovery.
23.	Copyrights.
24.	Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
25.	Naturalization and Aliens.
26.	Marriage and Divorce.
27.	The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
28.	The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
29.	Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)




EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation	92.	In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
1.	Repealed. (48)
2.	Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3.	The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province
4.	The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5.	The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6.	The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7.	The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8.	Municipal Institutions in the Province.
9.	Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
10.	Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a)	Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b)	Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c)	Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
11.	The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12.	The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13.	Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14.	The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
15.	The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
16.	Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: It's a typical side-stepping of division of powers. The feds get their hooks into the provinces by making them dance a certain way to get funding for their housing projects. But there is no national housing strategy at the federal level.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> About CMHC
> 
> Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is Canada’s national housing agency. Established as a government-owned corporation in 1946 to address Canada’s post-war housing shortage, the agency has grown into a major national institution. CMHC is Canada’s premier provider of mortgage loan insurance, mortgage-backed securities, housing policy and programs, and housing research.


Now. Unless you two funny people can explain what the federal government is doing in this regard, and why they have been doing something so blatantly unconstitutional for so many years, I'm guessing all your yip you posted amounts to pretty much a whole lotta nothing, and still does not show it's unconstitutional.

Try again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: It is unconstitutional--that is, there is no division of power that accounts for the federal government being involved in housing except in regards to aboriginal people. The provinces keep their mouths shut if they see money flowing their way. Do you think they would take the federal government to court over this?

It was established specifically to help soldiers returning from World War II--a federal jurisdiction--to find homes. Unfortunately, the octopus had no sunset clause to end its existence after its job was done.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh man you guys cant get your stories straight.

Canada first had a housing policy in 1935, _before_ the war. Then allllllll kinds of stuff happened afterwards. It was ammended in 1938, again _before_ the war, and after the war, as you said, Wartime Housing Corp became the CHMC. In the 50s they started insuring loans. If you are really keen on more google will avail you of all kinds of federal actions in the housing area.

Technically housing falls under the provincial powers. But history shows that's not feasible. Now, if both of you are so dead set against ANY federal action in the area of housing, I'd like to hear about how you are both calling for the dismantling of the CHMC, and and ANY of the federal resources and projects that they have done since 1935 and how it would have been better not to have had the feds do any of that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Technically housing falls under the provincial powers.


That only took two pages to establish.  



groovetube said:


> But history shows that's not feasible.


It's all about taxation and shifting the burden from federal taxes to provincial taxes. That's all it will take. I notice that none of the provinces raised their PST to make up for some of the GST cut.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That only took two pages to establish.
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about taxation and shifting the burden from federal taxes to provincial taxes. That's all it will take. I notice that none of the provinces raised their PST to make up for some of the GST cut.


really. That's it? Just a little nip tuck, wink wink, there you have it? So you support the closing of the CHMC completely.

Come on Vandave get real.

And how long did it take you to figure out why a province will not raise the pst? If you really thought that was right course of action then why did you support the gst being cut when just about every economist said it was a bonehead move.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I notice that none of the provinces raised their PST to make up for some of the GST cut


He still doesn't understand the difference between the two taxes is part of the issue.

The far easier approach would be - as other intelligent jurisdictions with far higher VAT/GST to direct 1/3 of the GST collected back to the municipalities.

Instead VD et al want duplicate levels of taxation which is a seriously stupid approach.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> He still doesn't understand the difference between the two taxes is part of the issue.
> 
> The far easier approach would be - as other intelligent jurisdictions with far higher VAT/GST to direct 1/3 of the GST collected back to the municipalities.
> 
> Instead VD et al want duplicate levels of taxation which is a seriously stupid approach.


I am well aware that they are two different types of taxes. That has nothing to do with it.

I am not suggesting the PST replace the GST. I am suggesting that PST could be raised to increase provincial revenues. The room to do so was freed up by the cuts in the GST.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

*real tax relief*

Way to show the mouthy conservatives, what a real tax break is. After the conservatives yammered endlessly about the tax and spend liberals, it took a private members bill to sneak by and once again expose the tories for the blatant liars that they are. The tories, are the spenders! They are the ones that burned through the biggest surplus in Canadian history in 2 years! The tories, were the idiots when it came to tax relief. Weren't they the ones that taxed income trusts after they promised not to, badly affecting a lot of Canadians retirement savings? Weren't they the ones that reversed the tax cut set by the liberals on the hard working families of Canada from 15 back 15.5%?


Good on you Dan McTeague for showing the tax and spend tories what real tax relief actually is.



> Ottawa vows to block education tax shelter
> Tories go on defensive after Liberal MP sneaks bill through Commons that would allow parents to set aside up to $5,000 each year
> KEVIN CARMICHAEL AND CAMPBELL CLARK
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Weren't they the ones that reversed the tax cut set by the liberals on the hard working families of Canada from 15 back 15.5%?


I think that I remember this, VanDave. Wasn't there a special tax on hard working families, but lazy families would get a tax break?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think that I remember this, VanDave. Wasn't there a special tax on hard working families, but lazy families would get a tax break?


did the tories not do this? yes or no?

It was my understanding Harper when he took office reversed this tax cut.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Wasn't there a special tax on hard working families, but lazy families would get a tax break?


Coming right up beside Harpo's Ministry of Truth and Beauty

The Ministry of Work ......commonly known as Flaherty's Folly......there will be a phlogiston machine you pass through to determine if your family is lazy..... 

••
and further follies....now this is a rock and a hard place Flaherty finds himself handcuffed by own foolishness



> *Ottawa vows to block education tax shelter*
> Tories go on defensive after Liberal MP sneaks bill through Commons that would allow parents to set aside up to $5,000 each year
> 
> KEVIN CARMICHAEL AND CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...


Perhaps before cutting the GST THIS might have been a useful and popular policy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just posted that macdoc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Whatever happened to a few paragraphs and a link?

So much unnecessary verbiage.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the globe restricts access after a bit of time, so better to post the article Sinc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> the globe restricts access after a bit of time, so better to post the article Sinc.


Ah, well that does indeed make sense then gt, thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I want this program to be passed and I want the money to be taken out of federal public transit funding to pay for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I want this program to be passed and I want the money to be taken out of federal public transit funding to pay for it.


why? I thought that conservatives were FOR tax relief, AND the environment?

Am I wrong?

Are we seeing the real deal here now?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I want this program to be passed and I want the money to be taken out of federal public transit funding to pay for it.


 you're trying to censor public transit now, nooooooooo! Better yet take it from the arts budget.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, good argument, if not perhaps a tad novel here on Earth. I imagine that censoring trains on your planet is quite common - fascinating!

Please, carry on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm campaigning on an environment platform--unfortunately I had to remove a TTC subway platform to use in my presentation.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> Hey, good argument, if not perhaps a tad novel here on Earth. I imagine that censoring trains on your planet is quite common - fascinating!
> 
> Please, carry on.


Well if choosing where to fund the arts is censorship, why wouldn't choosing where to fund public transport?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You'd be censoring all of those subway ads.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd be all for that. Too many [email protected] subway ads as it is.

JJ, I would really love to follow the torturous logic in your argument - and perhaps in your neck of the woods folks really do talk earnestly about censoring transportation - but I'm not up to the effort; it feels like we're in a Woody Allen flick here, and not a good one. I'm thinking of the one where he wakes up in the future and - never mind, that's culture and clearly culture makes many of us terribly uncomfortable. 

Well, let's try again. Would you, like MF, like to see the feds get out of funding cultural, transportation and health care programs as well? Just curious.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

No Max, I want the gov't to get out of rubberstamping our tax dollars down the tubes. I want the gov't to refrain from buying paintings of polar bears in snow storms from Quebec. I want the gov't to choose where to fund arts and where not to, just as it does every other sector in this country.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So you're ok with arts funding in principle, then. Why, may I ask?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: Jumbo and I are far from being in philosophical lockstep the way you lefty ideologues are. (Yes, I know the lefty creed: "I'm not left. I am a moderate. I am an independent thinker." Say it in unison now!)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I'm afraid you have misfired - evidently you meant to reply to one of your Borg units, MF. This has been happening entirely too much of late. Please report to the nearest Reprogramming Office to have your logic recalibrated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you think I'm introducing you to 7 of 9, you've got another think coming, Max.

It's Dr. Pulaski for YOU!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> So you're ok with arts funding in principle, then. Why, may I ask?


Because a lot of arts are a part of our culture and what we are known for. I don't want our Country to start being known for being the land of the free smut and the home of the immoral.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Fair enough. Although you'd think we're in danger of being swamped by smut and I hardly see that as the case. You certainly paint a melodramatic picture. No matter.

But what makes you think the gov, of all things, can be trusted to do this right? Do you think this new bureaucracy will be somehow exempt from the usual Ottawa excesses - complacent fatcats on plenty of perks and quite unable to be threatened with a sacking if they don't perform up to snuff? I mean, abuses on the Hill are legendary. I've seen the public servant mentality from up close and it's about as disconnected from real world job market conditions as you can get. 

Why conservatives who are allegedly concerned about moral values should place their trust in an institution whose first order of business will be self-preservation, trough-noshing and wholesale ducking responsbility is quite beyond me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max, you have not been paying attention. When the conservatives do something, it's 1. not as bad as the liberals. and 2. better than liberals.

If you repeat that to yourself everytime you find hypocrisy or scandal or what have you, it makes it much much easier to accept.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

max: The picture you present sounds exactly like the descriptions of Arts Councils currently handling grants--as described by artists.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You're right Max, let's add kiddie porn into the mix of "arts" we fund, who is the gov't to say that 13 is too young? Hell what is more beautiful than the young female form? I'm sure Michelangelo had his share of looking at naked kids. Young enough to bleed eh? 

As well we should all have to be added to the publicly funded spam project, apparently we aren't swamped by smut enough, because everyone deserves to have a bigger member, even you Max...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You know, I wondered how long it would be before one of you conservatives threw the 'you support kiddie porn' BS t try and support themselves.

Nice work.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> You know, I wondered how long it would be before one of you conservatives threw the 'you support kiddie porn' BS t try and support themselves.
> 
> Nice work.


What the gov't has no say in what is moral in arts but they do in the law? So is that where the line should be drawn? You lefties are so in favour of having no lines so you can feel no guilt when one gets crossed. Please enlighten us exactly where immorality begins for you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> What the gov't has no say in what is moral in arts but they do in the law? So is that where the line should be drawn? You lefties are so in favour of having no lines so you can feel no guilt when one gets crossed. Please enlighten us exactly where immorality begins for you.


When someone resorts to those kinds of low blows in a forum you really have to step back and say it's just not worth it.

Just who are you to assume what I see as moral and not? I don't appreciate it and a forum is not the place to be accusing people you don't even know.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> *Please enlighten us exactly where immorality begins for you.*





groovetube said:


> Just who are you to assume what I see as moral and not?


I didn't assume anything, I asked you a question. Not sure what you consider a low blow, again please enlighten us...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think a quick read of your last 2 comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you will suffice...

There's no need for it. Period.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Then answer it in a general sense, not a personal one, groovetube.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there is no need to insinuate that anyone, generally speaking or otherwise, with a different opinion would agree to allowing kiddie porn, or doesn't believe in limits.

Surely this topic can be discussed without resorting to that, don't you think?

Is that general enough for you?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I think a quick read of your last 2 comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you will suffice...
> 
> There's no need for it. Period.


What I called you a lefty? Or that you have no line? Or you don't ever feel guilty? I don't know, I guess you do have a line, but I still don't see it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are laws on the books for illegal content. 
End of gov involvement.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> there is no need to insinuate that anyone, generally speaking or otherwise, with a different opinion would agree to allowing kiddie porn, or doesn't believe in limits.
> 
> Surely this topic can be discussed without resorting to that, don't you think?
> 
> Is that general enough for you?


So "Young People F'ing" is an art film and kiddie porn is a low blow, got it now.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> There are laws on the books for illegal content.
> End of gov involvement.


So the gov't can say what is and isn't immoral as long as it is a law?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> So "Young People F'ing" is an art film and kiddie porn is a low blow, got it now.


did you see the film? Was there illegal content in it?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> did you see the film? Was there illegal content in it?


Oh there's your line, legality, good thing the gov't doesn't decide that, wouldn't want them to tell us what is immoral and what is not.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Oh there's your line, legality, good thing the gov't doesn't decide that, wouldn't want them to tell us what is immoral and what is not.


well it would certainly make sense not to fund illegal content now don't you think? 

Now why don't you enlighten us, why you made the suggestion "Let's add kiddie porn into the mix of "arts" we fund, who is the gov't to say that 13 is too young?". Your words.

Now why would you make such a ridiculous and offensive suggestion hmmm?

And what is it about the movie you suggested that bugs you, the title?

I read it apparently, what was it, oh yes,


> "While there's stuff there that might make your grandmother blush, don't go in thinking you're going to get some sort of hard-core film or some generic teen sex comedy."


Oh heaven's to Betsy's it'll make my grandmother blush. Quick, ban it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> well it would certainly make sense not to fund illegal content now don't you think?


Hiding behind the veil of legality, nice. So much for not letting the gov't control what you think is immoral and what isn't.

Why would I throw my comment in? Because it seems that for the lefties it's ok for the gov't to say what is immoral for one thing but not for another.



groovetube said:


> Oh heaven's to Betsy's it'll make my grandmother blush. Quick, ban it.


So it's ok for you to jump to extremes but not me?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Legality has nought to do with morality....learn the language. 

Just ask any marijuana user.

Legislation is passed then put into criminal code - by elected representatives and reviewed to be not in conflict with the Charter by the independent courts.

NOT established by a couple of hell and brimstoners in a closed room.....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Legality has nought to do with morality....learn the language.
> 
> Just ask any marijuana user.


Well just ask any pedophile too, so who is right and wrong? Or are they both immoral?



MacDoc said:


> NOT established by a couple of hell and brimstoners in a closed room.....


So an arts committee is better than elected officials, are they more in tune with morality?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Hiding behind the veil of legality, nice. So much for not letting the gov't control what you think is immoral and what isn't.
> *No one is hiding behind anything. It's common sense.*
> 
> Why would I throw my comment in? Because it seems that for the lefties it's ok for the gov't to say what is immoral for one thing but not for another.
> ...


.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Well just ask any pedophile too, so who is right and wrong? Or are they both immoral?
> 
> So an arts committee is better than elected officials, are they more in tune with morality?


Why don't you try a little experiment.

Walk down a busy downtown street and ask everyone, if pedophilia is morally right.

Then ask them if smoking pot is.

Maybe save us from these asinine questions and you may get your answer...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> You're right Max, let's add kiddie porn into the mix of "arts" we fund, who is the gov't to say that 13 is too young? Hell what is more beautiful than the young female form? I'm sure Michelangelo had his share of looking at naked kids. Young enough to bleed eh?
> 
> As well we should all have to be added to the publicly funded spam project, apparently we aren't swamped by smut enough, because everyone deserves to have a bigger member, even you Max...


I'm not sure why you have a hangup about me or the size of my member, Mr. Jones... talking about smut. Man, are all conservatives like this? _Ay-yi-yi._

Strange that you should be blathering on about smut and now kiddie porn, but haven't addressed a simple question of mine. I'm still waiting for you to stop your evasive feints and answer the question I posed in my last post. Is the question too reasonable for you? Should I torque it into the realm of frothy lefty ranting so you can recognize it? I mean, if that's your comfort zone I'll be happy to oblige you but it does seem like an awful lot of work just to get you to post an answer.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Actually, smoking cannabis is not illegal in Canada. No law has ever been passed that prohibited the use of marijuana, no bill has ever been tabled or debated in Parliament, and no bill has ever been voted on.

What the government did do is pass an Order in Council which made specific prohibitions against cannabis, and this was done in the mid 30's, during the King Administration. The Government made the order that the cultivation of cannabis requires a specific license be issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. These licenses were unavailable, except for a short time during the Second World War, and until a few years ago when some licenses were issued on an experimental basis. Thus, the groing of cannabis is illegal, by regulation, not by force of actual law passed by Parliament.

As well, transportation of cannabis is prohibited, and again, by an Order In Council, one must obtain permits which are never issued. Transportation from or to the USA is entirely illegal, coming under the pertainent sections of American law, and by force of various treaties between the US and Canada. Transportation across provincial borders is also illegal, coming under Federal law. In turn, each province has enacted statues prohibiting the transportation of cannabis within the borders. But smoking cannabis is still not illegal, however, you can be charged with trafficing because you have had to break the law in order to obtain the cannabis. Either you grew it without a permit; or harvested it from public lands without a permit; or bought it from someone (which is also illegal); or you transported it from somewhere else (either in province or from another province); or you got it from the US (which is illegal by forcve of treaty.)

And that is the inane nature of Government. They do not have the guts to place forth for the public a clear law, open to debate and a vote by our representatives. They hide behind these special "Orders In Council", possibly taking away the rights of the people to have a set of fair and just laws. And of course, this issue has been heard by the Supreme Court, and the Government has on many occassions been ordered by the Courts to clarify the issue and develop a real law - to which the Government passes yet another lame Order In Council to overturn the decision of the courts - knowing full well that the people of Canada would accept the production of cannabis on a regulated basis - just like alcohol is regulated.

And I think it is stupid that we let people get blitzed on alcohol beyound all belief, then go out on cars and kill people - but not allow some marijuana, which when smoked, takes away all possible desire to drive a car (barring hunting down a 7-11 to buy some munchies at...) And since the actions of our own Senate seem to indicate a high rate of cannabis usage among Senators - then it should also be legal for everyone to use.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> EDITORIAL
> 
> *Flaherty's fallacy on Ontario taxes*
> 
> ...


..could not have said it better :clap:

get it now VD???.....transfer the GST to the originating locale and PST is NOT equivalent to GST for the umpteenth time. 

_Although Ontario taxpayers contributed roughly 40 per cent of the cash Ottawa gave to the provinces and territories last year, Ottawa returned only about 25 per cent of that cash to Ontario.

And here's what those numbers mean:

Through their federal taxes Ontarians are either paying for the higher levels of per-capita spending in other provinces or they are paying for the lower provincial business taxes in other provinces – or both.

*Flaherty has a lot of nerve telling McGuinty that he should lower business taxes in this province when Ottawa takes so much more money out of Ontario than it puts back in*_ 

on top of the electoral imbalance as well......Ontario has every cause to complain about ill treatment at the hands of Harpo and cronies......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my prediction, it'll take minimum 4 years of gutting Ontario before Ontarians wake up.

Talk about Lemmings... God it's sooooo obvious!


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Has an Ontario party ever been attempted??

Maybe it's time for one, old failures or not?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's almost a defacto regionalized structure in Canada now.

Harpo and Stelmach keep it up....it will be for sure with Alberta the ostracized as a feature. 

Danny Williams is the core of the East Coast bloc now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oops......



> *Harper apologizes to PEI for tax comments*
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


GST does not = PST - get it yet??

Harper's sand castle...what a way to ru(i)n a country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the regionalization of Canada is a natural evolution--we really no longer need each other very much, though we somewhat enjoy being a country. Time for the provinces to step up to the bat and take more responsibility for getting the best deals possible for their regions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

good idea.

The best deal for Ontario, would be in the next election, do not vote for a western interest based party. 

How easy is that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Flaherty and Harpo are doing an excellent job of ensuring THAT.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oops ....BIG TIME...



> Canada warns US over oil sands
> 
> By Sheila McNulty in Houston
> 
> ...


FT.com / World / US & Canada - Canada warns US over oil sands

nice move Harpo - you and Stelmach just screwed up with your biggest customer.....
Not like you weren't warned


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Why are we selling off the Oil Sands so quickly to the Americans? Couldn't we wait for Saudi Arabia to run out, and then charge Americans the top dollar for oil? I do not see how Americans will stop with the foolishness of buying a huge gas guzzling van in order to drive their kids two blocks so they can play soccer. Americans are stupid, so we should rip them off just like the Arabs and Venezuelans do...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

*Still Waiting For The Coming Election*

Really... I am no fan of the Fiberal Party. I have hated those goons for my entire life, but at least they are a known quantity. For instance, I now that they will put clueless political cronies into patronage positions, and I know that they will pretty much lie when it comes to every election promise.

But I have grown tired of Harper's strange politics and his group of retards that follow him around. First we have environmental policies that put exploitation far ahead of anything that makes sense. Then we have the loser minister that has put every effort into making sure that the NRU Reactor at Chalk River is run as unsafely and belligerently as possible, because we all know that it is better to entirely pollute the Ottawa Valley and Montreal with toxic radiation than to have someone have to wait a day or two to treat their hairy mole. And now we have a minister who just a few weeks ago pointed out that there was corruption in Afghanistan (a fact that I am sure did not escape the knowledge of Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane, let alone Lord Curzon...), was chastised for pointing out what amounts to facts, and who has decided to engage in carnal activities with the Hell's Angels... And to think, I thought Harpo might actually "get tough" on crime, and bring back a day off every week for the workers...

Given the choice, I think I'd vote for the Bloc because then we can get rid of this nonsense, and get on with joining the USA... Or I'd vote for Layton so I could go bankrupt because of taxation... Or perhaps I would actually vote for Dion because, as I have stated, because even though I know what kind of corruption the Fiberals get into (living in a riding that was subject to all of John Munro's corruption and sedition), at least Dion isn't sleeping with the Hell's Angels!


----------

