Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Election Poll

Pages : [1] 2

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 07:08 PM
In keeping with the recent political discussions. Who is everyone planning to vote for in this election?

Any one else struggling this time around with the parties, their platforms and the issues??

I'm really having a problem putting together a coherent and educated voting scenario myself this time!! :confused:

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 07:13 PM
OMG that will be the only time youll see that NDP at 100 % LOL

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 07:17 PM
I think that the most important thing for voters to do will be to thoroughly review the party platforms. They should be released sometime soon, at which point everyone can go to their websites and really sink into what the parties believe in.

My thoughts: The media is biased so listening to them will only cloud your judgement. Allow yourself the opportunity to learn on your own---not use the media to tell you how it is.

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 07:30 PM
OMG that will be the only time youll see that NDP at 100 % LOL

Bwahahahahahahhahaha
:D :D

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I think that the most important thing for voters to do will be to thoroughly review the party platforms. They should be released sometime soon, at which point everyone can go to their websites and really sink into what the parties believe in.

My thoughts: The media is biased so listening to them will only cloud your judgement. Allow yourself the opportunity to learn on your own---not use the media to tell you how it is.


The question is... do you trust the various party "spin doctors" more than the media?!?!?!

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 07:48 PM
I wouldn't trust any party spin doctors. I would want to review the platforms on my own. Don't listen to other people, just review the words on the paper. These are their promises, they are written and the parties can be held to account for their words.

I would skip by any thing else on the websites too and make a beeline for the platforms.

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 08:24 PM
I wouldn't trust any party spin doctors. I would want to review the platforms on my own. Don't listen to other people, just review the words on the paper. These are their promises, they are written and the parties can be held to account for their words.

I would skip by any thing else on the websites too and make a beeline for the platforms.

Lizzie,

Are you an innocent or just an idealist??? :angel: :p

The spin doctors put together the written policies/platforms as well as the speeches, debates etc.

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Gazoo:

I am quite aware of who writes what. I'm wondering though, if you won't put any faith in platforms, why would you believe the media who wear their biases on their sleeves?

Furthermore, I simply made a suggestion that people should inform themselves by reviewing the root of each party. I have no idea why my suggestion would make you think i'm either an idealist or innocent. Because I feel that your condescending question is unnecessary, I see no reason to validate it with a response.

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 08:51 PM
I really take it all with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I really believe anything the parties or prime ministerial candidates, print or speak is primarily crafted and shaped to get votes; while the actual policy seems to be a mere after thought.

The true measure of a party in our system are the views and perspectives of the individual riding candidates who really are the grassroots of the party.

Unfortunately it really seems that our democratic process is starting to collapse under the burdensome weight of the recent trend of political parties catering to their own self serving interests rather than truly serving the public good.

I think I may become an anarchist.

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Gazoo:

I am quite aware of who writes what. I'm wondering though, if you won't put any faith in platforms, why would you believe the media who wear their biases on their sleeves?

Furthermore, I simply made a suggestion that people should inform themselves by reviewing the root of each party. I have no idea why my suggestion would make you think i'm either an idealist or innocent. Because I feel that your condescending question is unnecessary, I see no reason to validate it with a response.


I wasn't being condescending at all. I apologize if it came across that way. Besides there is nothing wrong with being an idealist. In fact I often wish I still was one myself.

I am just very cynical as to the actual value of the party propaganda.

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Well that's exactly why Canadians should start demanding that politicians live up to their election promises. McGuinty is a fine example of someone who told one tale and once elected, wrote a new story.

Gazoo
December 15th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Well that's exactly why Canadians should start demanding that politicians live up to their election promises.

Good point!!:thumbs up

StaceyB
December 15th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Now wouldn't it be nice if we could hold them accountable for their promises.
Almost every one of them breaks them so maybe this is why we don't trust them.

Prin
December 16th, 2005, 02:11 AM
A good example of politician promises made to win an election just happened in Montreal where Gerald Tremblay promised not to raise residential taxes if he was reelected mayor. Well, less than 2 months after he was reelected, he put out his budget that involved tax hikes for more than 2/3 of Montrealers. It got so much crap from the media that he scrapped his budget.

You have to think, these twits are out to win an election. They're like dog food companies- they know what they're selling but they write it all up in such wishy-washy words that nobody really knows what it's all about. I like Craig Oliver on CTV. He seems to be the most critical of all the parties and he makes good points. He points out where the parties switch opinions and the consequences of their promises. It's great. :)

I like to read the promises, but only as a really basic guideline. If there is a lot in a party that I don't like, I won't vote for them, but if I like it all, my vote is still not guaranteed. I just haven't crossed them off yet.;)

What happened to all the money from the last election? A lot of people voted NDP to raise their election money and what difference has it made?

Rick C
December 16th, 2005, 10:11 AM
OMG that will be the only time youll see that NDP at 100 % LOL

It is pretty funny the NDP is leading the poll on this board. . . . . not mocking those who would vote that way, just noting that a minority position in real life is the dominant force here.

As to media bias, all sides claim the media is controlled by the other side by the way . . . . but you'll never see the CBC accused of right wing bias. The test of a good media outlet is whether or not it is accused of bias by both sides, a pretty good indication its getting things right.

Although referencing the USA political scene, this is a pretty good examination of the politics of paranoia.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/meyer/main917324_page2.shtml

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Gazoo
December 16th, 2005, 05:32 PM
Bump for more votes...I'm really curious

babyrocky1
December 16th, 2005, 07:24 PM
Hey, so far Pets.ca may havae created a new coalition government, NDP/Green! :pawprint:

raingirl
December 16th, 2005, 08:30 PM
THis is my listing of most prefered to least (of the major parties)

Green
NDP
Liberal
Conservative

As stupid as the liberals have been lately, I will still take them over conservatives. I think my vote will probably be a preventative one again this time, in that I would rather vote NDP or Green, but will probably vote liberal just to keep the conservatives out.

Ohh...wanted to add that we don't have bloc members here so...don't really think I would vote for them.

We have an AWSOME green party candidate in my area. He is a family phyician who works in a naturopathic clinic. He is so nice (been to him a couple times) and his clinic is so nice. They have massage, chiropractic, family doctors, and all kinds of free and pay "sessions" and seminars. They even have meditation on weekday mornings.

babyrocky1
December 16th, 2005, 10:52 PM
THis is my listing of most prefered to least (of the major parties)

Green
NDP
Liberal
Conservative

As stupid as the liberals have been lately, I will still take them over conservatives. I think my vote will probably be a preventative one again this time, in that I would rather vote NDP or Green, but will probably vote liberal just to keep the conservatives out.

Ohh...wanted to add that we don't have bloc members here so...don't really think I would vote for them.

We have an AWSOME green party candidate in my area. He is a family phyician who works in a naturopathic clinic. He is so nice (been to him a couple times) and his clinic is so nice. They have massage, chiropractic, family doctors, and all kinds of free and pay "sessions" and seminars. They even have meditation on weekday mornings. So you want the Green party but you feel you have to vote Liberal because you really don't want the Harper crew, and we gotta wonder how many people are in similar boats, we feel we cant vote for who we want because of the political system that we live in, thats got to make the case for proportional representation, I have so far had the luxury of living in two ridings were it is possible to elect an NDP candidate, and luckily for me thats my choice but in so many cases, and Prin has given this example as well, we feel that our first choice doesn't have a chance so we don't want to waste our vote. This cant be how democracy is supposed to work-every vote should count.

Prin
December 17th, 2005, 01:45 AM
Exactly, Babyrocky. I doubt I will vote for who I really like (NDP) rather I'll probably vote against the party I really don't want to win (against the Conservatives/Bloc by voting Lib).

Gazoo
December 17th, 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm a moderate, but...with the country fairly flush with $$ right now I really think a minority Conservative government might be a good idea and the best of both worlds... as their fiscal conservatism would assure that the we don't squander and fritter away the $$, maintaining our positve economic position, while their minority position would be a check to assure that they don't become overly socially conservative.

I also like the Conservatives goal in re-building our pathetic military and in turn strengthening our world position and our sovereignty. Our military has really become an international embarassment, we are a country known and lauded for a protective peacekeeping role in the world and we've leet our military erode to the point we cannot even do that effectively anymore, which in my opinion is a necessity in helping the world in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

:ca: :ca: :ca: :ca: :ca: :ca: :ca:

meb999
December 17th, 2005, 09:14 PM
OOOO, I'm so glad you started this thread Gazoo -- I was thinking about starting one, but was afraid a political debate would get outta hand WAYYY too fast!

I'm really confused about who to vote for.

Bloc -- I think that they are a relatively smart bunch BUT I'm not a seperatist and voting for them means spending millions on a useless referendum -- which even if they won, the Supreme Court made it impossible to make a unilateral split from Canada.

Liberals -- the liberals should be punished for the sponsorship scandal. It's not ok to send out the message that the governement can rob us and we'll do nothing about it. They'll never be found guilty in a courtroom -- so they should be found guilty at the polls.

Conservative -- I don't think spending millions on military is a great idea. My brother was in the military for years , in the engineer departement -- they used to build bridges and then blow them up -- for practice. You know how many mouthes could have been fed with the money spoend on those 'training sessions'? We won't be going to war anytime soon...so why spend our money THERE?? Just MHO though, please don't be mad -- I have full respect for the opposite opinions. Also I don't like that Harper wants to go back on the 'gay mariage' issue. I'm a live and let live type of person, and everyone should have the same rights. AND, he's also against abortions -- don't even get me started!!

NPD -- they're actually looking the best to me now. But they'll increase taxes like crazy -- the democrates are BIG spenders. AND I'm not too keen on the leader.....

And voting for anyone else is throwing a vote out the window.....I wish we had a better choice of candidates.

Gazoo
December 17th, 2005, 10:17 PM
OOOO, I'm so glad you started this thread Gazoo -- I was thinking about starting one, but was afraid a political debate would get outta hand WAYYY too fast!




Conservative -- I don't think spending millions on military is a great idea. My brother was in the military for years , in the engineer departement -- they used to build bridges and then blow them up -- for practice. You know how many mouthes could have been fed with the money spoend on those 'training sessions'? We won't be going to war anytime soon...so why spend our money THERE?? Just MHO though, please don't be mad -- I have full respect for the opposite opinions. Also I don't like that Harper wants to go back on the 'gay mariage' issue. I'm a live and let live type of person, and everyone should have the same rights. AND, he's also against abortions -- don't even get me started!!
.


Yeah their socially conservative approach bugs me too...but if they're a minority they'd be kept in check :thumbs up

Lizzie
December 17th, 2005, 10:21 PM
I'm a live and let live type of person, and everyone should have the same rights. AND, he's also against abortions -- don't even get me started!!


Just a point of clarification here. Regardless of what Harper's personal view is on the issue of abortion, a CPC GOVERNMENT WILL NOT LEGISLATE ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. I caps this because I feel it is important that people do not read the previous post and take away from it that a CPC government would take any action on this issue.

In fact, at the March 19th policy convention, the vote on this issue was in favour of pro choice.

I don't want to hijack this thread, I just want to keep it accruate.

On that note, the Leader cannot make the policies himself...without the backing of the party, which he would never get on the issue of abortion, no CPC government could, or would ever, take any action on this issue.

Prin
December 17th, 2005, 10:48 PM
I don't trust that enough. To me, a conservative government would spend the next 4 years regressing- taking all we've accomplished in civil rights and undoing it.

How can I vote for somebody who, if he got his way, would have girls secretly crossing the border or using coat hangers? No thanks.

And Will and Jack next door? Who cares if they're married or not? How does it affect your life? You can say that it's against your religion, yeah, so? If you're a Catholic and the neighbor's a Protestant, isn't that against your religion too? Like Trudeau said, the govt has no place in the bedroom of its people. Move on! Move forward!! Wanna talk about wasting taxpayer's money? :rolleyes:

Gazoo
December 18th, 2005, 11:00 AM
A Conservative government would be a minority and thus it would be kept in check by the opposition in any vote in the house.

K9Friend
December 18th, 2005, 12:02 PM
A Conservative government would be a minority and thus it would be kept in check by the opposition in any vote in the house.

So basically we'll be back to what we have right now. :cool:
Better the devil ya know than the one ya don't! :evil:
I'm voting Liberal. :crazy:

meb999
December 18th, 2005, 06:19 PM
A Conservative government would be a minority and thus it would be kept in check by the opposition in any vote in the house.

But if everyone thinks that by voting conservative, they'll have a minority conservative governement -- or a conservative opposition, isn't there a possibility that they become a majority governement?

meb999
December 18th, 2005, 06:23 PM
But no matter what, as a women's rights activist, I can't bring myself to vote for conservatives. We've come too far to let a Bush-wanna-be bring the women's movement back 20 years....
The problem is I can't bring myself to vote for thieves or for seperatists either!!!

Gazoo
December 18th, 2005, 11:01 PM
But if everyone thinks that by voting conservative, they'll have a minority conservative governement -- or a conservative opposition, isn't there a possibility that they become a majority governement?


A valid point.

Prin
December 19th, 2005, 01:42 AM
But no matter what, as a women's rights activist, I can't bring myself to vote for conservatives. We've come too far to let a Bush-wanna-be bring the women's movement back 20 years....

:highfive: :highfive:

meb999
December 19th, 2005, 03:10 PM
well, I looked it up today and the Bloc is pretty strong in my riding....I may have to vote for the thieves :( A vote for NDP would be a vote for the Bloc. This sucks.

CyberKitten
December 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
Oh Gawd, I do not not envy your riding meb99 - mine is not much better but I am voting NDP anyway- I cannot vote for anything I do not believe in, ANYTHING less would m,ake me a hyocrite. It is actually between the Liberals and NDP in this riding anyway tho so I am more fortunate.

I wish the merger between the Reform/Alliance/PC/DRC --- had never occured. It makes me ill to think of some of the people in the Conservative Party in power but that said, many of the Liberals are just as bad and sometimes worse (Tom Woppel comes to mind), just more slick in hiding their biases - and also the party has a better whip I suppose tho that is easier when a party is in power. I do not think Harper could manage to make abortion rights less accessible here and contrary to popular belief, it really is not all that simple in some provinces to obtain an abortion now. Unless you reside in an urbam area or have a lot of money and go to a private clini - speaking of two tier medicine , that is the what Jack Layton meant when he mentioned some support for 2 tier. Actually we have multi tier med but do't get me started , lol

Prin
December 19th, 2005, 03:46 PM
In Qc you can get an abortion at 14 and not tell your parents. It's pretty easy here.

Schwinn
December 19th, 2005, 04:50 PM
The only thing I'm going to add here is my prediction...Liberal minority, with the lowest voter turn-out in history.

I think I'll just write on the bottom of my ballot, "They all suck". Actually, they'd have to get better to suck...

meb999
December 21st, 2005, 12:10 AM
We should start our own party -- the pets.ca party.
Equal rights for everyone, even pets!!! And no seperation. And no stealing. We could make a bill that says that anyone who's ever abandoned a pet can't ever own one again!! And Prin could build her 'Boo tunnel' connecting the 2 highway 15.

CK -- I'm really torn up about voting Lib. But the Bloc scares me. The libs steal our money and the Bloc will spend millions on a referendum -- it's a lose/lose situation. It really sucks. Do I vote my conscience or do I vote to make sure the bigger of 2 evils stays out of power??

Prin
December 21st, 2005, 12:50 AM
Yey!! Construction of the Boo!! Wooo!

I refuse to vote Bloc and I refuse to even look at their platform as long as I get only French stuff from them. I've gotten two pamphlets in the mail from them and both were only in French, while our Liberal MP sends everything bilingual- without us having to ask for it. How can I feel included if the documents that are meant to get my vote are not bilingual? Bloc is a federal party and Canada has two official languages. JMO....

Gazoo
December 21st, 2005, 08:54 AM
so far the right - left split here is kinda interesting.

Lizzie
December 21st, 2005, 09:18 AM
How can I feel included if the documents that are meant to get my vote are not bilingual? Bloc is a federal party and Canada has two official languages. JMO....

Well now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the Bloc considers themself a Canadian federal party. They consider themselves a Quebec federal party.

Their interests are only Quebec--separtism, language, rights, money. That's it. They do not represent the whole of Canada, nor do they want to.

In fairness to them, why would they send information in both English and French when the province they represent has a first language of French? I bet that in Alberta/BC/Sask and even in most parts of Ontario that most of the information, if not all, is in English only--it is the first language afterall.

If you want a united Canada, it would seem that Quebecers only have three choices--just like every other Canadian.

Prin
December 21st, 2005, 02:54 PM
The thing is, Qc needs the anglo votes to separate. They can't seem to do it alone. They're trying their best to rope in immigrants, but if that doesn't work, it's on us. And they don't have us by a long shot.

Really? Stuff in Ontario is not bilingual? I would expect the liberal stuff at the very least to be bilingual.:confused: As for Alberta and BC, I don't know if the French make up as much of the population as we do here in Qc...

Lizzie
December 21st, 2005, 03:33 PM
Really? Stuff in Ontario is not bilingual? I would expect the liberal stuff at the very least to be bilingual.:confused: As for Alberta and BC, I don't know if the French make up as much of the population as we do here in Qc...

With the exception of a few communities boardering Quebec, and Ottawa, Ontario is pretty much an English province--and perhaps a few other languages that are not French make up sizeable populations in Toronto.

Prin
December 21st, 2005, 03:37 PM
When you take the T-Can up from Ottawa, you'd be surprised how many French only towns you hit wayyyy up in the woods. That's why I'm surprised it's not all bilingual.

meb999
January 11th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Man, I'm really having a rough time making up my mind!! Everytime I watch a debate, I try to figure out which leader is the lesser evil!

I think this election campaign is getting ugly real fast. the ads are getting mean (meaner than I've ever seen it) and the debates seem to be more about bashing each other than the actual issues...

to all of you who speak french, here's a link to a site that can help you make up your mind, or confirm that your voting for your favorite party : http://www.saplin.com/elections2006/
It's interesting to see which party your ideals mesh best with. Mine is NDP, and I think I'll be voting for them -- even though they have NO chance in my riding. I can't vote liberal. I can't condon stealing. My bf keeps telling me : 'yeah, but all the parties do this - -they're just the only ones that got caught!' Which is probably true, but with that line of thought, no one would ever go to jail. 'Sure, your honor, he beat the crap outta his wife, but alot of men do it, and THEY don't go to jail!!' Libs should have to face consequences to their actions.

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 07:33 PM
I'm going for NDP. All of the younger people I know would vote for NDP but they don't vote (morons!). Imagine how different the vote would turn out if all the young people voted? The demographic would totally change.

I still don't get why Jack has so much trouble. In the English debate, he just seemed so well spoken and the only one who wasn't reading his answers the whole time... I thought he was a clear winner (Gilles Duceppe did ok too, but I'll never vote Bloc).

I mean, Stephen Harper LIED about disclosing where his party's money came from. He has not published the names yet and he lied about it. Nobody cares that he lied? On tv? In front of everybody? Nobody?

Gazoo
January 11th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Jack looked like such a used car saleman in the debates though.....everytime he looked into the camera with that phony sincere look and gave the party line I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Not as bad as Harper smiling at the most inappropriate times. "Yes, the 4 mounties dying is a tragedy" ***smiles*** :rolleyes:

Gazoo
January 11th, 2006, 07:48 PM
Harper kinda looked like he was on something didn't he??? :D

cpietra16
January 11th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Wouldn't it be interesting if no-one but no-one turned out to vote as a boycott..then what...wouldn't that be a strong message for all the parties involved? Then again they may not notice anyway. I find that in this election the parties seem to know something, insider rumors, and insider jokes that the average joe is not privy too. Almost like they forget all about the voters:mad:

cpietra16
January 11th, 2006, 07:56 PM
I think that you have to vote for the party that will do the least damage. In BC I always voted for NDP (I am an educator) because they cared the most about education, the environment etc.. I don't know how they would do federally though?? I just don't want to vote for a party that will not get in which will leave the party that will as a minority...so the question is who do you want to see in without being a minority government and who will make the least damage...the latter is the tricky one:o Like I said above it would send out a message if no one voted and since that will never happen I say please vote it will make a difference

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Harper kinda looked like he was on something didn't he??? :D
His advisors keep telling him to smile more but he's so far from human, he doesn't know when to do it...

Almost like they forget all about the votersWell, ya, when the ballot boxes all have 50 000 votes in them before the polls open, who cares about the voters? Heh heh... I'm not saying it's true, but you never know- insider trading, money grabs, scandals, dirty contracts... you never know.

StaceyB
January 11th, 2006, 08:18 PM
I too am confused because I don't want the conservatives to get in and if I vote NDP like I would like I am afraid that they will so I will probably vote liberal.
This is the problem I have. I think that Harper just wants us to run like the states and look how well they are doing right now and I am afraid that all he wants us to do is go to war. He wants to take our historic position as peac keepers and turn us into fighters. I don't see him as very honest.
Martin has been surrounded by scandal and I don't think he has been given a chance to show what he can do but he comes across as more honest than Harper.
I like what Leyton has been able to do for the country but I think that they don't have much of a concept of money and will spend too much.
The gov't was good the was it was where things would get done but they were kept in check.

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 08:28 PM
His advisors keep telling him to smile more but he's so far from human, he doesn't know when to do it...

.The guys "smile" sends shivers down my spine, I wasn't even sure thats what he was trying to do...I was just talking to someone about that before I turned the computer on :eek:

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 08:33 PM
Jack looked like such a used car saleman in the debates though.....everytime he looked into the camera with that phony sincere look and gave the party line I couldn't help but laugh out loud.Now, now Gazoo, baiting us leftys again I see LOL not tonight, Im too stressed out and Im trying to stay positive....But Jacks smile is at least a real smile, AND he wouldn't sell used cars, used bicycles maybe...cars never!:)

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 08:34 PM
lol And Jack doesn't have pure "creepy" in his eyes either...

cpietra16
January 11th, 2006, 08:42 PM
Gilles Duceppe looks creepy to me. He looks almost fake. His posters make him look sinister and he has the " I will never want to be part of Canada, but I will run for this federal election just to be a pain in the butt for everyone else" look.....can you imagine if he actually won and had to be the leader of a country he wants to get out of....Oh these are the moments you wish that god had a great sence of humor:p

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 08:51 PM
His posters are meant to bring out his eyes but they make him look very scary instead...

BoxerRescueMTL
January 11th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Duceppe looks like the bad guy from Terminator - with the scary eyes, member?? I'm voting NDP for sure.

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 09:06 PM
I'm going for NDP. All of the younger people I know would vote for NDP but they don't vote (morons!). Imagine how different the vote would turn out if all the young people voted? The demographic would totally change.

?I really think alot of it is because people feel that the NDP cant form a government so they have to vote for someone that can, Ive never felt that way, I value a strong opposition and don't really care if they form the government, I just want someone in parliament who represents my feelings on the issues, Im okay with SOME Federal Liberal policys but I want a pull to the left ofcourse, and like most leftys, Im terrified of Harper, which brings us to the other BIG problem that Jack has, some left wing leaners are scared to vote NDP for fear of a Conservative government but that will go on forever and we will never be represented, so whats a lefty to do? Im voting NDP and will now start to volunteer for the campaign.

Rick C
January 11th, 2006, 09:25 PM
But if everyone thinks that by voting conservative, they'll have a minority conservative governement -- or a conservative opposition, isn't there a possibility that they become a majority governement?

Well, lets hope so. Bring on the Conservative majority.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 09:29 PM
like most leftys, Im terrified of HarperDefinitely! But what us NDPers have to remember is that every vote gets them a bit more money next time around. We just have to sit here hoping to death (to DEATH!) that Harper doesn't get a majority. But now that he's moved ahead in the polls, maybe more lefties will get out and vote.:fingerscr :fingerscr

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Well, lets hope so. Bring on the Conservative majority.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca
Why??:confused:

Shamrock
January 11th, 2006, 09:46 PM
They all seemed scary to me..but Harper the most.:eek:

I voted undecided in this original poll - since have decided on NDP.

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 10:23 PM
Hey Shamrock welcome to the party LOL:party:

Gazoo
January 11th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Now, now Gazoo, baiting us leftys again I see LOL not tonight, Im too stressed out and Im trying to stay positive....But Jacks smile is at least a real smile, AND he wouldn't sell used cars, used bicycles maybe...cars never!:)


hybrids???

meb999
January 11th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Yeah, Ducceppe is really creepy looking in his ads. I'm not crazy about their slogan either.... He's absolutely convinced that he'll get more than 50% of Quebec-ers (sp?) votes. He says the time has come for a referendum and his 50% majority garantees him a win on the next seperation referendum. I'd like to seperate from him.

It's getting a little scary at school. I go to a VERY VERY french seperatist school and tempers are starting to flare-up. The anti-english grafiti is getting more and more threatning! It used to be 'ANGLOS GO HOME' (right at the entrance of the school) , but now it's 'ANGLOS GO HOME, WE HATE YOU, AND WE KILL YOU!' hmmmmmmm, scaaaaaaaaaaary!

meb999
January 11th, 2006, 11:04 PM
His advisors keep telling him to smile more but he's so far from human, he doesn't know when to do it...

The guys "smile" sends shivers down my spine, I wasn't even sure thats what he was trying to do...I was just talking to someone about that before I turned the computer on

You don't think this smile looks sincere?!! :rolleyes:

http://img15.imgspot.com/u/06/10/23/200Xharperspecial0511251137041707.jpg

Katze
January 11th, 2006, 11:11 PM
I'm going Green, mostly because they are the only ones with a detailed animal protection policy included in their platform.

Prin
January 11th, 2006, 11:12 PM
OMG that smile is horrible! CHILLS! CHILLLLLS! (and a couple of shudders)

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 11:18 PM
:eek: OMG that smile is horrible! CHILLS! CHILLLLLS! (and a couple of shudders)Ditto and a couple more EEEKS:eek:Nightmares for sure tonight!!!

babyrocky1
January 11th, 2006, 11:20 PM
hybrids???hmmmmm. maybe, only if the leadership thing doesn't pan out;)

Rick C
January 11th, 2006, 11:20 PM
Why??:confused:

Well you certainly can't vote for the disingenuous Liberal crooks who stand for nothing but power, waffling back and forth across the centre line as they see fit, and it goes without saying you can't vote for the NDP fruit loops . . . . . so, really, what do you have left?

I'm not happy with everything on the Conservative platform and I find the fearless leader a little too right wing for my liking but I'm definitely right of centre so there's really no other alternative for me.

The best result for the Conservative party, however, would probably be a tiny Liberal minority that would force Harper off the ticket, move the Conservatives a little closer to the centre and set up a majority Conservative win in the next election 18 months down the road.

But a Conservative majority now would be alright I guess. Bring it on.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Rick C
January 12th, 2006, 08:42 AM
That was a conversation stopper . . . . :sorry: :angel: :clown:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

StaceyB
January 12th, 2006, 09:52 AM
I am personally afraid of the conservatives getting in to power.

StaceyB
January 12th, 2006, 09:54 AM
You don't think this smile looks sincere?!! :rolleyes:

http://img15.imgspot.com/u/06/10/23/200Xharperspecial0511251137041707.jpg
I think that smile makes him look like a troll.

technodoll
January 12th, 2006, 10:16 AM
Let's see. I go to the store to buy some milk for my coffee. All they have on the shelves are diet root-beer, banana juice, Rolo shakes in a can, celery soya juice and baby wipes. Sorry but i'm walkin' out of there with my hands empty. Know what i mean? :mad:

please add a category to the poll: not voting on purpose because there is nothing to vote for!!!

CyberKitten
January 12th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Sorry STacey, I could not see the pict - is it Mr. Harper? (who I do think will be our next Prime Minister). I sit on the editorial board of a newspaper and I have been the only one saying that for weeks now - initiually, it may just have been the Irish contrarion in me (a trait we Irish matriarchs are noted for, lol - or so I am told) but the polls now support my first less than sagacious suggetion. This am, I was dreaming while listening to CBC's Informtion Morning and in the dream, I was part of the conversation, and cold not get a word in edgewise, much to me mounting frustration, lol I woke up and I could swear I heard the moderator state she heard the NDP might become the Official Opposition and the Liberal on the panel said that would be a sad day for progressives. I do know that oft repeated quote of MacKenzie King that the CCF (what the NDP were when he was PM) are just "liberals in a hurry" so I was quite miffed at his comment. As in who does he think he is? The NDP are more progressive than the Liberals - and sometimes they are liberals in as hurry, (loathe as I am to concur with the eminent Mr. King who talked to his deceased mother and also the then interred M. Laurier). For what it's worth, he is not totally correct since a democratic socialist does not a small l liberal make but there is not much that seperates the Conservatives and the Liberals except at this point, I see Mr. Harper as a much more honest man than Mr. Martin and he may be one of the more intelligent opposition leaders we have had in awhile, whether one agrees with him or not. I like some of his economic policies tho I worry about his stand on social issues like a women's right to choose for one - and capital punihsment for another. Health Care is also a conern of mine, as it is apparently for the majority of Canadians! My bf just telephoned his Conservative mother to explain why he was oting NDP but Red Tory that she is, I suspect she will forgive him.

There is an excellent book by Gad Horowitz on Canadan Labour in politics but it is the first chapter that interests me because it points out why we Canadians ended up with a party like the NDP. (It's our British heritage - which of course retained its ties so much longer, unlike our southern cousins who rebelled at taxes and have been very taxing on our own pshyche at times, lol

Anyway, I digress - I will still vote the way I planned. Has anone else heard anyone suggest the NDP might be the Official Opposition. That is the situation in NS - Tories in Power, NDP OP and the Grits in 3rd place. EXcept for the fact that three different regions seem to have strong representations of each = ie Halifax is the stronghold of the NDP, rural NS of the Tories (red and otherwise) amd Cape Breton of the Liberals - which is not all that healthy (a more balanced alignment would be preferable), that would make the federal level similar. It works well in Nova Scotia, lol (But I know NS is not necly a microcosm of Canada - New Brunswick is though- esp with regard to lingusitic and other demographics).

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 11:29 AM
You don't think this smile looks sincere?!! :rolleyes:

http://img15.imgspot.com/u/06/10/23/200Xharperspecial0511251137041707.jpg


about as sincere as Layton's deep look into the camera and the 500 times he's spewed the party line of "working for seniors, young people and working people" :p

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 11:30 AM
I am personally afraid of the conservatives getting in to power.


then you've been paying too much attention to the Liberal fear mongering ;)

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 11:41 AM
That was a conversation stopper . . . . :sorry: :angel: :clown:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca
Uhh.... I'm with Stacey. Conservatives in power is a scary thing to me.

When the charter of rights is put on hold so that people can revoke same-sex marriage, or abortion for that matter, it's just devastating (and a waste of time!). It's regression. That is what I fear will happen if the conservatives get into power. No matter how much they backtrack, they still said it once and I KNOW that Harper believes abortion is wrong and same-sex marriage is wrong and I can't trust a man who can't leave well enough alone.

Will he be in the ER when girls start coming in hemoraging from coat hangers and various other "home remedies"? In Ireland 600 girls on average go to England every WEEK to get abortions because they're illegal in Ireland. Ireland, at last count, was around 3 million people. A lot of girls are getting abortions and banning them won't help. Teaching abstinence won't help either. I don't want my future daughter to get pregnant and her best friend say, "I know a guy who can take care of that". You know?

And it starts with same-sex marriage, then abortion, then what? Are women still going to be allowed to vote? Dramatic yes, but that's what you get when you don't trust a politician at all.

It's not about what the libs say. It's about what Harper says and then takes back. I listen to every word.

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 11:42 AM
hmmmmm. maybe, only if the leadership thing doesn't pan out;)

bwahhhhaaahhhaha:D

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 11:51 AM
Uhh.... I'm with Stacey. Conservatives in power is a scary thing to me.

When the charter of rights is put on hold so that people can revoke same-sex marriage, or abortion for that matter, it's just devastating (and a waste of time!). It's regression. That is what I fear will happen if the conservatives get into power. No matter how much they backtrack, they still said it once and I KNOW that Harper believes abortion is wrong and same-sex marriage is wrong and I can't trust a man who can't leave well enough alone.


It's not about what the libs say. It's about what Harper says and then takes back. I listen to every word.

Harper represents a significant part of society that holds similar values. If his party is voted in then we'll all have to work with it. Thats what democracy is all about isn't it?



Will he be in the ER when girls start coming in hemoraging from coat hangers and various other "home remedies"? In Ireland 600 girls on average go to England every WEEK to get abortions because they're illegal in Ireland. Ireland, at last count, was around 3 million people. A lot of girls are getting abortions and banning them won't help. Teaching abstinence won't help either. I don't want my future daughter to get pregnant and her best friend say, "I know a guy who can take care of that". You know?

And it starts with same-sex marriage, then abortion, then what? Are women still going to be allowed to vote? Dramatic yes, but that's what you get when you don't trust a politician at all.

Thats's really a slippery slope argument that is a little over the top.

The only way something like that could happen would be with a large conservative majority, and even then the conservative party has a large scattering of the political spectrum from the far right to the moderate and I would venture to say that the larger part of the party is fiscally rather than socially conservative and would not support drastic social conservatism like you're suggesting.

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Like I said before, I listen to every word that slips out. No matter how much they deny it, they said it first.

yoda900_ca
January 12th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Ok I see how many of u think NDP would be a good idea. Why? Did you want your taxes to go up more? How are they "for the work" they have more social plans which increase taxes which takes more money out of the workers paycheck. How is that good for anyone?
The liberals are a joke, so that leave the coservatives. No i don't agree with everything they stand for but i do agree with the majority of their platform. The government has to stop WASTING OUR MONEY. I think the consevative hold the best chance of doing this. Remeber people it's you who went to work and earned the money, don't be so will to let the government tell u how they should have your money and they know best how to spend it.

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 12:06 PM
The liberals are a joke, so that leave the coservatives.You forgot the green party...

Money isn't enough for me. If I have lower taxes but all my and my neighbor's freedoms have been taken away, I won't be happy.

Rottielover
January 12th, 2006, 12:11 PM
If Harper gets voted in, say good bye to extra money for single parents, so good bye to daycare spots, say good bye to everything possitive

Schwinn
January 12th, 2006, 12:29 PM
Actually, what Harper said was that he would open up the same-sex marriage to a vote. I'm not against same-sex marriage, but I don't have a major issue with that. Also, he was pressured into bringing that up by the press, and he finally said that if the question were brought up to him in Parliament, that is when he would open up the issue.

I won't even get into the whole abortion thing, because that would be an entirely different thread. As a matter of fact, I think it was.

I think the corruption runs deep and hard through the Liberal government, and it's only going to get worse if they remain in power. Although I think most politicians are the same, and try and say what you want to hear, I think the current Liberals are worse than most, and would legislate "Kick Your Dog day" if they thought it would get them votes, not what was right. (Hmmm...provincial Liberals and breed ban comes to mind as the most immediate example). I think the fact that Martin, during the debates, looked in the camera and spewed about how the cabinet and Liberal party is full of the most hardworking and honest individuals made things worse. Either face the scandals head on, or ignore them. But to obviously outright lie like that makes it worse.

I don't align myself to any one party, but I followed Martin when he was finance minister, and vowed back then I would NEVER vote for him. I'm not a big fan of Harper either, and NDP is the communist party with money. Personally, I feel you vote for the party you would want to rule, regardless of the chances of them getting in. I don't agree with strategic voting, and I think it can sometimes back fire. For example, if you hate the Conservatives, and you want the NDP, but feel they would never win, what would be worse? A Conservative minority, or Liberal majority? At least with a minority, you have an opportunity of seeing your party possibly having some influence. But if you and a large number of people who feel similar vote "strategically" to avoid a Conservative majority, you risk having a Liberal majority. At least if I vote for who I support, my voice is heard in the number of votes that party receives, and I reserve the right to complain. If I vote "strategically" and that party gets in, I can't get upset if I don't like what they do. I voted them in, not based on platform, but based on avoiding another party.

Another problem with strategic voting? If you are an NDP supporter, in Ontario, you'll remember what happened to them the last two elections. They lost party status because people voted "strategically".

As I said, I'm predicting a minority government (not sure what side), with the lowest voter turn out in history because they all stink. Bring back the Rhino party!

StaceyB
January 12th, 2006, 12:35 PM
The problems I have with Harper is what I hear him say, last election and this one and everything he was viewed negatively for you don't hear again but you know that they are all still plans of his. He has all these plans to cut taxes but then plans to spend all this money for other things, where is all the money coming from. What is he not telling us because it will make him look bad.

StaceyB
January 12th, 2006, 12:43 PM
Schwinn, you do have a point.

Schwinn
January 12th, 2006, 12:59 PM
The best result for the Conservative party, however, would probably be a tiny Liberal minority that would force Harper off the ticket, move the Conservatives a little closer to the centre and set up a majority Conservative win in the next election 18 months down the road.


www.goldentales.ca

Since the day they forced the election, I was trying to rack my brain as to why they did it when they did? At the time, the chances of winning a majority looked bleak, and Martin was going to call an election come Feb/March anyway, so why then? The theory I finally came up with was this-

Before the election call, everytime Harper opened his mouth, the Conservatives lost ground in the polls, but the Liberals stayed the same. Basically, he was losing it for them. Just before the election call, you stopped seeing Harper on TV and saw deputy leader McKay doing all the talking, and they seemed to stop sliding in the polls. MY theory is that Harper knew his only chance of being PM was now or never, that the longer he waited, the more he risked losing his position as party leader.

marko
January 12th, 2006, 01:21 PM
I rarely chime in this forum - but I just wanted to say this.

I watched some of the debates this week and I HATE the way not 1 of the leaders actually answers a question.

For me, this is the type of scenario that I saw over and over from ALL candidates.

Question - Candidate X, what is your position on handguns, childcare, cutting taxes etc.

Answer - Yes that topic is extremely important to Canadians and let me just say that nothing gets me more upset than eating soggy fruitloops. I mean you pour the milk onto the cereal and before you even get the spoon to your mouth the fruitloops have gone soggy. Our plan is to coat those fruitloops so that ALL CANADIANS will never have to eat soggy fruitloops again.

Reminds me of a Shakespeare passage we had to memorize in highschool -
"tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."

That's my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.

StaceyB
January 12th, 2006, 01:24 PM
That about sums up those debates. As far as I am concerned I liked it better when they would debate each other. You seemed to get more truthful answers out of them because the others knew more than we do about their plans.

SnowDancer
January 12th, 2006, 01:42 PM
The NDP is running a very well known candidate in my riding against the incumbent Liberal who has held the seat for several years. The Conservatives are running an unknown - could be a very nice man - but not a chance he will win. I do not care for Mr. Martin or Mr. Harper, but will have to vote Liberal, as NDP would be an impossible vote for me. I am hopeful that whatever the outcome - Liberal or Conservative, both parties will rethink their leaders and replace them before the next election. And, unfortunately, so many people go into politics with the right intentions, but fall victim to the corruption to maintain their positions. Re Mr. Harper's smile, I can't fault him for that. There are so many people who have fabulous natural smiles - that are anything but real. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next Ontario election - I like John Tory and still can't believe he didn't win when he ran for mayor.

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 01:52 PM
Can anybody explain to me why Harper is in and Mackay isn't? I guess they voted within the party but why did harper win? Without Harper, the conservatives have a chance at winning some lefty votes.

I like the Shakespeare, Marko. Pretty much sums up all that is democracy today.

What I hated most about the debate was how they would ask questions between themselves and then "Steve" would ask a question and they'd totally ignore it, despite only having 30 seconds, to reply to the other twit instead.

I did like the questions "Steve" asked though.

yoda900_ca
January 12th, 2006, 02:13 PM
prin what freedoms do u think the conservatives would take away? The govvernment is already so far up my butt i'm not sure what more they could do.
Rottie - why should single parents get extra money? why should i be paying for daycare? People need to be resonsible for their own choices. I quit my job to stay home and actually raise my children. (Which was the toughest job I've ever had.) My husband and I had to cut cost to do ie -no new cars, cheap vactions etc. it but we were able to,however if my property taxes keep going up along with everything else that may no longer be an option. If taxes were lower people might not need two incomes to get by because they'd be keeping the money they worked for. i'd like to add that my hubby and i waited to have kids till we knew we could afford me quitting. I'd also like to add that my sister got pregnant in high school and dropped out. Our family rallied around her and not one day did she collect wealfare. She kept her daughter went back and got her ged, worked her way up through a company, and at 30yrs old now makes 6figures. She's be the first to tell u it was very hard but she did and she is very proud of her ocomplishments. In my personal opinion the governments job is to keep me safe in my community and keep an ifrastructure fuctioning not be my parent. The more dependent on the government u are for things the more they can control your life

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 02:59 PM
If they are going to try to take away same-sex marriage, for one (ok I won't bring abortion into this, but you know I'm thinking it), how will you know what to expect next? It all depends on how "conservative" Harper is. So many freedoms we know now are relatively new- like divorce, like homosexuality being LEGAL, like women's right to work and have equal pay. All that is liberal thinking (not Liberal, the party, liberal, the concept).

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 03:05 PM
And didn't you notice that Harper didn't say he was proud of the number of women on his team? Everybody else wants to raise their numbers, but Harper was silent. No thanks. Who was it who said "Politics is a boys' club"?

Rick C
January 12th, 2006, 03:08 PM
Can anybody explain to me why Harper is in and Mackay isn't? I guess they voted within the party but why did harper win? Without Harper, the conservatives have a chance at winning some lefty votes.

Harper represents the last vestiges of the Reform Party . . . . hence the "scary" label that can still be attached to him.

I'm anti-Reform Party in a big way, even if I'm right wing. I think the Reform party was one of the worst things that could have happened to the right wing movement in this country and it opened up a free sleigh ride for the modestly left of center Liberals for over a decade.

That's why I said in an earlier post that it would almost be beneficial if the Liberals had a modest minority, doomed to collapse within 18 months, with Harper taking the fall and the Conservatives finally gaining a more moderate face, killing the Reform Party for good.

What the country really needs is a modestly right of centre alternative to the Liberals, with the NDP serving those who want a more dogmatic left wing alternative. That would bring us back into equilibrium and give Canadians some comfortable choices in times of scandal like we see now.

I will say, however, that since the last election, however, Harper under the Conservatives has been coming closer to the centre and has been giving people a more viable alternative, even if some here don't want to concede that point. In other words, the snakeoil they're selling tastes a little better this time around.

I'm not on board with opposition to Gay Marriage, I agree with the feeling that a woman should have the right to choose and I am an absolute fanatic about keeping Church and state separate . . . . . but I will be voting Conservative. If this were the USA, I'd vote Democrat.

If I were waiting for the perfect party to come along, I'd die an old man. We have to choose, often holding our noses.

By the way, I had coffee with Ed Broadbent once. Nice guy.

What I hated most about the debate was how they would ask questions between themselves and then "Steve" would ask a question and they'd totally ignore it, despite only having 30 seconds, to reply to the other twit instead.

I did like the questions "Steve" asked though

I like the non-confrontational style of debates we've seen.

It sure beats a bunch of clowns shouting over top of each other with unintelligible gibberish.

And, if a guy doesn't answer a question, I will just say that's probably telling you, the average voter, something in itself.

I didn't like Steve too much. What kind of a question is it to ask Harper if he'd prefer leading a minority versus a majority? Duh!!!

My Globe & Mail on line reminded me today that it was Kim Campbell who famously opined that elections were no time to discuss serious issues.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

yoda900_ca
January 12th, 2006, 04:14 PM
prin- The fact if a gay couple can get married or not isn't even on my radar screen. Frankly I don't care if someone wants to marry a mule. What ever floats your boat. I'm conservative my i'm pro-choice; I just don't think my tax dollars should be funding abortions unless it's nessesarry for the well being of the mother mental or physically but not because I have a cruise coming up and i don't want to look fat in my bikini(and yes i've heard that as a reason before).
Women's rights for equal pay how can he take that away? thats dictated by the private sector. AND believe me all the government officals want u to work;more tax dollars for them that they can blow on something else.
None of these isssues are the major key in my dicision making, but what is is how my friends and family are able to live their lives. I have so many friends who won't have another kid because they can't afford the daycare and can't afford to not work. 30yrs ago you could afford to live off one person in a familys earnings but w/the tax burden so high it's become almost impossible for a vast majority of people. Tlak about womens right women should have the right to choose if the WANT to work or stay home. Right now most of them have to work.
Also i have to say our healthcare system SUCKS. It's #1 not free because we pay for in our taxes and#2 second rate to what is avalible in the states. No waiting lists there. Less and less is covered by our healthcare yet again i'm paying more in tax now then ever before.

Schwinn
January 12th, 2006, 04:17 PM
The reason Harper is leader of the Conservatives is because the Alliance and the Conservatives were negotiating to "unite the right" (after all, the Reform was split off the Progressive Conservatives, who became the Conservative Party, to begin with). The Alliance absolutly refused to consider anyone except thier leader, Harper, to be the leader of the Conservative party. This is a pretty watered down explanation, but that's the just of it.

As for being afraid of losing all of our freedoms, it is a big stretch to jump from same-sex marriage to women being allowed to vote. Many of the churches, to this day, recognize homosexuality as a sin (I'm not agreeing with that statement, by the way). Today's society, while coming around, is still divided on the issue. Even within those who accept homosexuality division can be found regarding same-sex marriage. Same with abortion, this is an issue that is not only contentious, but opinion is still very much divided on the rights and moral issues surrounding it. It has been long agreed upon by the great majority of society that women are intellectual equals to men (save for some fanatical religious sects and the greaseball at the bar asking you if you belive in love at first sight, or if he should walk by again). Regardless of how you feel about any of the major parties, they all represent mainstream society. The differences between them represent the differences in mainstream society.

As for not bragging about the number of women in the party, that actually grated on my nerves. I remember Layton talking about working to increase the number of women in parliament because it would change the way things worked in the house. How come it is okay to generalize when it is in some minorities favour? I mean, how come when I see a car for sale, and it says "Lady Driven", if one of my female friends tells me that means it's in good shape, insinuating a woman would take better care of it than a man, that's okay, yet if I say that means the clutch is burnt out, I get slapped? But I digress...

At any rate, I seem to remember reading somewhere about the number of women entering politics was a good deal less than the number of men, so, to me, the law of averages would dictate there be less woman near the top, and if a party has a large number of women, my first question would be, "Are they there because they are qualified, or because they are women?". I don't think about it either way, until someone starts telling me about all of thier efforts to increase women in thier ranks.

Schwinn
January 12th, 2006, 04:20 PM
#2 second rate to what is avalible in the states. No waiting lists there. Less and less is covered by our healthcare yet again i'm paying more in tax now then ever before.

Being someone who works for a company that handles US health care, ours isn't second rate. Yes, the wait times are longer, but the costs over there are astronomical. After seeing how thier system works, IMHO, ours is vastly superior.

K9Friend
January 12th, 2006, 04:39 PM
I do NOT think Harper is PM material. The guy speaks like a robot with a permanent smirk. His party lacks female presence. I don't like his views on abortion. I'm afraid he'll set us back on many issues. He has difficulty answering questions on the spot - he lacks passion. Quite simply, he's uninspiring. :sad:

I will vote but my vote is lost anyway. I live in a riding with a very strong BQ presence. I'm totally turned off with our political system and its leaders.:yuck:

Rick C
January 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM
I remember Layton talking about working to increase the number of women in parliament because it would change the way things worked in the house.

Actually, that sounds pretty insulting to women since he's implying they're prissy homemakers who fade to the polite side of the debate and aren't as combative as men in the political arena.

You ladies should be suitably outraged at stereotyping you. :eek: :thumbs up

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 05:06 PM
If they are going to try to take away same-sex marriage, for one (ok I won't bring abortion into this, but you know I'm thinking it), how will you know what to expect next? It all depends on how "conservative" Harper is. So many freedoms we know now are relatively new- like divorce, like homosexuality being LEGAL, like women's right to work and have equal pay. All that is liberal thinking (not Liberal, the party, liberal, the concept).


Again, the mainstream Conservatives are fiscally conservative not necessarily socially conservative and even if some radically socially conservative policy makes it in the backdoor in Parliament they will not have a strong enough position in Parliament to push anything through..

Gazoo
January 12th, 2006, 05:08 PM
I remember Layton talking about working to increase the number of women in parliament because it would change the way things worked in the house.

Actually, that sounds pretty insulting to women since he's implying they're prissy homemakers who fade to the polite side of the debate and aren't as combative as men in the political arena.

You ladies should be suitably outraged at stereotyping you. :eek: :thumbs up

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca


good point...

Shamrock
January 12th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Some very good points made in this thread. The more I read.. the more I feel like not voting at all....
Trying to pick the "lesser of the evils" is a daunting task.
Last election was so simple. I live in the riding of the late Chuck Cadman. Ethical, honest..... Indepedent.

As they respond to selected questions from the public (more spin) - what would you ask if you could put one question to the party leaders?
Why they never "really" answer ANY is one concern many have.
I'd love to see that addressed.

CyberKitten
January 12th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Re: 2 second rate to what is available in the states. No waiting lists there. Less and less is covered by our healthcare yet again I'm paying more in tax now then ever before.

I missed this somehow. There is absolutely NOTHING second rate about our health care system and I have been a patient and worked in both Canada and the US - as well as seen other systems close up around the world. Many of the health determinants never get the attention they deserve in the press because some journalists (not all but some) simply accept as gospel what some think tank says without doing fact checks. That irks me and others who work in our system day in and day out to no end!!

We have one of the if not the best medical systems in the world and anyone who says otherwise is not informed nor have they done their research. I know that sounds more strident than I like to be but I know both the media biz albiet mnot as well as I do the health care one) and medicine and it is very easy to grab unto the issue of wait times, find someone willing to whine about it and say our wait listrs are important.

They are not all that important. Other determinants are more significant - how long to people here live? How well do we do in treating babies and in our number of C sections? How many people die from x, y and z and what has been the change in the last ten years?

I guess when all is said and done, one does not have to worry about wait times in the US. You do not have to wait when you have no insurance. You might die while waiting for a hospital to accept you. More scary is the fact that many people like you and me - typical middle class hard working souls - have lost their insurance thru no fault of their own or they just cannot afford it anymore. That is especially true of small business owners. And once they do get insurance aka HMO's - one needs to find a doctor who accepts that HMO or may be directly employed by it and is rewarded by how fast they can get that person in and out the hospital door (There are actual financial incentives to do this which is against any medical oath I have ever heard of!!), a hospital that accepts it. That said, some states are better than otheres, some plans better. It is not fair to simply indict the entire US system. There are some really great systems.

It also comes down to the fact that the US does in fact have some excellent hospitals but only those wh can afford them get to benefit from them. I lead an online group for people with scoliosis (most of whom are from the US) and also moderate a forum for cancer. The waiting lists there are sometimes - esp for orthopedic surgery like spinal fusion for scoliosis - even longer than they are here!! We have done our own research on that and the fact is you will wait longer for certain procedures in the US and the same is true in Canada.

The really huge difference is you will not literally loose the family farm (and my parents know people who did loose their family farm pre medicare in Canada) when you eventually do get to the hospital. Thus, if you have a heart attack in say, Nova Scotia , you will be seen immediately in an ER (sure, there might be one or two horror cases but there are many more of those in the US depending on the issue). The same is true for cancer , esp pediatric cancer - I have had patients drive 6 hours once they left their family doctor and said they were too scared too wait. I for one would never turn them away and would fight to my death (pun intended) to find that child a bed and our staff a place for the parents to sleep. Now, if you have an elective surgery and are in pain, that can be tough (I know, I was on a 2 year waiting list for a pain clinic and yes, I could have used my clout but thank you, I prefer to practice what I preach. In the end, several procedures later, I still have the pain anyway).

Wait times are actually one of the very worst ways to ascertain how good a healtj care system is. Read CIHI's research!! I always think back to the man in my parents' neighbourhood in Florida, a retiree who fought in the world war. He could not afford insurance and broke his arm - no doctor would take him and it thus became deformed and he was in pain for a very long time. Then, when he had a heart attack, he almist died while they spent hours attempting to find a hospital who would take someone without insurance. He had run a small business and was not poor either, just one of those people who fell through the cracks. Americans alas pay more per capita in taxes
for a system they really do not have. Administration adds costs - that is one of their major problems but insurance companies have eloquent and effective lobbyists and deep pockets. Small business people do not.
Everyone has a unique situation and from the perspective of a patient, I think it is incumbent upon people to take actions into their own hands or feet or car - whatever, ;) Do not sit back and whine about the system - do something, lobby your MLA or Minister of Health - make a nuisance of yourself and you may well not have to wait as long as you think. However, for most procedures and surgeries that are not life threatening, you will not have to wait too long - depending on where you live, what you do on your own and what your medical diagnosis is. I do not like the incursion of private health care as in MRI centers (and MRI's are not the panacea so many assume they are nor are they applicable for everyone. Their manufacturers have just been excellent marketers. My own bias of course is I am someone who cannot have an MRI. But other less invasive procedures work just as well and have less radiation - do not assume that everything you read is true. Research, research, research. There are several long term studies and I will be anxious years from now to see how they rate compared to scans - and the old fashioned xray which is still sometimes still useful!) My own situation - scoliosis - has created a plethora of cancers. Why? Because we had to undergo so many old fashioned xrays. Nothing wrong with an xray but when you have one year after year, obviously, you are over exposed to radiation, esp those old clunkers used in the 60's. Did this cause my cancer? Who knows but I will not be playing victim and suing anyone. We have to make so many tradeoffs in life - had I not had the diagnostics, I would not have had my life saved.

I'll stop - I could go on and on and drive everyone nuts, lol But we have a great system and should be justifiably proud of it. Sure it's not perfect but nothing is. But never sit back and simply criticize. As the old slogan goes, don't mourn, organize!

cpietra16
January 12th, 2006, 05:57 PM
At one point in my life I could actually say I knew what a Liberal sounded like, a Conservative, NDP, etc. I think if they want to keep this election "honest":yuck: they should just say I am "so and so" and this is what I want, period. You have Candidates jumping ship depending on who can offer a better deal, Parties are grouping together to get rid of other groups.. No one truly is who they say and in the long run , according to history no one will keep any of the promises they promised. I think the only honest person is Gilles Duceppe and he shouldn't even be running because he doesn't even want to be part of Canada. This would make a great movie:confused:
And to make things worse all my cats have colds:o

babyrocky1
January 12th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Harper represents the last vestiges of the Reform Party . . . . hence the "scary" label that can still be attached to him.

I'm anti-Reform Party in a big way, even if I'm right wing. I think the Reform party was one of the worst things that could have happened to the right wing movement in this country and it opened up a free sleigh ride for the modestly left of center Liberals for over a decade.

That's why I said in an earlier post that it would almost be beneficial if the Liberals had a modest minority, doomed to collapse within 18 months, with Harper taking the fall and the Conservatives finally gaining a more moderate face, killing the Reform Party for good.

What the country really needs is a modestly right of centre alternative to the Liberals, with the NDP serving those who want a more dogmatic left wing alternative. ]Much to my surprise I would actually agree with alot of your post, ofcourse, I would prefer a modestly left of centre, lol . Were I differ with you the most is in your analysis of Harper and the party he leads, I do not see them as a moderate conservative party at all, however, i do conceed that they are running as one, but that, in my opinion, is strategic, and nothing more, the old guard reformers are all still there. Most of the moderates didn't merge, or if they did, it was just cause they had no where else to go. Harper may have been chosen because It was believed he could pass for a moderate, but is he one??? I dont think so. And he still has to satisfy his base once elected. Just my thoughts, but I must say I envy your opportunity to meet Ed, now there is a trusted leader, but I do believe that had you met Jack for coffee, you just might feel the same way. Oh and his comments about having more women in the house, how could that be demeaning, nope your way off there, Im sure he meant that the women would bring another dimention to the house, One that has been lacking for a very long time, and the house should be much more representative of our society in all ways not just the sexes! :ca: :)

babyrocky1
January 12th, 2006, 06:54 PM
I just re-read your post, Rick C, are you meaning Harper taking the fall as inthey get rid of him as leader? And then they would actually replace him with a leader closer to center, cause if you are, I don't see how that could happen cause they just "invented themselves as a futher right party when they did the merger, didn't they??? Or more to the middle than reform but less than the "old conservatives' :confused: Either way...they are way to scary, but I would love to see Martin take a hike...he trampled over so many of his"own" just to get were he is its sickening!

babyrocky1
January 12th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Again, the mainstream Conservatives are fiscally conservative not necessarily socially conservative and even if some radically socially conservative policy makes it in the backdoor in Parliament they will not have a strong enough position in Parliament to push anything through..What if they end up with a majority?????????????/:eek:

Prin
January 12th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Wow, you leave for a couple of hours and Wham! dozens of posts to read!:D

I don't take offense to Jack's comment about more women needed in parliament at all. We need more estrogen in the house.

I was thinking about this before-- all my friends are pregnant, in the beginning stages and I'm thinking what a man's world we live in- during the stages of pregnancy where the woman is puking her guts out, is incredibly tired ALL the time, but isn't showing yet, she has to work. The later stages when she's clearly showing but is otherwise ok, she is sent home. What's up with that? That's men ruling the world, that's what it is and that is why we need women in parliament. Women give a different perspective.

Jack said a third of his party is women. Why not wish for half? Why does parliament have to be a boys' club? How can it represent the population when it's all men? No matter what the topic, a group of only one sex will not be able to make the absolute best decisions when it comes to the other sex or the population as a whole.


And for health care... I think it's only second rate until you get sick. I had painful cysts on my ovaries and I had to wait 7 months for the ultrasound. By then, they were gone. But when I had this thyroid issue, and I was very close to having a heart attack, the doctor, who normally had a 4 month waiting list, saw me the next morning at 7:30AM. They are there if you NEED them. If you don't, you have to wait.

I don't know anybody who has had to wait for emergency surgery either. My 80 year old grandmother had her ovaries removed the day after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. There's no waiting period if you really need it. To me, it shouldn't be a MAJOR issue in this campaign. Minor, sure. But not major. It's just a way of diverting from the real issues.

They have it all figured out. It's like Trudeau said, pass the controversial stuff in the winter when everybody is too cold to protest...

yoda900_ca
January 13th, 2006, 08:45 AM
I too have worked on both sides of the border and have been a patient on both sides. My husband has health care outside the country and on holiday we have had to use it, The difference is night and day. I almost died over here waiting to get a gallstone out that was stuck in my common bile duct. I was in the hospital my liver enzymes were 10times normal they had called as far as hamilton to try and find a doctor to do an ercp to remove the stone because the only doctor in our region was on vaction. The put me on a triple antibotic coctail and steriods hoping there was some swelling around the duct it would go do enough to let the some bile through so they could wait 3days till he got back. It did emough to let my liver enzymes come down to 4times normal. had ercp wait 2wks to get gb removed. and i now have perment liver damage.
My hubby waited 9month to get an MRI for a torn rotator cuff(very painful) and then because it took so long scar tissue developed in the tear and after a 3month wait 4 surgey which had to be more extensive because of the delay.
We do pay for our health care with our tax dollars and yes the cost is higher in the states but things like this DO NOT HAPPEN there. Nobdy dies while on a waiting list for chemo.(like my neighbor and a guy my hubby works with). Most people in the states have health care through their employer and don't pay high costs,the very poor are covered by the government. Only a very small majority don't have insurence and yes they run into finacial problems but they still get treated. It's illegaly in the states to refuse them treatment.
I've seen people hear run into money trouble having to drive to hamilton for treatmen for month on end and for treatments that ARE NOT COVERED by our system. A friend w/ an autistic child had to move to alberta to get any help out of the sytem w his care.(pay for therapy).
My sister in law moved to texas and a first hated the idea of having to pay $10 everytime she went to the doctors office, till her son got sick. She couldn't beleive the difference his mri was schedulad for the next day he had surgery 3days later and was fine. There was no cost to her(except the $10 she paid to see the doc). Her husbands for lets them buy health issurance for their family of 4 for $100 a month. You don't think we pay more than that in taxes a month?
You can't put a price on healthcare. I'd rather be alive and bankrupt then dead. Over here your more likely to be dead.

yoda900_ca
January 13th, 2006, 08:55 AM
Cyber Er waiting rooms all over can have bad wait times. Most critical first and a broken would have to wait till after car wreck,gsw and such. In Florida there are private hospitals and county run hospitals. No hospital can refuse emergency care to a critical patient. ie -heart attack, car wreck, etc However they could for a broken arm but they would refer u to the county hospital. I think the media here tries to give us US horror stories. If you live outside of toronto or ottowa our health system is a nightmare. I have friends who can't get a regular family doctor. My brother in windsor wait 2 yrs to get a family doctor. Again these thing just don't happen in the US.

StaceyB
January 13th, 2006, 09:19 AM
I have had several frustrating experiences with hospitals and Dr.'s.
Last christmas my husband sliced his thumb while cutting potatoes and spent 7-8 hours at the Trenton Hospital. The problem there is that people who don't really need to go to the hospital go there. If you have the sniffles stay home, no need to take up space in the emergency. There were others there that were worse off than him and had to wait just as long. I asked them when we went in if he waited so long the cut that did require stitches would swell up too much to stitch and they said no you can wait 12 hours, it did swell too much, so 8 hours for nothing.
In the summer my feet and legs swelled up like balloons. If they were not numb I wouldn't have went but with all the health issues I have, the fact that this had never happened before and fear that there was really something wrong I went to the hospital. I spent 8 hours to find out it was probably the heat, what a waste of time and bed space. They haad one Dr. covering three emergency areas in the hospital.
I don't get why they are not more efficient.
I travel 3 hours every three months to my family Dr. because nobody here will treat me because of the pain meds I have to take.
In Ottawa there are no after hour clinics. You know the place where people would go that need medical care but don't need emergency care, I don't get it. Even Trenton has several of them.

chico2
January 13th, 2006, 09:27 AM
Yoda,$100/month for health-insurance in the US???
I know a middleaged couple in Florida,who's premiums have gone up to $1.200/month,because the husband had knee surgery...
Private healthinsurance is great in the US as long as you are not sick!!
Back to the election,nothing Harper ever promises,would convince me he is right for Canada:mad: His robotlike demeaner,reeks of insincerity..
He probably will be our next PM and I know,many exLiberals hung up on the Gomery inq etc..will regret their desicion,to go with Harper..
Every politician is corrupt,after leaving office,everyone always becomes a millionaire collecting paybacks,it does not matter who it is..
Still I am and always will be a Liberal voter...

Rick C
January 13th, 2006, 11:12 AM
Much to my surprise I would actually agree with alot of your post, ofcourse, I would prefer a modestly left of centre, lol . Were I differ with you the most is in your analysis of Harper and the party he leads, I do not see them as a moderate conservative party at all, however, i do conceed that they are running as one, but that, in my opinion, is strategic, and nothing more, the old guard reformers are all still there. Most of the moderates didn't merge, or if they did, it was just cause they had no where else to go. Harper may have been chosen because It was believed he could pass for a moderate, but is he one??? I dont think so. And he still has to satisfy his base once elected.

You misunderstood my post.

When the Alliance (Reform) merged with the Conservatives, the Alliance was running the agenda and putting forward the leaders . . . . . but that doesn't mean the moderates aren't in the party.

As we've gone forward and the Conservatives suffered various debacles as a result of the wingnuts on the far right running the agenda, we've seen the moderates are taking more control within the party.

When I said the preference would be a small Liberal minority, I meant that would probably be the coup de grace for the old Alliance element and the point where moderates would finally re-gain the agenda within the Conservative Party, selecting a more moderate leader and be ready to come out shooting when the inevitable election came about 18 months down the road, hopefully with a majority in that election.

Even if we do see a Conservative majority this time, however, it will likely have resulted because of a moderating influence emerging within the party, moving closer to the centre to give those who want an alternative something to grab onto.

And Canadians do want an alternative. While its fashionable and politically expedient for those on the left to try to keep the "radical" label on the Conservatives, that's rapidly fading.

But I'd prefer to see a Liberal minority than a Conservative minority for the reasons I stated above.

Poll results yesterday put the Conservatives on the verge of a majority though:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060113.wxelexnseats13/BNStory/specialDecision2006/

Just my thoughts, but I must say I envy your opportunity to meet Ed, now there is a trusted leader, but I do believe that had you met Jack for coffee, you just might feel the same way.

Liking someone/finding them personable and agreeing with them are two different things. They're both radical wingnuts who would do serious damage to this country if they ever gained power. Judging them on their likeability would be as shallow as judging someone on their appearance.

As an amusing sidebar, I should tell you my Bob Rae story . . . . . met him at the funeral of Grant Notley, former NDP leader in Alberta who died in a plane crash. I was at the reception when this guy walks up to me with sandwiches stuck between ALL of his fingers and his mouth bulging on all sides, a fairly strange and hilarious sight. Introduces himself, between gulps, as Bob Rae, then leader of the Ontario NDP. Later, of course, he became premier of Ontario.

Oh and his comments about having more women in the house, how could that be demeaning, nope your way off there, Im sure he meant that the women would bring another dimention to the house, One that has been lacking for a very long time, and the house should be much more representative of our society in all ways not just the sexes! :ca: :)

No one would argue the world couldn't use more female politicians to fairly represent that segment of society . . . . . . but he was, inadvertently, saying women are more civil than men and I know women who prefer to think they would be just as aggressive and combative as men on the issues.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 11:20 AM
I don't believe polls. Our electoral system doesn't account for popularity. In Montreal, for example, some ridings have historically voted 100% bloc and others 100% Liberal, but that by no means says the two parties are 50/50. They say they account for different ridings in the polls but I don't buy that. They don't get a big enough sample from each riding.

Shamrock
January 13th, 2006, 04:11 PM
QUOTE=Prin]I don't believe polls. [/QUOTE]
I agree Prin - polls arent necessarily a true reflection, dependent on where they were taken.

What about ours? NDP in the lead.:D

As we represent a small but varied cross-section of Canadians from coast to coast - how about another now?
With the debates over, the ugly campaign in full gear now - where are those undecided votes going? Has anyone has changed their mind?
I believe "not sure" shouldnt apply any longer - but "not voting" might:rolleyes: .
(though I will most certainly excercise my right to cast a ballot

K9Friend
January 13th, 2006, 04:21 PM
I find it interesting as well how quite a few people are not saying who they are voting for to your face. I know a lot of people who claim their vote will be a strategic vote - so that the conservatives do not get a majority! All very interesting! :crazy:

Rick C
January 13th, 2006, 04:23 PM
FYI . . . if anyone is interested, a study of five countries and attitudes and results in their local healthcare systems.

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/2004_survey_charts.pdf

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 04:25 PM
I put a new poll here: http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=22962
But we can still reply in this thread so we don't end up with two threads to have to read...:)

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 04:46 PM
FYI . . . if anyone is interested, a study of five countries and attitudes and results in their local healthcare systems.

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/2004_survey_charts.pdf

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca
Doesn't make sense.. We're happy with our system the way it is compared to other countries, but we complain about waiting to see a doctor the most and that we don't have choice in our doctors. We also lack doctors, so we have to go to the ER for small stuff where we wait longer than anybody else only to have the ER staff not control our pain as well as we'd like. What do people like?:confused:

All I can say is I'm glad we don't have American health care...

I also find it funny that we don't take our doctor's advice on lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, etc), but 55% of us say that we don't think our doctors give us enough lifestyle advice... Why would he or she give you advice you won't take anyway?:D

Rick C
January 13th, 2006, 05:10 PM
We're happy with our system the way it is compared to other countries, but we complain about waiting to see a doctor the most and that we don't have choice in our doctors.

Makes perfect sense if you're a Canadian who's had the bejeesus scared out of you that the big bad Conservatives are going to take away your free medical care. :highfive: :sorry: :angel:

"Sure, it's wonderful here . . . . . you know, except for the parts that suck!!" :eek: :clown:

Somedays I crack myself up. Must be Friday. Time to go home.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

CyberKitten
January 13th, 2006, 05:36 PM
I will reply later when I have time - I work 70 hrs a week and am at work so please do not tell me ours doctors are not doing what we need to do or seeing ppl who need help. And I work even tho I am sick! But enuf whining, lol

I am most alarmed that anyone would cite Fla as a good system. With all due respect, it has one of the worst records in the country and therefore the world. I have had experience with it - and seen it. And I would not touch it save the Mato Clinic in Jville or the Children;s in Tampa which is I think 50th in the US and and World Report annual study, but those county hospi=tals, OMG!!!!!! I have seen my grabndpaents, parents and theoir friends brought there - we got them home to Canada asap, in my grandpa's case, the next day with a jey a friend had. It was HORRID!!!!! You might get a leg fixed there but I would check it later.

And the lowest snowbirds pay per month is $1200 maybe, most are more like $3000 - my parents were cired 2500 a month and they take their chances - they can afford to get sick sans insurance so they are fotunate. As for their Fla neighbours who are US citizens, they ae buying meds from Canada online (still) , still wanting something like we have, warts and all.

We have several docs and nurses who have worked to Fla- lured by promises of high wages and bonuses, etc - they put their time in but got the heck out of there. As someone emailed me today ...


The New York Times yesterday had a sad front pager detailing the demise of three for-profit diabetes prevention centres in the city, which is experiencing something of an epidemic of Type 2 diabetes.



From the story:



They did not shut down because they had failed their patients. They closed because they had failed to make money. They were victims of the byzantine world of American health care, in which the real profit is made not by controlling chronic diseases like diabetes but by treating their many complications.



Insurers, for example, will often refuse to pay $150 for a diabetic to see a podiatrist, who can help prevent foot ailments associated with the disease. Nearly all of them, though, cover amputations, which typically cost more than $30,000.



As the article goes on to show, one of the less talked-about problems with for-profit medicine is that good, effective preventive medicine is not “profitable.”



Think about that when you go and vote.



OH, AND HAVE I MENTIONED?:
VOTE (you can guess that one, lol)

chico2
January 13th, 2006, 05:40 PM
I lived my first 25yrs in Sweden,with actually one of the best Healthcare systems in the world,I never knew(in those days)that some people in the world did not have"free"healthcare,which is really not free,since we pay high taxes to make sure everyone is taking care of,rich or poor.
When they started to run out of money,doctors started charging a small fee,like $5 for each visit,nobody was reluctant to pay.
I believe a system like that would work here as long as the fee does not exceed what people can afford.
But then again,we already pay an extra fee with our newly introduced health-premium.

chico2
January 13th, 2006, 05:46 PM
CK,I don't know if you meant me citing Florida as a good system,I absolutely did not...My friends in Florida are Americans,not snowbirds and it was horrid the way they were treated when the husband needed knee-surgery and he waited a loong time for it.
$1.200 a month healtinsurance is something they just could not afford.:sad:

babyrocky1
January 13th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Ok I see how many of u think NDP would be a good idea. Why? Did you want your taxes to go up more? How are they "for the work" they have more social plans which increase taxes which takes more money out of the workers paycheck. How is that good for anyone? it.The notion that the NDP would increase taxes is one of those things that people just assume about them. I havent paid attention, dollar for dollar, as to how much each party will be spenidng but they All includng the conservatives have big spending packages! Alot of people are still mad about Bob Raes, NDP in Ontario. As far as Im concerned alot of that wasn't there fault and the part that was, was due to inexperience and the f aact that they were more surprised to end up in government with a MAJORITY of all things than anyone else was. Rae, unlike his successor, Harris, did TRY and work for everyone, the business community included, did he succeed, no but the recession wasn't his fault, he thought that the unions would work with him, would trust him when he told them there just wan't the money that they asked for, but the crucified him instead. He did try to juggle everyones needs n ot just the people who suppported him. Harris must have seen how well it worked for Rae and he sure as heck didn't make that mistake, He knew who his base was, and was there only for them, he was practically a hit man for the rich! He succeeded in demonizing the poor as well as the whole public service. He didn't give a Shoot what happened to any of them or the public that they serve. He didnt need them. But did the Harrisites improve the much valued government financial situation....NOOOOO they left a huge deficit, in every way. This is the kind of Government I expect from Harper and even his white wash of a platform tells you that. ...cont

babyrocky1
January 13th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Instead of a national child care program, he would give everyone twelve hundred dollars a year. Need it or not. To a rich person this is what a dinner out...yeah Im being sarcastic but please you get the point. Mayb eits threee dinners. To a single mother needing childcare so they can contribute to the workforce, this doesnt buy them a week of good care. So we now have the poor subsidizing the rich. Education and health care in our system work the same way, we have subsidized education for everyone, even the people who feel they are paying the whole load don't... higher ed is subsidized heavily by the gov. sooo if a grant programme is not in place for the less well off students, and it keeps them out of the higher education programmes, then again the poor, through their taxes are subsidizing the rich. Health care, subsidized by the gov BUT if user fees get in the way of the poor accessing the health care system then its THE POOR subsidizing the rich.

babyrocky1
January 13th, 2006, 07:16 PM
Harpers money for the kids to play sports, Give aways for the rich!!! Or at least people who are well off. How much does it cost a yr. for a kid to play hockey upwards of fifteen hundred????? How many poor people will benifit from that subsidy for the rich. A program like that would be fine if it were tied to income, and I don't mean just for the very poor but for poor to middle income. AND whats the problem with culture??? Not in Harpers vocabulary. God forbid someone might want to dance, sing, paint, play music?????? We need the "extra curriculars" obviously and especailly since those programmes have been cut out of the schools by the TORIES! ahhhhh....I swore I wouldn't do this...Ill stop now,,,,and rest...:sorry: held my tongue for too long. Dont be mean to me you rightys!!!! Im very sensative these days.:fingerscr

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 09:00 PM
I noticed that too. All the benefits to parents go for programs that the poor can't even afford, with or without help.

And what of the parents whose kids don't do extracurricular sports? When I was growing up, my school was an hour away and having a single dad meant there was nobody to pick me up if I missed the bus after school. So unless I wanted to sleep on a park bench after soccer practice or in the stands after a hockey game, I didn't get to play sports. Is it fair that my dad, who is working his a** off shouldn't get the subsidy but a parent from Westmount (rich neighborhood) who can afford hockey and more does get it?

I forgot to argue that point earlier- about why should we help people when some people can make it without help? Some people don't have the network that others do. I'm watching all the people my age getting pregnant by accident and having this huge safety net to catch them. We don't have that. If we get knocked up, it's only on us. It's a big difference right from the start. You can't compare yourself to people at the bottom because you aren't one. You don't know what it's like. Even I don't even pretend to understand how hard it would be to start without a chance and I won't be the one to take away any person's last breath of air..

babyrocky1
January 13th, 2006, 09:18 PM
Prin, by safety net do you mean, family and friends, when I first read your post I thought you meant governmt safety net but thats barely left, as I read it over again I now think you meant extended family etc. which I would totally agree with. I think its great that people have family and friends that are willing to be called on when needed but increasingly we live in a society were that just isn't the case, Iknow its a cliche but "it takes a villiage to raise a child" is so true, sometimes the villiage can be the family but more and more often its up to the community, it used to be that teh community new one another and when someone needed help the neighbours would actually pitch in, or so were told about the olden days LOL but now were often isolated, especially in larger citys, nonone knows you or gives a rats behind. So when we say its up to governments to do something, its the same as saying communities in the greater sence, and the plain facts are that when we don't care for our society as a whole we all suffer and Toronto is surely a testimate to that. Poverty also raises health care costs, bottom line is we pay for it somehow, and Id rather see it paid for with good education, starting with ECE, than a variety of social illls that none of us needs to see listed. On Yodas point about choosing to stay home and raise her kids and sacraficing income, that too should be an option that is valued, and as a society we have never valued a 'stay at home mom or pop" There should certainly be incentives to help people choose that option, but what about the stay at home moms that have the nannies...they are going to get the hundred bucks too!!!! I do know were of I speak, I taught these kids art and no worries about who was picking them up, it was the nannies cause mommy was at the "club" Not to say these rich people are bad, they arent, but they just don't need the hundred bucks GEEEEEZ

Puppyluv
January 13th, 2006, 09:30 PM
I know this is often used as an excuse not to vote, but that's not what I'm using it for, I am going to vote, I just thought I'd air this: Every election I have been able to vote in (save civil elections) I have been one of those people who's vote "doesn't count". I have lived in three ridings, and in all three, the leader of a political party was one of the candidates (Joe Clark, Paul Martin, and now, Gilles Duceppe) Now admittedly, Joe wasn't a given in his last election, because the reform party was so popular in AB at the time, but I mean really, no matter who I vote for, Gilles is not going to be out-voted by some no-name liberal/conservative/NDP/independent/Green/etc etc. I will vote, yes, for the person/party I believe in, but I hope that next election I will live in a riding where it's not a given who will win.

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 09:33 PM
On Yodas point about choosing to stay home and raise her kids and sacraficing income, that too should be an option that is valued, and as a society we have never valued a 'stay at home mom or pop" There should certainly be incentives to help people choose that option, but what about the stay at home moms that have the nannies...they are going to get the hundred bucks too!!!!
What happens is people don't sacrifice the incomes and you either get a very low birth rate or a bunch of parentless kids (or as is the case now, both). News flash: if you're not home when your kids get home from school, they're up to no good. Even the best ones. ;)

Prin, by safety net do you mean, family and friends, when I first read your post I thought you meant governmt safety net but thats barely left, as I read it over again I now think you meant extended family etc. which I would totally agree with.Yes, I meant family and friends. I mean look at my house warming- it's our first house, first house warming and we got a hose, a $50 reno depot gift certificate and some pasta. The people who wished us well are the greatest but out of 56 aunts, uncles and cousins, only 3 couples showed up or called or sent a card. My dad does his best (he helps with the renovation work) and my brothers and I are just now becoming close (they help with the renos too :) ). I'm by far not the worst, but like I said, I can sympathize and I won't ever take the money away from those who need it more than I do.

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 09:34 PM
I will vote, yes, for the person/party I believe in, but I hope that next election I will live in a riding where it's not a given who will win.
Your vote still gives that party money for the next election, so it's not a waste at all.:)

babyrocky1
January 13th, 2006, 09:39 PM
True, and now that were finally starting to talk seriously about proportional representation, if people vote for who they really want we will start to see some real numbers and real opionions instead of "strategic voting"

CyberKitten
January 13th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I vowed I would say no more and it is late so I have to be at my most diplomatic, lol I am only replying to 3 things. Most importantly, I did not mean you Chico and I would never hurt your feelings that way!!!! There was someone - I forghet who - who citred Fla as an example of having County hospitals where ppl did not have to wait long. The problem with those hospitals is that many health care consumers do not check to see who actually works there. Some are good but many hire anyone - and they get what they pay foir. The vast majority (and this is a fact that can be verified) is that most Fla clinics have physicians who are not Board certified - it is great place for a doctor we have turfed out to set up pratice. There was one from NS who was expelled for want of a better word who had no trouble at all obtaining a Fla licence. Needles to say, he buried his mistakes - and I mean that literally since autospies were required and it was ONE mess. I was pres of our medical society at the time and had to testify. I am not happy to hear Fla dn hospitals in the same sentence, lol

Chico, I was agreeing with you about snowbirds. People - Canadians or others, incl Americans for that matter since my mom is a duel citizen (US
and Cdn) - tho she votes only in Canada - have to pay really high fees for health insurance. Most of my parents' friends pay an average of $2500 -$3500. My parents have opted not to bother since even that covers not that much. A friend of theirs - and mine - had a heart attack last year. He was paying $3800/month for 4 months and still had to pay an extra $100,000 or so. There are procedures and he alas went directly to the ER, imagine that - while having a heart attack. They argued he should have contacted first. (Envision him having a heart attack and contacting some clerk at an insurance co to see what hospital he could go to. It's ridiculous!!!) He is however the son of a former promimant MP (Tory for those of you who even care, lol) so my money is on him to win in court though!

The 2nd thing was I think there should be a law requiring people to vote. (Like Australia and NZ have). How can you have a democracy and what is the point of young men like my uncle who died in 1941 dying in war if we do not utilize those rights we fought so hard for. Women in Canada had a rough time obtaining the votes, esp provincially in Quebec (which was "given" only in 1940!!!!!!) so I am appalled at any woman who refuses to vote. Such individuals - and I am trying to be kind but as someone involved in the political process to try to make our society a better place (and yep, there are a feqw of us) - for Gopd sakes, VOTE!!!! There is no excuse not to vote! People get 4 hrs a day at work and every party will provide rides and sitters. If you do not like the candidates, at least write it on the ballots - I have seen some interesting comments on ballots, lol - eveb party leadership ones.

And I too have lived in ridings where it was suggested my vote did not count. Every vote counts. It is lkudicrious to suggest otherwise, unless you believe in some jevenile beliefe that you only win if your party wins. Not so!!!! You win if you vote for what you believe in. Take Tommy Douglas for example - almost every social program we have is in part due to the work of this man (named the Greatest Canadian) yet he never was Prime Minister. If I vote for him in the boonies of the Marirtimes, I still would have supported him and my own beliefs at the same time!! I am not impressed by any of the party leaders to be honest - and they are not even very good at putting together ads this time (They need Rock Mercer) - If I were the Liberal,s well never mind, I do not want to give them ideas, lol

On the cynical side, if you do for example believe strongly in environmetal issues but think the Green Party candidate has no chance in you know where you can be like my dad who in the last election gave them a vote so they would have at least more money in the next election. Under legislation, parties are funded by taxpayers - you and me - so we give them money by voting. Ultimately tho, parties are us - even if only 5 % of the populatiion belong to them. I am proud to live in a region where we have high voter turnout. I really do understand extraparliamentary activity (like demonstrations, etc) and lobbying but one also has to vote!! Otherwise, one has no right to citizenship or to complain! With one's right to all we have in Canada - and they are rights many lost lives for and worked very hard - we cannot afford to be arragant enough to stay home. My dying grandmother made sure one of the last things she did was vote - by write in ballot - but she voted. She maintained a prfecet record of Progressive Conservative voting for some 65 yrs, (after she turned 21 - recall it is only recentlyt 18 has been the age one is eligible to vote).

That's it, lol

I guess I am still voting NDP. I did manage to hear Steven Harper in person and he is a nice guy but I am still too much the Red Tory and cannot vote Liberal.

chico2
January 13th, 2006, 11:08 PM
It's ok CK,I thought you missunderstood what I wrote..
Babyrock,thank you for reminding everyone what Harris did to our province:pawprint:and what a man like Harper will do to our COUNTRY!

Puppyluv
January 13th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Your vote still gives that party money for the next election, so it's not a waste at all.:)
Oh yes, I forgot about that!

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 11:22 PM
I think the negative ads are VERY un-Canadian. When a state that borders Canada elects a governor, we see endless attack ads on the networks we get here and I don't know about you all, but I was always glad we weren't like that. We're always much lighter about politics and I hope this election doesn't ruin that.

Don't tell me why Joe MP is bad- I can figure that out on my own. Tell me why you are good.

Puppyluv
January 13th, 2006, 11:22 PM
:eek: I'm with CK on the Fla healthcare issue... I spent my springs in florida at training camps for 6 years. Let's just say that with 8 hours of intense exercise a day, a lot of people get a lot of serious injuries, and a lot of people get pretty sick. So we made a lot of trips to the doctor's office/health clinic/hospital. All I can say is "What a disgrace":sad:

free
January 13th, 2006, 11:28 PM
i like how harper is giving 500 for sports. but it truly is not 500 because it is a tax credit on your income tax, that works out to abot 80. we spent more years ago on baseball for my girls, and that was for the summer months only. as for the childcare 1200. it will not be that for people who work as it is taxable so what help is that for most. with all the problems in toronto subsidized daycare to me sounds better. early childhood education makes a big difference when kids go to school.

Prin
January 13th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Oh that reminds me- remember in the debate when Harper was asked why his tax cuts benefitted the rich only and not the poor? He answered that the poor don't pay taxes. What the hey is that?

chico2
January 14th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Prin,what that is,is Harper and the PC's..
I am actually sad,not angry about the possibility of Canada soon becoming a 52'nd US state:sad:
To me Harper is a Bush wannabee.
I dread to have to see Mr Flaherty,Clements(sp?) etc..as Harpers cabinetministers,people I hoped I would never again see,just wait until you see who we will trust with our country.
I can understand(to a point) young working people,with healthy kids wanting to pay less taxes,not seeing beyond a few extra $$$ in their pockets,not really caring if more people become homeless.Every taxcut has to come from somewhere and it usually is from the less fortunate,who really do not have a voice as is Harpers own words"they don't pay taxes":mad:
Are we becoming a society who do not care if kids go to school hungry as long as ours can play hockey??
It looks like we are and that saddens me.
My husband and I are ok,it does not really matter to us personally,who is governing Canada,but my Canada takes care of their own.

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 11:01 AM
to all you vocal lefties, a general question that covers so many of your responses here...
;)
so at what point do we stop punishing the "well off" for working hard, making sacrifices, saving money and being successful?

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Oh that reminds me- remember in the debate when Harper was asked why his tax cuts benefitted the rich only and not the poor? He answered that the poor don't pay taxes. What the hey is that?

and the problem is??? :p

Rick C
January 14th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Oh that reminds me- remember in the debate when Harper was asked why his tax cuts benefitted the rich only and not the poor? He answered that the poor don't pay taxes. What the hey is that?

Factually, if I'm not mistaken, about 80% of all personal income taxes in Canada are paid by about 20% of all taxpayers, those in the higher or highest brackets, the most successful people in society.

So, factually, Harper is correct in observing that the poor pay a fairly insignificant portion of total taxes and generally do so at the lowest marginal rates.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 11:31 AM
Factually, if I'm not mistaken, about 80% of all personal income taxes in Canada are paid by about 20% of all taxpayers, those in the higher or highest brackets, the most successful people in society.

So, factually, Harper is correct in observing that the poor pay a fairly insignificant portion of total taxes and generally do so at the lowest marginal rates.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

...and again,

why should we punish hard work, sacrifice and success?!?!?!?!

chico2
January 14th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Gazoo,actually we are in the higher income bracket(now retired),paid more in taxes than most people make a year.
We were lucky,healthy,strong and ambitious always worked hard and husband had excellent wages,but I've seen the other side of the coin.
Not everyone is born healthy and strong,if we let less fortunate people lay by the wayside,we are no better than any 3rd world country.
The childpoverty rate in Canada is higher than most industrial nations.
We don't need to be bleeding heart liberals to want everyone in our country to have a fair chance at a better life,even if they were not born with a silverspoon in their mouth.

Rick C
January 14th, 2006, 02:39 PM
Gazoo,actually we are in the higher income bracket(now retired),paid more in taxes than most people make a year.
We were lucky,healthy,strong and ambitious always worked hard and husband had excellent wages,but I've seen the other side of the coin.
Not everyone is born healthy and strong,if we let less fortunate people lay by the wayside,we are no better than any 3rd world country.
The childpoverty rate in Canada is higher than most industrial nations.
We don't need to be bleeding heart liberals to want everyone in our country to have a fair chance at a better life,even if they were not born with a silverspoon in their mouth.

Where in this thread has our right wing friend Gazoo advocated "letting less fortunate people lay by the wayside?"

Is that an attempt to associate the right of centre agenda with increased poverty or cuts in social programs as a result of quite correctly lowering taxes in a federal budget that has a monumental surplus? :angel:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

chico2
January 14th, 2006, 02:48 PM
Sorry Rick,passions running on high:evil:

Prin
January 14th, 2006, 05:27 PM
So, factually, Harper is correct in observing that the poor pay a fairly insignificant portion of total taxes and generally do so at the lowest marginal rates.
Maybe so, but losing 20% of $18000 a year hurts a lot more than losing 50% of $200 000 and to be honest, most likely the person has worked a LOT harder for the $18000 than the person for the $200 000. Hundreds of thousands means responsibility, under twenty thousand means hard labor.

What can you buy with $14 400? And yet, I know some single moms with 5 kids on that salary.

Studies show that over $50 000 a year, the money doesn't make you happier. So why not give the poor back their $3600 if it won't make a difference to the rich's overall being?

Hell, you can match the tax breaks you give to the poor, so give that $3600 to a rich guy and watch him blow it on one Visa bill.

les
January 14th, 2006, 07:25 PM
I didn't want to get involved in this one but I've been fighting the urge for days .....

Why does the "poor" deserve it more then the "rich"?

It should be an equal playing field - frankly, it doesn't matter that YOU think the poor deserve it more and the rich might go out for dinner ... so what - that would be their choice of how to spend it.

I say if one gets it, everybody gets it and if you want more ..... get it yourself! It's not supposed to be a "free ride"

As for the single mom with 5 kids ... sorry but SHE made her choice and why should I pay for it???

I was in NO way born with a silver spoon in my mouth and my parents are middle/upper middle class. I had some hard years and got into financial trouble - My parents bailed me out of it and I paid them back every penny ... never once did I ask for a free ride or some handouts.

And since then I've worked HARD and got myself to where I am today - doing well. SO why should I be penalized because I've worked my butt off and sacrificed to save and plan while someone who doesn't gets all the money back? Where the heck is the incentive to work harder and do better in that??? There is none!

I'm hoping for a conservative MAJORITY ... and btw, I'm a 27 year old female ... and NO I don't believe Harper is going to take away my right to vote ... this is Canada.

As for gay marriage and abortion ... I'm pro-choice but I won't make that my deciding factor and I don't actually believe Harper would automatically reverse those things.

For all the cutting down of Harper based on his smile ... I could cut Martin down just as easy ... but he does it enough without my help.

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 07:27 PM
Where in this thread has our right wing friend Gazoo advocated "letting less fortunate people lay by the wayside?"

Is that an attempt to associate the right of centre agenda with increased poverty or cuts in social programs as a result of quite correctly lowering taxes in a federal budget that has a monumental surplus? :angel:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca


Exactly and thanx Rick C.

I have never advocated for leaving the less fortunate lay by the wayside....


(and I'm actually more of a right leaning moderate, and more fiscally conservative than socially conservative)


but I also don't believe that the government is the best prepared or skilled to take on being a welfare state; which has been proven by the mess the western governments have made of trying to help the less fortunate over the last 50 yrs.

I believe that social services should be community based NGO's and community funded rather than government based (and gov't mismanaged)

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 07:31 PM
IFor all the cutting down of Harper based on his smile ... I could cut Martin down just as easy ... but he does it enough without my help.


not to mention Layton's used car salesman approach :p

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 07:35 PM
and Layton's mustache...I mean WTH is with that thing....


I thought those things went out with 70's porno :confused:


:D

les
January 14th, 2006, 07:37 PM
I thought those things went out with 70's porno

Maybe it's about to make a comeback! ;)

Gazoo
January 14th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Maybe it's about to make a comeback! ;)


Good point :D

Rick C
January 14th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Maybe so, but losing 20% of $18000 a year hurts a lot more than losing 50% of $200 000 and to be honest, most likely the person has worked a LOT harder for the $18000 than the person for the $200 000. Hundreds of thousands means responsibility, under twenty thousand means hard labor.

What can you buy with $14 400? And yet, I know some single moms with 5 kids on that salary.

Studies show that over $50 000 a year, the money doesn't make you happier. So why not give the poor back their $3600 if it won't make a difference to the rich's overall being?

Hell, you can match the tax breaks you give to the poor, so give that $3600 to a rich guy and watch him blow it on one Visa bill.

For a post like that Prin, top to bottom, I would hope your excuse is the idealism of unrequited and untested youth because if it isn't, I'm plumb afeared you're going to wind up being a bitter old lady someday.

From your post Prin, we have gleaned the following unalterable truths of the big, wide world:

1) People who put the least amount of effort into life make the most money and/or have the most career success and:

2) Those who work the hardest are paid the least and have the least amount of career success and:

3) People who have the most responsibility put in the least amount of effort at work and

4) Someone who earns $200,000 is invariably less happy than someone earning $18,000 and

5) Someone paying $100,000 in taxes is going to miss it less than someone paying $3,600 in taxes.

That is one fracking (obligatory Battlestar Galactica reference) amazing pile of . . . . . . logic. :thumbs up

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 15th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Well, there you go. We agree, but in different ways.;)

As for the single mom with 5 kids ... sorry but SHE made her choice and why should I pay for it???

I was in NO way born with a silver spoon in my mouth and my parents are middle/upper middle class. I had some hard years and got into financial trouble - My parents bailed me out of it and I paid them back every penny ... never once did I ask for a free ride or some handouts.
Actually, she didn't make her choice. Her husband died unexpectedly.

And yes, you did get a free ride. Getting bailed out by your parents IS a free ride. A LOT of people don't have parents to bail them out. A lot of people don't get to pay things back when they feel like it.

les
January 15th, 2006, 08:49 AM
And yet, I know some single moms with 5 kids on that salary.


SOME moms .... did ALL their husbands die unexpectantly??

As for my free ride ... if you want to call it that - I got it from my parents not any tax payers I didn't know! I didn't decide that was the way I was going to live long term.

I wanted more ... so I worked hard and got more.

chico2
January 15th, 2006, 08:52 AM
Prin,I am with you...it's difficult for anyone who grows up in a"normal family"with parental support,to understand people who do not have that basic support to fall back on.
These same people have a certain preconcieved notion of people needing help,as being beer-drinking,cigarettsmoking lazy multy-children moms:mad:
Sure,there is abuse in every system,but then there are those unfortunate people not born to caring parents,with various disabilities,we see them on the streets of Toronto every day.
I happen to know one of them,not disabled enough to collect disability,but too disabled to get a job.
His welfarecheck is $520/month(after Harris cut back 23%)rented room $420,$100 left for food,clothing,bus-tickets etc...
If you are a strong,healthy person I see no reason why you are not working,but it's up to our social services to investigate to make sure the person applying is not driving a "luxury-car,living in a mansion"another popular myth with some people:p
In a very popular tax-cut for the"wealthy"we saved $3.000/year on the backs of the poor and Prin is very right,those $3.000 did not make much difference to us,but would greatly benefit the poor in our society!
and NO we did not donate it!(I could feel that suggestion coming:D )

chico2
January 15th, 2006, 09:11 AM
Les,you've done well and I am sure your parents are very proud of you,as am I of my sons.
But you and many others will never understand the different circumstances people grow up in,through no fault of their own.Going to bed hungry,waking up hungry,is not the way Canadian children should grow up..and if you've never been hungry,you'll never know..
I myself grew up on welfare,my mother divorced and crippled by disease,I resolved never to be in that situation and I succeded,but I would never resent people needing help to put food on the table,many of those being the working poor.
Instead,I am very greatful for all that we have,yes,we worked for it and can now enjoy a great retirement,doing the things we love to do..

hounds003
January 15th, 2006, 10:13 AM
I've tried to read through all the posts quick so hope I'm not repeating what someone else might have said. The one thing we all have in common on this board is animals right? It's very disappointing to see once again increasing animal cruelty laws or doing away with specific breed bans is not an issue within any of the parties. Now is the best time for all of us to write and tell whom ever we're voting for that animal welfare is a voting issue for us.

I'm going Green, mostly because they are the only ones with a detailed animal protection policy included in their platform.

Thanks for posting this Katze. I'm going to look a lot more into the Green Party.

Gazoo
January 15th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Well, there you go. We agree, but in different ways.;)


Actually, she didn't make her choice. Her husband died unexpectedly.

.

Then she should have had an insurance policy on her husband if she was a responsible parent.

Prin
January 15th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Then she should have had an insurance policy on her husband if she was a responsible parent.
And my brother should have had insurance before his apartment burned down. And all the vitcims of Katrina should have had flood insurance. And all Americans should have health insurance. Right?

Gazoo
January 15th, 2006, 09:23 PM
And my brother should have had insurance before his apartment burned down. And all the vitcims of Katrina should have had flood insurance. And all Americans should have health insurance. Right?


exactly :thumbs up

Why should people who don't take precautions to protect themselves and their families be rewarded for their negligence?!?!

Prin
January 15th, 2006, 11:02 PM
You can't always think of everything, nor can you be prepared for every eventuality.

We didn't have insurance in our old apartment because we couldn't. We lived above a restaurant and nobody would insure us. We had 4 fires in the building in less than a year. We couldn't move because we had the two doggies and finding an apartment that allows huge dogs like Boo is impossible. So what then? When we had moved in, the restaurant was empty. We had no way of knowing that 3 years later two twits would buy the restaurant and flame it up every other month. And there was nothing we could do but buy a fire extinguisher and sleep really lightly. We were as ready as we could have been, but we still would have lost everything.

You can't assume that people who don't have insurance are lazy, stupid or anything else. You can't assume anything, really.

Now that we have a house, we have the best insurance money can buy, because we CAN.

StaceyB
January 16th, 2006, 06:06 AM
This is a touchy subject for many. Comong from a small city that is very high welfare gives you a different picture. Yes there are people that do require assistance but in the city I lived there were generations of families that collected welfare. The parents would collect it and then their children, not that they couldn'rt have made things better for themselves but it was easier to collect welfare and screw the system because they were in many cases working under the table. I think that there should be a service available for those who need it but it is only meant to be temporary not a lifetime. We have a relative that has been collecting welfare for almost 17 yrs. She knew the rules so would work around them. If she only used that effort to get a job. She knew that when the youngest child is in school full time then the one collecting would have to find full time work. She would just have another child. She did this four times until her mother tricked her into getting "fixed". Thre is nothing wrong with her that would keep her from working but she chooses not to and collects every extra she can get like the christmas funds for food baskets, clothes and presents. There was one year that unfortunately she was staying with us. We told her that she didn't need to get the basket and to leave it for someone else who needed it and she got it anyway. She is a lifer and I don't understand how this is possible. She should have been forced into something years ago, school, job, volunteer, whatever but not a free cheque.
So again some people require a little help but when so many abuse the system what are you to think.

chico2
January 16th, 2006, 08:43 AM
Gazoo,trying to get you to understand is like talking to a brick wall,not everything is black and white..
People not having insurance are usually the ones that need it most,but to some living from paycheck to paycheck,barely making a living,insurance-premiums are just not possible...but I doubt you would understand.
Well,all this aside,it looks like we are going to have Harper as our new PM and many of the former Harris-goons in cabinet,it will be a sad day for Canada,but G.W Bush is cheering:evil:

StaceyB
January 16th, 2006, 08:55 AM
What he has done just irritates me.

Melinda
January 16th, 2006, 10:00 AM
a pet peeve of mine, I look after the babies of single moms/dads, the govt pays my wages, moms pay nothing, their babies come with disposable diapers, NOT no name, but pampers and huggies,instad of cloth diapers, their babies wear the best in clothing, name brands, they brag about the checks they are sent for xmas, the "baskets" they gather at different agencies, their school age children recieve a check for a new snow suit, boots etc from the govt, plus they go to our snow suit fund and get one new and one used, the used is to play in so they don't soil their school one, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. the month of November around here you can buy all kinds of snowsuits in the paper, these people are selling them for extra money. They get their apartments , if not free, then at a minimum amount. The circus comes to town twice a year, in housing projects they drop off 4 tickets in each mailbox, paid for by our taxes and donations, you see them for sale in the paper also, the school age children are given computers if they have low grades, (it must be a learning disability) at least they all try to prove their children, at least one of them has this disability because it nets them money for tutors and after school programs. I have a neice that is on welfare, her choice, but she was told by an agency, "too bad you didn't have twins, you'd get $500, more a month"....give me a break!!!! ok, I'm finished of my rant now.

Gazoo
January 16th, 2006, 10:06 AM
You can't always think of everything, nor can you be prepared for every eventuality.

We didn't have insurance in our old apartment because we couldn't. We lived above a restaurant and nobody would insure us. We had 4 fires in the building in less than a year. We couldn't move because we had the two doggies and finding an apartment that allows huge dogs like Boo is impossible. So what then? When we had moved in, the restaurant was empty. We had no way of knowing that 3 years later two twits would buy the restaurant and flame it up every other month. And there was nothing we could do but buy a fire extinguisher and sleep really lightly. We were as ready as we could have been, but we still would have lost everything.

You can't assume that people who don't have insurance are lazy, stupid or anything else. You can't assume anything, really.

Now that we have a house, we have the best insurance money can buy, because we CAN.


why live there then?

This discussion is swaying away from the topic though.

Why should people who make responsible choices and sacrifices be punished or disadvantaged for making those choices????

Gazoo
January 16th, 2006, 10:11 AM
a pet peeve of mine, I look after the babies of single moms/dads, the govt pays my wages, moms pay nothing, their babies come with disposable diapers, NOT no name, but pampers and huggies,instad of cloth diapers, their babies wear the best in clothing, name brands, they brag about the checks they are sent for xmas, the "baskets" they gather at different agencies, their school age children recieve a check for a new snow suit, boots etc from the govt, plus they go to our snow suit fund and get one new and one used, the used is to play in so they don't soil their school one, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. the month of November around here you can buy all kinds of snowsuits in the paper, these people are selling them for extra money. They get their apartments , if not free, then at a minimum amount. The circus comes to town twice a year, in housing projects they drop off 4 tickets in each mailbox, paid for by our taxes and donations, you see them for sale in the paper also, the school age children are given computers if they have low grades, (it must be a learning disability) at least they all try to prove their children, at least one of them has this disability because it nets them money for tutors and after school programs. I have a neice that is on welfare, her choice, but she was told by an agency, "too bad you didn't have twins, you'd get $500, more a month"....give me a break!!!! ok, I'm finished of my rant now.


People who abuse the system?!??!!? No...they're all deserving and needy through no fault of their own. :rolleyes:


I actually worked in the social services system for 10 yrs....unfortunately our system has created multi-generational problems and multi-generational dependency on handouts. Families who feel that they don't need to do anything but stay on welfare and teach those values to their children...creating a viscious cycle of dependency on the government.

Of course the truly needy should be helped, but those people capable of more often need the proverbial kick in the ass with a frozen mukluk

Gazoo
January 16th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Gazoo,trying to get you to understand is like talking to a brick wall, not everything is black and white..

:rolleyes:


People not having insurance are usually the ones that need it most,but to some living from paycheck to paycheck,barely making a living,insurance-premiums are just not possible...but I doubt you would understand.
Well,all this aside,it looks like we are going to have Harper as our new PM and many of the former Harris-goons in cabinet,it will be a sad day for Canada,but G.W Bush is cheering:evil:

Living from paycheck to paycheck is a often a choice and a matter of poor budgeting and an inability to delay gratification.

Sorry but my opinion is just as valid as yours. What kills me about you lefties is that you talk about valuing everyones opinions, moral relativism and equal rights....that is until someone disagrees with your myopic view of the world.

FYI It's likely the Harper cabinet will be comprised of party moderates; as putting extreme social conservatives into the cabinet would not be politically expedient.

Melinda
January 16th, 2006, 11:46 AM
it's social services that I work for Gazoo

Gazoo
January 16th, 2006, 11:58 AM
it's social services that I work for Gazoo


:D thats funny...the 2 social workers here are espousing the right of center opinions.....:confused:

chico2
January 16th, 2006, 12:46 PM
Gazoo,I read Clement(Harris's healthminister at the time) and Flaherty are ready to take their new positions with Harper as PM,with Mr Stockwell Day lurking in the background:D Moderate Conservatives???
Of course you have the right to your opinion as I do mine and i agree,there are people with no morals,who abuse any system,be they the rich or the poor.

Prin
January 16th, 2006, 12:53 PM
why live there then?

This discussion is swaying away from the topic though.

Why should people who make responsible choices and sacrifices be punished or disadvantaged for making those choices????
We were both students, who left home with nothing, living on about $20 000 a year or less and the rent was $380 a month. We couldn't afford anything else.:)

Living from paycheck to paycheck is a often a choice and a matter of poor budgeting and an inability to delay gratificationAt $40 or 50 000, maybe, but at $20 000 or less, it's next to impossible to have a home and pay all the bills. Right now, my income is somewhere around $9000 a year. So what do I do? Work more in crappy minimum wage jobs and study less, but study for 10 years instead of 3? But then if I'm part time, my courses nearly double in price. It's not black and white. It never is. And now, we have a house and the paychecks are still just barely covering the house. We've changed the roof (it was about to collapse), we insulated and redid the electricity. We're still paying less than most students pay for their rent.

Responsible choices? It's not all about that. My boyfriend's friend saw her 4 year old daughter get run over by an 18-wheeler, wheel by wheel, on the highway after she was in an accident. She was evaluated and deemed unfit to work because of the trauma and she gets disability payments now. I would never take that away from her. After years of therapy, she's still not ok.

It's never black and white.

Rick C
January 16th, 2006, 01:12 PM
People who abuse the system?!??!!? No...they're all deserving and needy through no fault of their own. :rolleyes:


I actually worked in the social services system for 10 yrs....

And you STILL "don't understand" Gazoo? How can that be possible? :angel: :highfive:

I had/have an alcoholic mother, grew up in a family that hovered not far from the poverty line, where a trip to the grocery store had to last two weeks or too bad . . . . . . and I "don't understand" either.

The intellectual left likes to fancy themselves as, well, intellectuals, and tend to use the catch-all "don't understand" argument a lot when it comes to talking down to the illiterate hillbillies on the right.

In truth, those born in the 30's, 40's, 50's and into the 60's, a demographic often the foundation for the right, generally know quite a lot, per capita, about belt-tightening and tough circumstances as North America moved from a generally poor, agrarian society to a mostly urban one.

Social systems that are overly generous breed dependency just as countries with inadequate safety nets breed poverty and crime.

The balancing act is about getting the correct read on the human animal, what motivates the typical person and what will breed complacency and a sense of entitlement. And if government is paying a better life style than can be found in the private sector, then government has gone over the line and is breeding a problem of "dependency through kindness."

Although there are those who are legitimately dependent on society - and most progressive conservatives agree with providing that help, contrary to the propoganda the left wing in this country would have you believe - there are certainly those who really need the rug gradually pulled from underneath them as an incentive to get off the public dole. And that's doing them a favour.

At $40 or 50 000, maybe, but at $20 000 or less, it's next to impossible to have a home and pay all the bills. Right now, my income is somewhere around $9000 a year. So what do I do? Work more in crappy minimum wage jobs and study less, but study for 10 years instead of 3? But then if I'm part time, my courses nearly double in price. It's not black and white. It never is. And now, we have a house and the paychecks are still just barely covering the house. We've changed the roof (it was about to collapse), we insulated and redid the electricity. We're still paying less than most students pay for their rent.

I've been there myself Prin. I worked my way out of it.

But Gazoo is right . . . . you've made choices to invest in courses and invest in yourself, thereby limiting your immediate lifestyle but moving towards something economically much better in the future. I commend you for that.

On the other hand, I have no idea why you'd be voting NDP based on the paragraph you wrote.

My daily two cents . . . . .

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 16th, 2006, 01:32 PM
But Gazoo is right . . . . you've made choices to invest in courses and invest in yourself, thereby limiting your immediate lifestyle but moving towards something economically much better in the future. I commend you for that.

On the other hand, I have no idea why you'd be voting NDP based on the paragraph you wrote.I don't "plan" on moving into wealth (don't count your chickens). More and more graduates can't find jobs. With my BSc, I will be able to go count birds in the woods for $10/hr, or wash dishes in a lab for $8. Not too hopeful. And if I finish an MSc? I can teach CEGEP (jobs few and far between), or be a gopher in a lab, still for under $30 000 a year. I'm not counting on graduating and hitting the big bucks in the next 10 or 15 years. We're going to end up a working class family and that is what the NDP is about.

It's also about making it easier for the next generation. Right now, my university is planning on doubling the tuition fees. I don't think it's fair that the next generation should pay more. And the NDP wants to remake the federal loan and bursary program so that students graduate with less debt. I don't feel that because I will have a pretty big debt that it's some sort of life initiation that everybody has to go through. Why should students be graduating with tens of thousands of dollars of debt while universities are building 100 million dollar buildings? The Gazette here is profiling the universities of Montreal this week, talking about all the expansion- who is paying for that? Sure there are private investors, but the rest?

The NDP might not be attractive to people who are financially completely stable. But to people with an uncertain future with nothing to depend on, they're great.

Rick C
January 16th, 2006, 02:11 PM
[QUOTE=Prin]I don't "plan" on moving into wealth (don't count your chickens). More and more graduates can't find jobs. With my BSc, I will be able to go count birds in the woods for $10/hr, or wash dishes in a lab for $8. Not too hopeful. And if I finish an MSc? I can teach CEGEP (jobs few and far between), or be a gopher in a lab, still for under $30 000 a year. I'm not counting on graduating and hitting the big bucks in the next 10 or 15 years.

Yet . . . . you chose the field deliberately.

Also, from the wisdom of years and all the rings around my neck, if you think you'll fail, you probably will.

You might investigate opportunities in the high-tech, high science oilpatch in Alberta frankly. Just a suggestion.

We're going to end up a working class family and that is what the NDP is about.

Are you trying to tell us - yet again - that "a working class family" is defined only as those at the lowest end of the income spectrum?

There are a lot of REAL working class families in middle and upper income brackets who would resent - rightly - your characterization.

It's also about making it easier for the next generation. Right now, my university is planning on doubling the tuition fees. I don't think it's fair that the next generation should pay more.

Why?

Does my generation owe you something?

If you came to me and said its better for my generation if the people who will be supporting CPP and OAS in my later years get a better head start in life so they can support me OR, if you'd said that its good for the country as a whole if we invest in making post-secondary education more accessible to those who can't readily afford it . . . . . then you'd be selling your argument a lot better.

Telling my generation that your generation shouldn't pay more really doesn't bubble my hormones very much.

Why should students be graduating with tens of thousands of dollars of debt while universities are building 100 million dollar buildings? The Gazette here is profiling the universities of Montreal this week, talking about all the expansion- who is paying for that? Sure there are private investors, but the rest?

Better facilities for more students and better quality education would be my guess. Not only are there private investors but undoubtedly there are piles of private DONORS, former alumni and the like successful in life who want to return something to their alma mater . . . . and you.

The NDP might not be attractive to people who are financially completely stable. But to people with an uncertain future with nothing to depend on, they're great.

Of that there's no doubt. They'll never have power so they can promise the moon and know they'll never be accountable for it.

Or maybe they'll be surprised like Bob Rae was and actually get elected and then run the province into a hole that takes a generation to claw out of. :highfive:

Prin, we all have an opinion and we're all entitled to one. Don't take offence to my comments. We'll just disagree.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 16th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Yet . . . . you chose the field deliberately.

Also, from the wisdom of years and all the rings around my neck, if you think you'll fail, you probably will.

You might investigate opportunities in the high-tech, high science oilpatch in Alberta frankly. Just a suggestion.
Nobody goes into school thinking they are going to come out of it jobless. It's actually the reverse- people assume that a piece of paper will be a free ticket to wealth. But from within the program and talking to profs and "experts" in the field, gradually you become more aware that there is way less out there than you think. It's not about failing or not, it's reality. The aforementioned jobs are the jobs that a BSc will get, if said person IS successful.

Are you trying to tell us - yet again - that "a working class family" is defined only as those at the lowest end of the income spectrum?

There are a lot of REAL working class families in middle and upper income brackets who would resent - rightly - your characterization.
I'm not saying at all that I'm going to be in the lowest spectrum, I'm saying I won't be in the highest. And no, being the lowest is not the only definition, but me being in my mid 20's with a long career and possible family ahead of me, I won't be voting for corporate tax breaks or more money for the rich. I would rather the money be invested in education, and programs that will change the world I see every day.

Yes, I'm an idealist, but my grandfather once told me that you have to help the poor get hope. Only the strongest kids of poverty are able to climb out of it and stop the cycle. If you tell somebody: don't bother, you won't be able to afford to finish high school anyway, they're not going to have any hope of moving up in society on the right side of the law. So we invest in education and programs to give the youth hope. To let them know they can go anywhere they choose. And maybe then, selling drugs or other illegal activities won't look like the only option. And maybe then, the world will start to be a better place.

Why?

Does my generation owe you something?

If you came to me and said its better for my generation if the people who will be supporting CPP and OAS in my later years get a better head start in life so they can support me OR, if you'd said that its good for the country as a whole if we invest in making post-secondary education more accessible to those who can't readily afford it . . . . . then you'd be selling your argument a lot better.I'm not saying your generation. I'm saying mine. My generation talks a good talk and protests and fights for change. We're not going to pass it along in the condition we received it.;) But then you probably said that when you were 20 too.

Better facilities for more students and better quality education would be my guess. Not only are there private investors but undoubtedly there are piles of private DONORS, former alumni and the like successful in life who want to return something to their alma mater . . . . and you.Actually, we don't get to use most of the new facilities. They were built for research and we're crammed in tiny labs one corner of the building. A lot of students are getting fed up. We've been in class with jackhammers outside and with construction noises disrupting everything for the last 3 years, to never actually use the facilities. On top of that, we're charged a fee every semester to help pay for it. Our lab rooms are new, but like I said, they're tiny and they're also full of the same old equipment from the 60's. It's not for me.

Prin, we all have an opinion and we're all entitled to one. Don't take offence to my comments. We'll just disagree.Of course. We're at totally different stages in our lives and we've also adapted in completely different social and economic settings.

Gazoo
January 16th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Actually, we don't get to use most of the new facilities. They were built for research and we're crammed in tiny labs one corner of the building. A lot of students are getting fed up. We've been in class with jackhammers outside and with construction noises disrupting everything for the last 3 years, to never actually use the facilities. On top of that, we're charged a fee every semester to help pay for it. Our lab rooms are new, but like I said, they're tiny and they're also full of the same old equipment from the 60's. It's not for me.

.

Research is the raison 'detre for a university.

Prin
January 16th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Yes, but when the students are paying (both financially and practically) basically for advertising for the next bunch of students, without actually getting to use any of it, it gets kind of frustrating.:rolleyes: They use the lab facilities as a draw for new students- even though they won't get to use them either.

Shaykeija
January 16th, 2006, 11:11 PM
I guess we could sum it all up bye voting for the less evil of those :evil:'s

chico2
January 17th, 2006, 08:17 AM
I am saddened by what is in Canadas future with Harper as our leader,saddened for our young people,the poor,the sick and very soon we will all see who you voted for:mad:
I think most of you have heard from grandparents or parents"when we came to Canada,we came with nothing,but our dreams and suitcases"
That was certainly true for us,although it sounds like such a cliche.
Canada was different then(early 70's),jobs often lasted a lifetime,part-time was something YOU chose,everything was not manufactured in China:D
Food-Banks were not subsidizing the working poor,ghettos in Toronto was unheard of...
We are now pretty secure(early retirement)much due to our own hard work and my husband having worked at a secure wellpaying job,for 30 yrs(newspaper-business).
There was a reason we did not emmigrate to the US,Canada had a somewhat similar social structure to Sweden,with healthcare etc...and hard work reaped rewards.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what the future holds for our Canada,with a new each to his own,Wild West mentality:D

Rick C
January 17th, 2006, 10:25 AM
Good news for the future of the country . . . . Tories gaining in Quebec and close to majority territory.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=7dbeecaa-19f7-40c5-9870-568a2ec7c292&k=33705

Amusing sidebar story from yesterday . . . . my brother, who has shook hands with the Pope in Australia, squired Queen Beatrix around and other celebrities around Calgary and the Rockies, was standing in a Vancouver hotel lobby minding his own business when who should charge right up to him but Paul Martin. At 8 in the morning, my brother had to quickly wonder what you say to a Prime Minister and blurted out: "Mornin' Paul" and shook his hand. A sad case of a good Alberta boy not being able to think too fast on his feet.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

StaceyB
January 17th, 2006, 10:27 AM
A student sent this

Canada's billion-dollar gun registry employs 1,800 bureaucrats, who spend their days tracking down duck hunters and farmers.

By comparison, Canada hired only 130 additional customs officers to protect our borders after Sept.11.

Here are a few more eye-rolling facts about the gun registry, mostly unearthed by MP Garry Breitkreuz from Saskatchewan.

Internal audits show that government bureaucrats have a 71% error rate in licensing gun owners and a 91% error rate in registering the guns themselves.

The government admits it registered 718,414 guns without serial numbers. That means either the bureaucrats forgot to write them down, or the guns didn't have serial numbers in the first place. That's as useless as registering a vehicle simply as "a blue Ford Explorer."

To these gun owners, the government has sent little stickers with made-up "serial numbers" on them, that gun owners are supposed to stick on their guns. And everybody at the gun registry is praying that criminals who steal those guns won't peel off the stickers.

Some 222,911 guns were registered with the same make and serial number as other guns. That's not just useless -- it's dangerous..If someone else with a "Blue Ford Explorer" is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP.

Out of 4,114,624 gun registration certificates, 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries -- but the bureaucrats issued them anyways.

In the beginning, the government's firearms licenses had photographs on them - just like driver's licenses do. But after hundreds of gun owners were sent licenses with someone else's photo on them, the government decided to scrap photos on the licenses altogether, rather than fix the problem.

Private details about every gun owner in the country are put on one computer database, called CPIC. That's valuable information to a peeping tom -- or a criminal. The CPIC computer has been breached 221 times since the mid-1990s, according to the RCMP.

In August of 2002, the gun registry sent a letter to Hulbert Orser, demanding he register his guns, and warning him that it's a crime not to.Orser died in 1981.

Garth Rizzuto is not dead, but he's getting older -- he applied for a gun license 2 1/2 years ago.He hasn't been rejected. They're still "processing" his application.

Some 304,375 people were allowed to register guns even though they didn't have a license permitting them to own a gun.

On March 1 of 2002, bureaucrats registered Richard Buckley's soldering "gun" - that's right, a heat "gun" used for welding tin and lead. No word yet on Buckley's staple guns or glue guns.

Some 15,381 gun owners were licensed with no indication of having taken the gun safety courses -- one of the main arguments for licensing.

Despite the billion-dollar taxpayer subsidy, gun-owners must still pay $279 for the required licenses, registration, photo ID and other costs to register a single gun. That's as much as a gun costs in the first place. It's a tax -- a tax on rural Canada.

The government spent $29 million on advertising for the gun registry -- including $4.5 million to Group-Action, the Liberal ad firm now under RCMP investigation.

But all of these follies are trivial compared to the central, unanswerable flaw in the gun registry: Since only law-abiding gun owners will register their guns, how can the registry stop criminals?

If you think this is information all Canadians should have, forward it, ask your political representatives about these facts. You don't have to be a gun owner to have concerns on the questionable actions taken and situation we are in.

Maybe there is a better way?

Get out and vote

heeler's rock!
January 17th, 2006, 12:03 PM
I was just checking in here, and came accross this thread. Thank you Gazoo for starting it! :)

I'm voting Conservative, like I always do. Although in previous elections they didn't have much of a chance, I never gave up.

As for the issue of same sax marriage, which was brought up, Stephen Harper never said he'd reverse the decision. He said he would have a free vote on it....that's it, that's all. And, even if the definition of marriage was changed back, gays and lesbians would still be allowed to have civil unions like in the UK. It just wouldn't change the legal definition of marriage. I don't see the big deal personally....

The way I see it, Canada needs a change......The Liberals are scam artists, and should be held accountable for their actions. What kind of message are we sending if they get re-elected?? Even if you're not voting Conservative, vote for the party you want. Don't just vote Liberal to keep the Tories out! The more seats the opposing parties get in parliament, the more say they have. JMO....

Rick C
January 17th, 2006, 01:32 PM
I was just checking in here, and came accross this thread. Thank you Gazoo for starting it! :)

As for the issue of same sax marriage, which was brought up, Stephen Harper never said he'd reverse the decision. He said he would have a free vote on it....that's it, that's all. ...

If I understand the issue correctly, Parliament can't change it anyway given its now a civil rights issue protected by the Charter of Rights and is supported by court rulings.

The vote issue is a bit bogus, a public relations ploy. Of course, I might be out to lunch on that but I don't think so.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

chico2
January 17th, 2006, 04:46 PM
I honestly believe Klein is right for Alberta,although the few times I have seen him in the public eye,he comes across like a devil-may-care kind of person.
His policies and that of Harper suits Alberta and the Albertans,but not for Canada as a whole.West is different from Ontario and the Eastern Provinces,different problems different issues,also I could never see Harper to be intelligent enough to deal with International issues and leaders,other than butt-kissing Bush:evil:
I could not possibly vote NDP,Layton whom I used to admire for his guts,is turning out to be less credible.I believe he is now terrified of a PC majority and is turning his focus to defending the Liberals:D

Prin
January 17th, 2006, 04:56 PM
If I understand the issue correctly, Parliament can't change it anyway given its now a civil rights issue protected by the Charter of Rights and is supported by court rulings.

The vote issue is a bit bogus, a public relations ploy. Of course, I might be out to lunch on that but I don't think so.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca
Actually, that's where the "Notwithstanding clause" comes in. The House can use this clause to override any court rulings and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's why in the last debate, Paul Martin said he would abolish the Notwithstanding Clause and asked Harper if he would do the same- Harper said he wouldn't.

heeler's rock!
January 17th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Chico, you know I respect you immensely, but I don't agree with what you say about the Conservatives being right for Alberta, but not Canada. Why? I don't see our issues being that different from that of Ontario. Also, what's wrong with being friends with the US? We are allies afterall, and we import and export a lot with them. I don't see Harper as "kissing butt" persay, I think he's trying to undo the damage Paul Martin has already done with our relationship with the US. They are pretty powerful friends to have...IMO....

I believe our millitary needs to be strengthened aswell. My best friend's husband in in the US army in Iraq right now, and he has said that the Canadian soldiers are so smart and well trained, but their equipment is so out of date, it's pretty much useless....

I dunno, I'm voting Conservative again, as I feel that the country will benefit immensely from a change in government. And, if they only win minority which is likely, they will be kept in check continuously by the other parties, or we'll be back at the polls in a year and a half. Honestly, I think whatever party wins, we'll be back at the polls in a year and a half anyways as it's become so personal IMO.....All I know is if the Liberals win, I'm moving!!! You'd think after mismanaging for so long, Canada would have learned not to trust their lies....:o

heeler's rock!
January 17th, 2006, 06:48 PM
His policies and that of Harper suits Alberta and the Albertans,but not for Canada as a whole.

BTW, it's comments like that that fuel seperatist movements. Talk about making us feel isolated! I may actually join the seperatist party of Alberta if the Liberals win again.....LOL!!! :o

Gazoo
January 17th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Chico, you know I respect you immensely, but I don't agree with what you say about the Conservatives being right for Alberta, but not Canada. Why? I don't see our issues being that different from that of Ontario. Also, what's wrong with being friends with the US? We are allies afterall, and we import and export a lot with them. I don't see Harper as "kissing butt" persay, I think he's trying to undo the damage Paul Martin has already done with our relationship with the US. They are pretty powerful friends to have...IMO....


Pissing off the US isn't doing us any good at all. We shouldn't bow down to them, but we also shouldn't spit in their eye!!!!


I believe our millitary needs to be strengthened as well. My best friend's husband in in the US army in Iraq right now, and he has said that the Canadian soldiers are so smart and well trained, but their equipment is so out of date, it's pretty much useless....

Perhaps we won't have to take weapons out of the museum to equip our ships, or show up in the desert with green camoflage like we did in the Gulf war. :rolleyes:

heeler's rock!
January 17th, 2006, 07:37 PM
ITA with you Gazoo...We shouldn't be making them our enemies. I may not like Bush, but the way I see it, he's done in 2 years anyways and the US will have a new President. We'll still need to make friends with them....

LOL about using weapons from museums!!! Too true.....LOL!!!! :)

babyrocky1
January 17th, 2006, 07:51 PM
We didn't spit in the eye of America, maybe George Bush and the rest of the repbublican party who represents less than fifty percent of Americans, I cant get into this, I get too upset, but Rick C, I don't make political decisions based on someones "smile" I just really didn't want to get into a political debate, Im extremely passionate on my beliefs and was trying to keep the chat "light-hearted" Im volunteering for the NDP come election day so I guess thats my statement. I see Prin is making alot of the points that I would have, and trust me she and I are not of the same generation.

babyrocky1
January 17th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Pissing off the US isn't doing us any good at all. We shouldn't bow down to them, but we also shouldn't spit in their eye!!!!



Perhaps we won't have to take weapons out of the museum to equip our ships, or show up in the desert with green camoflage like we did in the Gulf war. :rolleyes: We shouldn't have been in the gulf war. Why don't we have a peace sign smily????

Prin
January 17th, 2006, 08:33 PM
The problem with the US is that they expect a one way relationship. Yes, they're a huge partner, but they can't cut us off like we're their teenage kids. We're our own country! Why shouldn't we stand up for ourselves? I agree that spitting in their face isn't great (like the Kyoto crap) but at the same time, they have no right to ban our beef or hike their tarifs just to keep us out. Why should we buy from you if you cut us out? :confused: As PM, why would you let that go?

To me, the best govt would be one that is equally divided, where you have the interests of the west protected and the interests of the east managed too. I've been out west, and I know that the feds are seen as a government of Qc and Ont only. And it's true- Qc and Ontario decide who the next pm will be. But the Conservatives aren't out to change that either. We need proportional representation, so that BC and Alberta have as much say as Qc and Ontario.

domesticzookeep
January 17th, 2006, 09:24 PM
Fantastic thread…..certainly a lively discussion, crossing all the issues! :thumbs up

Apologies upfront for running off topic to the last postings....

It’s coming down to the wire – so now it’s really time to figure out the issues and where each of the party’s stand. I’ve sent the following links to friends & family, as I feel it is VERY IMPORTANT that people decide who to vote for based on an understanding of the issues and the positions of each party. No excuses for "not knowing" who to vote for :p

So, here are two good websites that summarize quickly the issues, party positions, and even includes links to each of the party’s platforms.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/issues.html

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/issues/index.html

But, what would be a thread to discuss election issues without a bit of a rant…..albeit mine is not so much of the partisan politics, but more general…..so, here it goes....

I WANT TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING!! Anything, really…..not AGAINST something!!!

I want leaders who inspire. Someone that can create a vision for Canada that makes me dream of the future.

I want issues that fuel debate based on merit, with substance, and FACTS – not name calling, hypothetical this or that, or sensationalism.

I want people to vote FOR the party they feel most in touch with (even if it’s not “my party”) – not “strategy voting” – imagine what would happen if everyone did this??? (Yes, that includes the over discussed, IMHO, "punishment vote" for the few bad apples!)

I want to hear from MY LOCAL MP. THEIR thoughts on the issues, THEIR leadership style, THEIR commitment to my community. If parties are advocating for “free votes”, I can’t assume the party platform "decision" I thought I was voting for will end up happening, but rather what my individual MP decides – I NEED to know how those decisions will be made. Remember – YOU VOTE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL MP – NOT JUST THE LEADER!

I want a media that presents me with FACTS ONLY. Give me pros & cons lists, if you must – but I can do the analysis myself, thank you very much.

I want my vote to matter. No, I NEED to know my vote matters.

I want representation within the parties that reflect our diverse country, young, old, men, women, and all the wonderful cultures that make up our great country.

I want people to realize our grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, went to war to ensure a democratic country, where we are able to vote. For many people in the world, this option does not exist. Do not disrespect our veterans or throw away this right. GET EDUCATED & GET OUT TO VOTE! (Can you imagine if everyone who has an opinion DID?!? What a fantastic day for democracy that would be!)

Know the issues.
Know your local MP candidates & where they stand.
Vote for FOR something you want to believe in!

See everyone at the poles next week,until then, I'll be living in my own little idea of a 'perfect world' :crazy:

Cheers,
C.
:ca:

Prin
January 17th, 2006, 11:10 PM
I want a media that presents me with FACTS ONLY. Give me pros & cons lists, if you must – but I can do the analysis myself, thank you very much. If you want facts, go see the parties' platforms from the source. The media (especially the CBC) is very skewed. They all have pressures and incentives to alter the news in favor of one party or another. The media is not an unbiased source of information.

chico2
January 17th, 2006, 11:18 PM
Sorry,Heelers but the disaster of the Harris/Eves government in Ontario is still too fresh in my memory,as is the former Alliance party now pretend PC,I could never be convinced they will be good for every province in Canada.
Alberta is different from Ontario,as is Quebec and all the other provinces,but we are one beautiful country.
Each with different needs,Alberta probably the least needy...
I love visiting the US,the Americans are not any different from us,want the same as us.Sure I want us to be friendly,but we also have to have a prime-minister who has the guts to stand up to a bully like Bush and for our Canadian values.
All I can hope for, is that Harper will not get a majority government:thumbs up

Prin
January 17th, 2006, 11:38 PM
I emailed the NDP and asked what their position is on animal rights and they said they will push bill c-50 through and also deal with the psychological aspect of people who commit these crimes (they say there is a correlation between animal cruelty crimes and other violent offenses). They want to move animal cruelty to its own category so that it's not part of the "property act" as well.

So what do you all think of C-50? Here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Lang=E&query=4490&Session=13&List=toc

Basically, the fine goes to up to $10 000 and up to 5 years imprisonment for animal abuse crimes.

(And I noticed that abuse includes poisoning animals by putting poison where animals can access it- just something for the cat poisoners...)

chico2
January 18th, 2006, 08:54 AM
Prin,the SPCA has had this Bill on the table for more years than I can remember,it's just the number that changes.
It's certainly time to change the current law,which is 100yrs old,but it has some strong opponents,such as the big business of animals in transport to be slaughtered,factory-farm owners,slaughter-house practises,hunting etc..
Big business and $$$$ is usually what it is all about and people fighting for the animals rights are dismissed as activists:sad:

Loki
January 18th, 2006, 11:12 AM
On a side note : Speaking of animal rights - Liz White from Animal Alliance formed a party to push for Bill C-50. They're running in Toronto-Center.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Strobel_Mike/2006/01/07/1382508.html

heeler's rock!
January 18th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Chico, I understand what you're saying, I really do, but you have to remember that if the Conservatives are elected, they will be implementing an accountability act in parliament. That means the days of the feds doing whatever they want, are over. Look at Jean Cretien! He got away with doing whatever the heck he wanted, and no one is hoding him accountable. I think people are thinking the Conservatives are gonna do whatever they want, like change back the definition of marriage. First of all, there is going to be a free vote on it, then IF majority rules that it be changed back, it will. If not, it won't. Plain and simple. He can't just go and change it because he feels like it! That would be too much like the Liberals in Ontario if you ask me. Look at the pit bull ban!!!!!! They didn't care WHAT the majority had to say....

Also, what you're saying about the conservatives working for Alberta, but not the country, is EXACTLY how we feel about Ontario. Ontario thinks the Liberals work for them, but they don't work for the rest of Canada. And they obviously don't work for Ontario anymore either....

As for Stephen Harper not standing up to Bush, I think he will when it's warrented.

Times have changed and governments will be held accountable for their actions. The days of ad scams and private jets are over, and I for one am standing up for a change in this country. A long awaited change.....

Man! I haven't posted in months, and now this thread has got me going again! :o It's great that we can all be so open about our views and not get into a heated debate! :o

Prin
January 18th, 2006, 11:35 AM
I think the most important thing is that we all make an informed decision, regardless of what it is. Whether we disagree or not, it's about being part of it.

Gazoo
January 18th, 2006, 11:51 AM
Sorry,Heelers but the disaster of the Harris/Eves government in Ontario is still too fresh in my memory,as is the former Alliance party now pretend PC,I could never be convinced they will be good for every province in Canada.
Alberta is different from Ontario,as is Quebec and all the other provinces,but we are one beautiful country.
Each with different needs,Alberta probably the least needy...
I love visiting the US,the Americans are not any different from us,want the same as us.Sure I want us to be friendly,but we also have to have a prime-minister who has the guts to stand up to a bully like Bush and for our Canadian values.
All I can hope for, is that Harper will not get a majority government:thumbs up


But part of the reason Alberta is so healthy, wealthy and happy is that we have been conservative for a long time. Yes, admittedly, the oil revenues are there, but we have also managed and developed those resources effectively, managed the revenues and balanced our budgets. In addition we've developed other industries other than oil very effectively as well. For example we are currently bigger than Vancouver in logistics and warehousing .......and we're landlocked!!!!.

The entrepreneurial and independent attititude we have has built us into a strong independent province.

chico2
January 18th, 2006, 12:37 PM
Gazoo,so very true about Alberta,unfortunately the riches do not reach everybody.
My son lives in a little hick-town called Vermilion with his girlfriend,minimum wage is lower than here,anything other than a cold and they have to drive 2 1/2 hours to Edmonton.
He is staying because he loves his girlfriend,but he is a big lug of a guy,loves everybody,will help anybody...unfortunately the citizens of Vermilion only see him as an Ontarian and give him the cold shoulder,he's lived there now for 5 yrs:sad:

Schwinn
January 18th, 2006, 12:38 PM
Actually, Chico, there are many who disagree with you about the "disaster" of the Harris government. And there are many of us who would love to see him in the Federal seat. I keep hearing this "attack on the poor", but what nobody mentions is that, for the first time in years, EVERYONE was feeling the cuts, poor, middle AND upper-class. I remember someone complaining to me about the cuts to welfare, and I said it was about time. I had just spent the previous several years watching my student assistance and post-secondary fall while welfare increased. Basically, everyone was now feeling the crunch.

It boggles my mind the whole notion that the more I make, the less I deserve. "Tax the rich! Tax the rich!" Why should those who worked hard and are reaping the rewards pay for those who (for whatever reason, as this is a whole other arguement) are being paid by the system? Forced charity, what a concept! (I'd be a little less callous, I'm sure, had I not seen the system from several angles. That, and when cable is considered a necessity, it blows my mind). Wealthy people would only use the money for a nice dinner? Really? Maybe they would use the money for issues they deem as worthy, such as breast cancer, or some other charity. Not everyone who makes six figures lives on caviar and swims in champagne. Some of Canda's wealthiest people are also the biggest philanthropists. Not only that, the number of "wealthy" is not overly huge in the grand scheme of things. So, unless you're going to tax them into poverty, it will not generate a lot of revenue.

The NDP would have us all strive for mediocrity. If I'm not paying into the system unless I make enough to have someone in Ottawa arbitrarily deem me as wealthy, why would I strive to improve my lot in life? The less I do, the more I get. The more I do, the more I give. As a matter of fact, it isn't even the ones who are, what they deem, wealthy, but the perception of wealth. He says he would give more money to GM to keep that sinking ship floating, but he would eliminate the capital gains tax (and tax it at the full rate). So, in other words, he would discourage public investment, and spend more of my tax dollars instead. Not only that, but the capital gains tax doesn't just affect those who light thier cigars with $100 bills, but also the poor working man. This will affect everyone who has a company pension. Oh, wait, the GM pension is grossly underfunded. Now, it will have less return on equity investment, ergo, more difficulty funding itself. Hmmm...I guess we'll just give them more tax money to over-pay the union guys!

I'm still not decided on who to vote for (I keep waffling), but one thing that I will tell you about Harper is that most of the fear mongering is hype. "He's going to take away our rights! Women's right to choose! Gay right to marry! Oh noes!!" Actually, no. He's suggested he may have a free vote if there is a call to visit the issue. And this is what should have happened in the first place. Gay marriage, for example. I'm for it (heck, you can marry a squirrel for all I care! Just send me pictures of your kids!). But that being said, it was not made law properly by our democratic process. The current law was struck down by our court, and a vote was held in which case the liberals were told to vote yes (which is why we had some liberals becoming independants). A popularity move to keep the liberals in power. Democratically, it would be a free vote, where our elected officials would vote yes or no, ideally based on the will of the constiuents. Hmmm...a closed vote where you toe the party line...BSL anyone?? Regardless of how you feel the outcome would be, if you believe in a democracy, I don't see how you could possibly argue against a free vote.

I still go back to my original prediction. All time low for voter turn-out, with a minority government.

chico2
January 18th, 2006, 12:47 PM
Heelers,I understand you too...but our provinces are vastly different.
I am also absolutely certain if the digging for accountability had started years ago,more corruption would have been discovered.
I don't believe there is any politician who does not fill his own pockets,or that of his friends having opportunity.

heeler's rock!
January 18th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Very true Schwinn. The liberals want Canadians to believe that Harper will take away gay rights, women's rights, etc., but yes, the democratic process is what we stand for. I believe in democracy whole heartedly and if I didn't, I should live in a dictatorship! I think people need to vote FOR something, and not AGAINST something in this election. Whatever you decide to vote, don't vote Liberal just to keep the Conservatives out of power. Vote Liberal, if you believe in what they stand for. JMO.... :o

heeler's rock!
January 18th, 2006, 01:41 PM
Heelers,I understand you too...but our provinces are vastly different.

That's true Chico. Our provinces are extremely different, but the biggest difference is, if Alberta votes Conservative, they still won't win the election if Ontario votes Liberal. Ontario basically makes or breaks this country, and it's quite sad for most of us here in the west, watching this country fall apart. I hate having to support a government I don't believe in because one province likes it that way. So sad.....

cpietra16
January 18th, 2006, 01:49 PM
Since we are talking about political parties.
My FIN who lives in Alberta sent me this to help me decide....too bad I already voted:)

Are you a Federal Liberal, Federal Conservative or an Alberta Conservative?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children . Suddenly, someone with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Colt .45 Automatic, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Federal Liberal's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Colt have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behaviour. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Federal Conservative's Answer:

BANG!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alberta Conservative's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Reload), BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?

Son: Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

chico2
January 18th, 2006, 02:31 PM
Schwinn,My husband does or did(retired)belong to the 6-figure salaried union employed group.Harris gave us a gift of $3000/year in taxbreaks,while cutting down doctors,teachers,waterquality-inspectors(Walkerton)meat-inspectors etc...making our province an unsafe place,stopped the building of non-profit housing,as a result of all his cuts we have more kids living in poverty than ever.
The capital gains tax bit,is good for us,but would never make me vote PC.
Gay marriage,I do not really care who or what gets married,each to his/her own.
Abortion is an important issue and has to do with womens rights to choose.
The only issue that would make me vote PC,would be if they all of a sudden took up the animal-rights bill and made it into law,but that will never happen,it would anger Harpers western friends,the ones most opposed to the Bill.
In the end,I also hope for a minority government,then there is hope,whatever disaster Harper can think up will be averted.
As for voting,we will,but it will be the lesser of 3 evils vote,I do not have confidence in any of the parties.

Schwinn
January 18th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Actually, to blame Harris for Walkerton is taking the report out of context. What the report says is, yes, if they kept the 16 levels of bureauracy, then Walkerton would probably not have happened. What it doesn't explain is that the way the system was would be equivalant to having a cop pull you over, and then having 15 cops lining up behind him, making sure the cop in front of him was doing his job. Walkerton happened for one reason only--a drunk and his brother were not doing thier jobs, and this had been happening for years, long before Harris became premier. It's a miracle something did not happen sooner.

And you're right, he cut back on everything. It was a recession. And it was a relief to see cut backs right across the board, not just a select few areas. That being said, however, it was also Harris who brought in welfare top-up, where you could get a job, and still get topped up by welfare. Everyone seems to forget about that. Instead, they point out how evil he was bringing in things like work-fare, where you actually did work for your welfare cheque (the *******!!). My favourite was in Chatham where one of the jobs was cutting the city owned lawns. One of the brain trusts from a major union went on a rant about how humiliating it was that they made people do these "menial tasks". It really made the people who already do these jobs feel good about themselves.

And don't forget, the party is made up of two old parties, not just Harper's old party. You've mentioned several times that the federal Conservatives have former provincial conservatives as members, and it was the provincial Conservatives who fought the BSL, and introduced several animal protection bills.

The capitol gains tax isn't a Conservative issue, it's an NDP issue. It just shows a)how out of touch with logic Layton is b)how he'll say whatever he needs to get votes (yes, as most politicians) or c)all of the above.

Gazoo
January 18th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Gazoo,so very true about Alberta,unfortunately the riches do not reach everybody.
My son lives in a little hick-town called Vermilion with his girlfriend,minimum wage is lower than here,anything other than a cold and they have to drive 2 1/2 hours to Edmonton.
He is staying because he loves his girlfriend,but he is a big lug of a guy,loves everybody,will help anybody...unfortunately the citizens of Vermilion only see him as an Ontarian and give him the cold shoulder,he's lived there now for 5 yrs:sad:


You need to give that boy a loving kick in the ass!!!!

There's so many good jobs to be had all over Alberta now, money to be made and experience to be had!!!!

Rick C
January 18th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Does Buzz Hargrove help you make your decision with his comments today:

The Liberals are in full damage control this afternoon after a high-profile campaign endorsement by the head of Canada’s largest private-sector labour union turned disastrous.

Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove used a campaign stop in nearby Strathroy to call Conservative Leader Stephen Harper a separatist whose Alberta-born political principles place him outside mainstream Canadian values.

He seemed to agree with questioners that Quebecers vote for the Bloc Quebecois over the Conservatives.

Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a retraction on Hargrove’s behalf as soon as the comments hit the news wires, and was forced to praise Harper’s patriotism in an effort to quell the controversy.

So . . . . Albertans aren't Canadians?

Harper was born and raised in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137582110105&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Gazoo
January 18th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Does Buzz Hargrove help you make your decision with his comments today:

The Liberals are in full damage control this afternoon after a high-profile campaign endorsement by the head of Canada’s largest private-sector labour union turned disastrous.

Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove used a campaign stop in nearby Strathroy to call Conservative Leader Stephen Harper a separatist whose Alberta-born political principles place him outside mainstream Canadian values.

He seemed to agree with questioners that Quebecers vote for the Bloc Quebecois over the Conservatives.

Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a retraction on Hargrove’s behalf as soon as the comments hit the news wires, and was forced to praise Harper’s patriotism in an effort to quell the controversy.

So . . . . Albertans aren't Canadians?

Harper was born and raised in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137582110105&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



Rick C
www.goldentales.ca


I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the NDP war room when they heard about Hargrove siding with the Liberals :eek:

Schwinn
January 18th, 2006, 04:16 PM
The day I saw those two hug pretty much solidified for me who I wasn't voting for.

Two things came to mind. "When you sleep with dogs, expect to get fleas", and between the two of them, they could probably have a 3 ring circus.

Actually, I think that's when Martin started to slide in the poles. The amount of sleaze that was contained in that embrace made me to want to go have a shower.

heeler's rock!
January 18th, 2006, 05:05 PM
You need to give that boy a loving kick in the ass!!!!

There's so many good jobs to be had all over Alberta now, money to be made and experience to be had!!!!

Very true Gazoo! My DH landed a job as a field survey assistant with no experience. They're gonna most likely train him to become a party chief which means a potential for a 6 figure income in a few years. Right now, he is making really good money as is, and is enjoying it. One of the girls I used to work with also just landed a job as an apprentice as an electrician, with no schooling or experience. They're gonna pay for her to go to school too! Pretty good if you ask me. So many jobs to be had in Alberta right now!

Schwinn
January 19th, 2006, 12:47 PM
I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't vote for Harper, but I found the following interesting. We keep hearing the scare mongering about how he will stop abortion, but I've never heard him mention it as an issue. It's the same as the same-sex marriage issue. The Liberals keep saying he is going to eliminate it, when he stated he would have a free vote on it (as should be done in a democratic process). It all goes back to being careful about the hype. I've heard it from every party about each other, and I find it helps to go back to what the actual party said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c1bb1603-a437-48cc-a733-277b9108da61
Newman: On the issue of abortion, will you pledge that there will be no legislation on abortion, there will never be a free vote in Parliament on that issue?

Harper: Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future. We're saying very clear in our platform we're not going to support or initiate abortion legislation and frankly I don't want this Parliament to have an abortion debate.

Newman: So to be clear, you support a woman's right to choose?

Harper: I've always said my views on the abortion issue are complex, I don't fall into any of the neat polar extremes on this issue.

Newman: Explain them then if they are complex.

Harper: No, I don't need to because I'm not proceeding with an abortion agenda.


(and just as a caveat, as much as I despise Paul Martin, I'd do the same if I found anything there as well.)

Gazoo
January 19th, 2006, 12:51 PM
I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't vote for Harper, but I found the following interesting. We keep hearing the scare mongering about how he will stop abortion, but I've never heard him mention it as an issue. It's the same as the same-sex marriage issue. The Liberals keep saying he is going to eliminate it, when he stated he would have a free vote on it (as should be done in a democratic process). It all goes back to being careful about the hype. I've heard it from every party about each other, and I find it helps to go back to what the actual party said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c1bb1603-a437-48cc-a733-277b9108da61
Newman: On the issue of abortion, will you pledge that there will be no legislation on abortion, there will never be a free vote in Parliament on that issue?

Harper: Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future. We're saying very clear in our platform we're not going to support or initiate abortion legislation and frankly I don't want this Parliament to have an abortion debate.

Newman: So to be clear, you support a woman's right to choose?

Harper: I've always said my views on the abortion issue are complex, I don't fall into any of the neat polar extremes on this issue.

Newman: Explain them then if they are complex.

Harper: No, I don't need to because I'm not proceeding with an abortion agenda.


(and just as a caveat, as much as I despise Paul Martin, I'd do the same if I found anything there as well.)


TY...good post....

there is certainly is a large and unwarranted fear about the evil Conservative "agenda" being spread by the Liberals. Fortunately it seems to be backfiring on them.

Rick C
January 19th, 2006, 03:10 PM
Conservatives endorsed by the Globe & Mail (surprise) and National Post (no surprise).

Harper with an extensive interview on future governing style in the Toronto Star today.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137624637111&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Loki
January 19th, 2006, 03:49 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is, there are Liberals that are strong supporters of the very things that they try to imply that Harper would do.

The Liberal MP in my riding is anti-SSM and anti-abortion. He's also quick to claim that "Harper is scary" - it served him well in the past. Last election wasn't even close.

It's a Toronto riding that the conservative candidate didn't stand a chance in.

People in my riding, that felt strongly about SSM etc, could have voted for the NDP candidate that supported their views. Instead, many voted Liberal, because "Harper is Scary." - In return, they got a Liberal MP that voted against SSM and openly admits that he would support the very things that they claim to be afraid of.

Luvmypit
January 19th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Ahh politics.

I am still on the fence. I have to admit though I am scared of HArper because no matter what hes gonna do or not do his views are very different from mine. You realize going back to same sex marriage which was already dealt with opening the debate, putting gays and lesbians back in the middle while the whole country argues whetehr or not they have rights is such a waste of time and not to mention MONEY! Why should we pay money to visit an issue that has already been dealt with.

chico2
January 19th, 2006, 05:09 PM
I guess we'll just have to wait and see,for hubby and I,nothing much will change,no matter what party wins.
I really have not heard what kind of agenda Harper has,the $1.200/yr allowance for each family with a child under 6,whether they need it or not,is not going to create day-care spaces,to get wellfare moms out to work.
It's one of those things Harper pulled out of his gift-basket,to placate people
I believe he is inexperienced,puppet-like and I also believe,you who elect him PM,will one day regret it.
Change is good,but at what price!

heeler's rock!
January 19th, 2006, 05:58 PM
I guess we'll just have to wait and see,for hubby and I,nothing much will change,no matter what party wins.
I really have not heard what kind of agenda Harper has,the $1.200/yr allowance for each family with a child under 6,whether they need it or not,is not going to create day-care spaces,to get wellfare moms out to work.
It's one of those things Harper pulled out of his gift-basket,to placate people
I believe he is inexperienced,puppet-like and I also believe,you who elect him PM,will one day regret it.
Change is good,but at what price!


Here's what the platform of the Conservatives says on the subject of childcare. This is courtesy of www.conservative.ca (their official web page).

"The Liberals and the NDP believe that the only answer to expanding childcare in Canada is their one-size-fits-all plan to build a massive childcare bureaucracy which will benefit only a small percentage of Canadians. Only the Conservatives believe in freedom of choice in child care. The best role for government is to let parents choose what’s best for their children, and provide parents with the resources to balance work and family life as they see fit – whether that means formal child care, informal care through neighbours or relatives, or a parent staying at home.

A Conservative government will introduce a family support policy that gives parents true choice in child care.
A Conservative government will:
• Provide all families a new $1,200 per year Choice in Child Care Allowance for each child under six, to be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income, starting in 2006. This will be in addition to the current Canada Child Tax Benefits, National Child Benefit Supplement, and the Childcare Expenses
Deduction. The Choice in Child Care Allowance will let parents choose the childcare option that best suits their family’s needs.
• Help employers and communities create child care spaces in the workplace or through cooperative or community associations by allocating $250 million a year in tax credits to employers who cover the full cost of creating spaces. We will provide similar support to non-profit associations to create spaces. We estimate that this program will create 125,000 new child care spaces over five years and make it easier for working people to juggle child care and work responsibilities. The program will be designed to ensure that small business and rural communities will be able to access it as well as larger employers and cities.
• Honour the government’s existing bilateral child care commitments for one year."

Considering I work downtown (when I go back to work), it'd be great if my employer opened up a daycare in my building! What a time saver! Plus, if my child is sick, I'm right there! I think the incentives are great, and it is my right to choose if I want to put my child in daycare, hire a nanny, or whatever!

The liberals aren't working as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think we'll regret voting consevative as much as a lot of people regret voting liberal for this long. What gives the liberals the right to screw up repeatedly, and get another chance?? Don't the tories deserve this chance? I think they do, and I think they'll do great.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 06:11 PM
Harpers party platform doesnt mean anything to me, he is wo he is, his party is hwo they are, they didn't just appear out of no where, they have a history, it is an extreme right wing history. I dont care that they are choosing to pt a more moderate veneer on there platform, for one I dont find it moderate enough, and for two, I dont believe it, Stockwell Day??? still there, the same old same old, this is not the PC party, this a a totally different beast, these are the people who appologised to the Americans that we didn't join them in the Iraq war. Majority is NOT supposed to rule in this country MINORITY rights are in the charter and need to be protected. A free vote to determine if peole have equality under the charter is undermines the whole spirite of democracy. I don't understand the religious problems, Freedom of religion is also inshrined in the charter. No one in this country will ever have to accept a SSM if there religion or there conscience tell them its wrong. That is a moral decision and the last thing we need is Politicians making "morality choices" for us. I cant think of a group of people less qualified for that job. Steven Harpers party scares me to death.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 06:34 PM
Oh that reminds me- remember in the debate when Harper was asked why his tax cuts benefitted the rich only and not the poor? He answered that the poor don't pay taxes. What the hey is that?I think its similar to "let them eat cake":eek:

heeler's rock!
January 19th, 2006, 06:46 PM
One quick question then Babyrocky....if you don't feel that the majority should rule this country, why does your signature say that your ontario includes a democracy? Isn't that what democracy is all about? Majority rules? I think that's why we've had the liberals for so long, Ontario rules, and they are the majority.

As for the SSM and equal rights, as stated, the house will have a free vote on the subject, just like in a democracy. The definition of marriage is the only thing in question. It won't take away gays and lesbians right to have a civil union just like in the UK. They'll have rights and benefits just like heterosexual couples, just the definition of marriage will stay the same.

And yes, lower income families don't pay taxes, so how can they get tax breaks?? That's why the conservatives want to cut the GST to 5%. That way, every single canadian will get a tax break. I don't see a problem with that....

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 06:47 PM
...and again,

why should we punish hard work, sacrifice and success?!?!?!?!you guys are making huge assumptions about the poor. For One most poor people are not on welfare and DO pay taxes. They also work hard at often the crappiest jobs in society. The rick get all sorts of tax breaks. I worked with a girl whoes father bought both she ad her siblings cars cause he could "write them off" on his company. A friend of mine does the same thing with his sale boat. My clients write off the paintings of their home and kids as expences from their office, need i go on???? Travel expences. business meetings in Paris??? Palease you guys??? And these are just ones that I know of, I'm not in that snack bracket so I dont know the ins and outs Im sure theres much much more. And now those folks are getting 1200. bucks a year for free....It most certainly does come from MY tax dollars AND the tax dollars of my my daughter who is a single mom...come on....one starts paying taxes at Seven thousand bucks! And a single mom used to be around eleven thousand now I guess its more like thirteen, that'll buy alot of sports lessons!!! Are people really this far removed from how life is for the working poor. Sorry I dont think its the Leftys that are out of touch. I chose a profession that doesn't pay much so yeah thats my responsibility but I shouldn't be asked to subsidize somebodys Nanny that may make more than I do.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 06:55 PM
The reason that the right wingers, Harrisites, want you to despise the poor instead of poverty is because they want to deliver up a totally desperate work force for the "upper class" People who have no safety net and will work for low wages and no benenfits. This is about creating and maintaining an underclass. Its discusting! Im sorry but its realy hard for me to read post after post of this kind of talk about the most vulnerable people in our society. You want a right wing government that would make it harder for the poor to obtain day care so they can WORK and pay taxes and also one that may insisits that they go through with an unwanted pregnancy. They sure as heck dont want to help the kid once its born! I personally have strong reservations about abortion but these guys have no right to be having the conversation when they are as unfeeling for children of poverty as they have already proven themselves to be.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 07:00 PM
One quick question then Babyrocky....if you don't feel that the majority should rule this country, why does your signature say that your ontario includes a democracy? Isn't that what democracy is all about? Majority rules? I think that's why we've had the liberals for so long, Ontario rules, and they are the majority.

No it isnt just about majority ruling. It is also about protecting minortiy rights in this country. Thats why we have the charter. To protect us from a temporary majority opinion that would wipe out what we stand for as a nation. You and I may disagree on what that includes but I dont think my commitment to democracy should be in question. BTW Im not a liberal! They are my second choice but its a very far second.

heeler's rock!
January 19th, 2006, 07:04 PM
I don't understand your posts.....The tax write offs for business meeting, etc. have been happening for years, under the liberals, and yes, it's hard for the gov't to keep tabs on what is for business and what isn't, so people will continue to get away with it no matter what gov't is in power. I could write off so many things if I ran my own registered business too, like my van and even gas!

Second of all, Stephen Harper never said anything about having a debate on abortions. Ever! He said quite clearly that he didn't want that to be a debate. So what are you talking about?

As for subsidizing families to choose child care, well, I feel the same way about the NDP. Why should I fund other people to go to school? I'm not going to school so it doesn't benefit me. No government is going to please everybody, but child care is a concern for the majority of canadians, so it benefits the majority. Why should your daughter subsidize someone else's education? It works both ways....

Do you think that rich people don't deserve $1200 a year for child care? I'm sure they pay for daycares, etc. And yes, if they've worked hard to acheive financial stability, why shouldn't they enjoy it?

The accountability act would also help clean up government corruption. I just feel like everyone attacking Harper seems to forget that the liberals scammed us all out of millions of TAX dollars! For their own personal gain! I would have rather that money go to child tax benefits, or even someone's schooling, rather than the Liberal's pockets!!

heeler's rock!
January 19th, 2006, 07:07 PM
I'm not saying we shouldn't protect minority rights, that's important, but ssm wasn't a right until recently, and as I stated, if the legal definition of marriage was changed back, they would still be allowed civil unions.

I know you're not a liberal, you're a new democrat right? I think they are more sneaky than the liberals actually. They say they want to increase social programs, etc., but decrease taxes?? How? Sounds fishy to me....

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 07:17 PM
I really dont want to go toe to toe here, yes I vote NDP and personally I trust them more or I would nt be voting for them or voluteering for them in this and every election for the past twenty or so years. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it in a democracy as you are to yours. As I have said before, each leader in this election has made some very expensive promices. The NDP has ALWAYS been for more social spending, as they believe, as do I , that underming the countries infrastucture and social programmes is not the "Canadian Way" and that these kinds of cut backs will be paid for "dearly" by all of us one way or another, whether it be through higher crime rates, illiteracy, health care, etc. etc. Its needless suffering. So we believe that tax money is well spent on these kinds of programmes. Tax money Will be spent, the question is on what or who. You say that Harpers GST will benefit all Canadians but how much money do you really thnk that the poor have to spend that isn't necessity, like food and home heating, Food is not taxed, It will mean nothing at all to the poor. Only to people who have money to spend. Harper and the Fibs both have lots of give aways in their platforms. Why are people more upset about Jacks?

heeler's rock!
January 19th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Sorry if I came accross as trying to argue with you, I'm not, just debating. You are definitely entitled to your opinion, and thanks for a great debate! :)

Not much else is left to say about this election, other than whatever people decide to vote, I hope they vote FOR something they believe in, which you and I are obviously going to do. :o

As for food not being taxed, it actually is, here anyways. I pay 7% tax on everything almost. Gas, food, clothing, etc. Those are neccessities.....

I'm glad people are still passionate about this country and what we stand for. I believe in the Conservatives view of Canada, and you the NDP.

I'm only upset about Jack Layton's promises because the NDP sounds great! I just don't believe we're gonna pay less taxes. I infact feel we're gonna pay more. That's just what I feel though. As for cut backs, yeah, we've seen what that can do. To our millitary, social programs, etc. The liberals did all that cutting back, but yet taxes went up.

We'll see what happens on Monday....I'm actually excited! :o

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 07:29 PM
I know the abortion thing isnt in the platform, I also know who is in the party and what I said was that the conversation that they were having is offensive, by my daughter paying for someone elses education, Im talking about my daughter who is paying taxes, and barely getting by, who under a Harper government plan may very well lose her day care. Assuming that she can still work and continue to pay taxes, she will then be subsidizing a rich person. She will be paying a portion of there 1200 bucks. I certianly believe that we all pay for one anothers needs if they NEED it. But not if they dont. Your attacking my post about well off people getting tax breaks that they dont deserve cause they do under a Liberal gov. Once again, Im not a liberal and the point is that they are not so hard done by. the rich I mean, they dont need my help. I was answering a post by someone else that was asking whats wrong with rich and successful people being rewarded. Well I think they are already being rewarded. That was the point.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Sorry if I came accross as trying to argue with you, I'm not, just debating. You are definitely entitled to your opinion, and thanks for a great debate! :)

....I'm actually excited! :oNo problem Heelers Rock we did get to vent didnt we LOL and Im glad your excited but errr that maybe cause your winning!:eek: So I hope you guys are right about Harper not doing as much harm as I think that he will...unfortunately for some of us it looks like we will find out.

babyrocky1
January 19th, 2006, 08:31 PM
Heres a give away point for the Harper crew, just to show you I play fair!!! theres a story going around that one of Harpers main advisors adopted a pit bull from the "pound" after the announced pit bull ban on Ontario. This is my one and only positive comment!

domesticzookeep
January 19th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Again….FANTASTIC thread….excln’t debate guys….

I couldn’t agree more, Babyrock!!

I still haven’t decided who I’m voting for, but I know who WON’T be getting my vote: Harper!! My memory is not as bad as the media’s….he lost my vote years ago….

So my reason’s for not voting for Harper:

The environment & the Kyoto Accord – a few years ago he didn’t think Global Warming was an issue…what the ?!?!?! :confused: I like the idea for a tax break to transit users – but the rest of the plan – what plan? (Wonder if he figures only poor people who ‘don’t pay taxes, anyways’ use public transit…..:eek: )

Iraq – The UN plays a vital role in world peace. Invading a country and declaring war, is just a bad idea altogether…..and when the UN disagrees? Join an illegal war??? Even worse…. I could not have been prouder the day Canada stood up a sovereign nation and said NO! ….and all Harper could do was criticize the gov’t & apologize to the US. If he’s not willing to stand up for Canada then, WHEN?

Military – with so many other priorities – this is NOT where I want my money to go……Weapons in space, too? No thanks.

Hmm…how ‘bout the roots of the now Conservatives – Reform, Alliance, Stockwell Day – oh, and then there’s Mulroney – probably one of the least loved former PM’s of this country….
Or hey, MY CANADA is NOT WHITE & CHRISTIAN! It is multicultural where we all have equal rights. The government ‘does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation’ NOR should the religious beliefs of our leaders dictate policy of this country! PERIOD! That is why we have the Charter…to protect the rights of minorities within the country….
Harper has made it very clear he does not support SSM.
Harper has made it very clear in the past the he does not support a women’s right to abortion (I saw the interview w/ Newman that media coach sure has paid off - he's not making all the fun quotes he use to...).
His past actions have also dictated that his PERSONAL religious/moral feelings will play a role in decision making. Our nation’s leader should make them based on our Charter of Rights & Freedoms & the laws that govern our land – not to make everyone conform to the ideals of the PM’s…..I’m not sure Harper gets this…..

Yes, he has made it clear that *HE* would not put forward a motion to change the legal definition of marriage, but that IF one came forward (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, all you ‘independents’ out there) he would allow a free vote – and since we all know the Conservatives tried to block it before, chances are, it WOULD go through with a strong minority – or heaven forbid – a majority…(Anyone hear the raving lunatic/ Conservative candidate out in Scarborough "DECLARING WAR" on anyone who believes in SSM last wk???) ….So under his gov’t he WOULD allow this to happen, and therefore, remove rights already determined under the CHARTER OF RIGHTS. No…..*he* might not take them away…..but he wont’ STOP it from happening - in fact, he'd cast his "free vote", and we all know what that means…..that's not leadership & that's not protecting our Charter!

BTW: Redefining SSM as ‘civil union’ is not the same as having it defined as “marriage”. Marriage = 2 people + love + lifetime commitment – to say the two relationships are not equal b/c of whose involved – well….don’t get me started….
For those who want to ‘preserve the sanctity of marriage’ ….just go check out the divorce stats……it not gay marriages that’s the issue….;)

“Tax savings”: under Harper’s plan I have to SPEND money in order to SAVE money….huh??? Role back those income tax reductions we just got – where I can choose if I want to truly SAVE the money by, oh, I don’t know…putting it into RRSP’s, investments, maybe make an extra mortgage payment or heck how about a good old’ rainy day emergency fund (oh, wait – I’m talking about the man that wants to spend our surplus’s…..and what if the natural disasters the world experienced last year, hits Canada….isn’t that what surplus’s should be saved for, or hey, how ‘bout paying off a little debt….)…….almost every economist has indicated this is a poor plan in comparison to the Liberals…..and I want to trust them w/ the nation’s money??? Hold that debate... I have to go buy my minivan, so I can SAVE $500….here I come Chrysler! :p

And, speaking of tax money & the Gomery Report…..Yes - $100 million of OUR tax money spent on little or no work. Absolutely disgraceful. There is no defending that....
BUT – WHAT did Harper & Conservative do/accomplish in the past 18 months or so while they were in Ottawa???? IMHO, NOTHING PRODUCTIVE!!! They refused to work with any of the other parties and voted against bills & budget ideas that were GOOD for Canada. Their primary focus was to bring down the government, so they could get into power! Tell me THAT isn’t a WASTE of my tax dollars! I’m sure w/ all those MP’s, travel, expenses, aides, etc….the past 18 months of their ‘work’ (or lackthereof) has cost us more than $100 million….

While I’m not a strong NDP supporter (I typically vote Liberal or NDP….usually depends on the MP / MPP….hey, I’ve even voted Conservative a few times)……BUT at least I can say Layton stood up & tried to accomplish something FOR Canada….he was trying to make a difference & bargained to get the best he could! More than I can save for Harper….

And last…my local MP was not involved in the scandal – and those that were, got kicked out. I don’t like or agree with what happened – but I thought the Gomery Report & Martin have handled it appropriately. (For those who correctly point out Martin was finance minister at the time and should have known – it was decided the project was ‘worthy’ of $250 million (would we argue this was a bad decision if the $ was spent right?? Not sure?:confused: ) – it was Gagliano & co. who made the poor decisions on HOW to spend it. :mad: )
Martin’s apologized, and I’m just ready to move on, and actually get some real work done……I guess in the end, I’m either too forgiving, or just think the improvements made in Canada’s global economic position in the past 12 yrs by the Liberals is not worth throwing away, b/c of a handful of thieves….

Quote: Heeler's Rock
"What gives the liberals the right to screw up repeatedly, and get another chance?? Don't the tories deserve this chance? I think they do,"

To screw up?? Heehee....know you didn't mean it like this, but I couldn't resist.:p

Ohh….I should never allow myself to get started…..watch as I ever so, clumsily fall off my soap box & exit stage left…..:crazy:

Cheers,
C.

Bushfire2000
January 19th, 2006, 11:01 PM
oh I thought it said e"r"ection poll. sorry if this is serious must get eyes checked.

Prin
January 20th, 2006, 02:17 AM
TY...good post....

there is certainly is a large and unwarranted fear about the evil Conservative "agenda" being spread by the Liberals. Fortunately it seems to be backfiring on them.
How does that post settle the fear? Does he say "I believe in a woman's right to choose"? No? Then how can we expect him to protect that right? If it's a fundamental belief of his that it is wrong, saying he won't bring it up is just another election promise.

One quick question then Babyrocky....if you don't feel that the majority should rule this country, why does your signature say that your ontario includes a democracy? This qn is not for me, but I have to answer it... :o If you ask any political scientist, they'll tell you that the majority of Canadians are actually a little left of center, so the conservatives would be out anyway. But, our system doesn't work properly, so it's basically a lottery. The Conservatives have moved more toward the center since the race began, and I don't trust it at all.

Do you think that rich people don't deserve $1200 a year for child care? I'm sure they pay for daycares, etc. And yes, if they've worked hard to acheive financial stability, why shouldn't they enjoy it? Actually, if you read the little excerpt from the Conservatives' platform, that $1200 is taxable, so the rich would likely have to pay it back anyway. The poor will probably have to pay back about 1/3 to 1/2 of it, so really, it's just an empty, pretty number that won't help anybody. How many middle to upper class parents complain that their family allowance has to be repaid in taxes anyway? Same deal with this money. Here:
Provide all families a new $1,200 per year Choice in Child Care Allowance for each child under six, to be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income, starting in 2006. This will be in addition to the current Canada Child Tax Benefits, National Child Benefit Supplement, and the Childcare Expenses
Deduction. The Choice in Child Care Allowance will let parents choose the childcare option that best suits their family’s needs.

And yes, lower income families don't pay taxes, so how can they get tax breaks?? That's why the conservatives want to cut the GST to 5%. That way, every single canadian will get a tax break. I don't see a problem with that....Actually, this GST tax cut will most likely not help anybody in Quebec. See, Quebec charges its provincial tax on top of the GST (they tax the tax, plus the price of the product/service). So by dropping the GST, the Quebec goverment will be losing billions of dollars a year and will probably raise the provincial taxes to compensate. We'll end up paying 15% sales tax no matter what- the only thing that will change is who the money goes to.:rolleyes:

And yes, poor people pay taxes. Even some students pay taxes. Just so you all know.:thumbs up

The tax write offs for business meeting, etc. have been happening for years, under the liberals, and yes, it's hard for the gov't to keep tabs on what is for business and what isn't, so people will continue to get away with it no matter what gov't is in power. I could write off so many things if I ran my own registered business too, like my van and even gas!Wasn't the point here that although the rich pay a lot in taxes, they tend to have short cuts to help them out, that most poor people don't have? Most poor people don't have a company to write-off the cars and dinners and flights, etc onto.

Why should I fund other people to go to school? I'm not going to school so it doesn't benefit me.Actually it does. The more educated your city is, they say, the lower the crime rate drops.;) So 'they' say... But I would rather have an educated population than an un- or undereducated population.

Domesticzookeep: great post. The way I see it is the only people voting Conservative are the hard right and the people who don't remember what Harper has said before this election. His goal right now is to win the election. Call me cynical, but here in Qc, we've seen elections where the Parti Quebecois wanted as many votes as they could get and lied their hineys off in an effort to get them, but then at the last minute, referred to all the Anglo PQ voters as "Lobsters in a pot" (meaning, you just have to coax them in and then they're screwed). This is what Harper is doing, IMO. He's moving further from the hard right (when he himself is a hard right thinker), just to coax lefties into the "pot". No thanks.


And if you're all lucky, this post will now get lost in cyberspace... Sorry, it's so long... I had to catch up.:o

chico2
January 20th, 2006, 09:34 AM
Babyrock,DomesticZookeep,Prin sensible,intelligent posts:highfive:
This time more than ever,I hope every abled person will get out there and VOTE!!
The days of Harris and his goons in Ontario, is still very fresh in my memory,Harper will do the same to Canada,a very unsettling thought!!

domesticzookeep
January 20th, 2006, 10:22 AM
.....and for those who are still undecided....or just believe it doesn't matter who's wins - they're all corrupt & break their promises....try the "vote-o-matic"!

http://randomparty.ca/


c'mon...no whammies, no whammies.....YIKES! I got Harper :eek: ....better go for best 2 outta 3!

C.
:ca:

Luvmypit
January 20th, 2006, 11:49 AM
I wonder how that 1200 is going to benefit anyone whos children are not under 6. Why 6?
I have a 9 year old so I guess my child can stay home alone? And a 7 and 8 year old too?

This was response to criticism from the PM after Harper complained that all the judges are of Liberal mindeset:

When Harper was asked yesterday about his comment that Liberal-appointed senators and judges would act as a brake on a Tory regime, he indicated that if the Senate attempted to block legislation banning same-sex legislation, it would amount to "an abuse of power."

"I would prefer that the unelected chamber respect the decisions of the chamber elected by the population," he said at a Legion Hall in Waterdown, Ont.

Then there is this:

Yesterday, Harper was campaigning in support of Sweet, a former national president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical men's organization, who has been accused of making disparaging comments about women.

But Harper defended Sweet's credentials as a candidate and said "it's a Charter right to be a Christian in this country."




Then he does not even want to state his stand on abortion. When asked that he would never visit it, he said never is a long time.
hmmmm


Trust me I know little to nothing about politics but I can read party platforms and I can align myself with what is best for me and the people of Canada and Conservative party is not it. I am just in tired of reading in papers and blogs how Ontario is so stupid cause they will vote liberal (which I am not, I will vote Green party or NDP) but I am on the other side going but tell me whats so great about the conservative party? Nothing has impressed me yet. Conservatives are nothing new but it sure seems people believe they are. There platforms are the same as last and still do not appeal to me.

gdamadg
January 20th, 2006, 12:12 PM
Ok, a little unbiased political humour to lighten things up near the end of the campaign.

Election Wishes

Martin, Harper and Layton are flying on the Executive Airbus to a gathering in British Columbia when Martin turns to Harper and says, chuckling,

"You know, I could throw a $1000 bill out the window right now and make someone very happy."

Harper shrugs and replies, "Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people happy." Not to be outdone, Layton says,

"Well I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people happy."

The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such arrogant a**es back there. Hell, I could throw all three of them out the window and make 32 million people happy."

Happy Voting!!!!!!

gdamadg
January 20th, 2006, 12:19 PM
I can't edit my post from here as all the functions are not available. Could a Moderator or Admin please edit my post, I noticed a word in there that should have been edited after the fact. It was a cut and paste.

Luvmypit
January 20th, 2006, 12:27 PM
Im getting out the soap to wash that mouth out gdamadg! :o