Tomorrow is D-Day

[costermonger]

And by the way, if you need an example of how calling people stupid because they support the other guy can backfire, take a look at the US presidential election last year. Making blanket statements like "If you vote liberal, you're an idiot. Plain and simple!!!" is about as idiotic as saying "If you vote conservative you're a backwards religious hick!!!".. I shouldn't have to tell you why this sort of behaviour cannot help you in the least.

EDIT

Although, if you're really looking for something that scares me, it's how the Alliance was never able to run an election campaign without a handful of their MP's or candidates making such asinine statements as "homosexuality should be criminalized". If they get through this campaign without such an embarassment, I'll consider supporting them. Still not a fan of Harper though.

Gee I wish PC was still around..

[Hedley]

I may be wrong, but I don't think it would be very difficult to do a better job of running the Federal Government, than the Liberals have done lately.

This is not rocket science. How about:

1) no more stealing tax dollars
2) smaller government
3) lower taxes

I know, I know, this is all pretty complicated stuff ....

Frankly, I think pretty well any eight year old could do a better job of running the country. The bar isn't set very high, if you know what I mean.

[costermonger]

Well, what does it tell you when a substantial portion of the country would probably prefer an 8 year old to the current alternative? You can bitch and moan and whine about how everybody who supports the Liberals is an idiot, or you can do something politically astute (not sure the Conservatives are clear on what that means yet) and try to cater to what the population will vote for. I think it's been well established that Harper isn't it. There's gotta be somebody electable in the party, isn't there?

[Hedley]

a handful of their MP's or candidates making such asinine statements

Remember when Jean Cretin visited the Middle East as PM?

I know, I'm trying to forget it, too.

[Floats]

I backed up my claim with reasons why you are an idiot if you vote Liberal. Do you need more?

You still haven't said one issue that you disagree with harper about?

floats

[Hedley]

We've been 'way too serious for 'way too long. You know what that means ... it's time for a joke!

Once upon a time, in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned Bunny
and an orphaned snake.

By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth. One day, the
bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering
through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down.

"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt
you. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In
fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."

It's quite ok," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is as yours. I,
too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell
you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are
so at least you'll have that going for you."

"Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered
all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you
have really long ears, your nose twitches, and you have a soft cottony
tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."

"Oh, thank you, thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.

The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with
my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me." So the Bunny
felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're smooth and
slippery, and you've a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls. I'd say
you must be a Liberal politician."

[costermonger]

-Iraq
-healthcare
-gay rights
-missile defense
-massive tax cuts
-support of party members who say rediculous things; see "Asian invasion", Nelson Mandela the "Communist and terrorist"
-abortion

There you go, do I have your permission to not vote Conservative now?

[costermonger]

I backed up my claim with reasons why you are an idiot if you vote Liberal. Do you need more?

You're totally missing the point. Even if you're 100% right, you still look like a tool and do nothing but hurt your side when you say things like that. Again, if you need evidence of what this can do to what should be a complete shoe-in election, just take a look at the US.

[Hedley]

massive tax cuts

Didn't the Liberals just do that with their latest desperate try-to-buy-votes budget? Took them long enough to get around to it, I might add.

What's wrong with tax cuts? People keeping more of their money, and the government spending less of it? Sounds like a winner to me.

Do you think the government spends your money more wisely than you?

Are you putting me on?

When we had the power outage in Ontario a couple years back, the president of the treasury board announced that 95% of the civil servants in Ottawa (they were described as "non-essential") were staying at home, but Canadians wouldn't notice any difference in the level of service provided.

After the predictable hue and cry subsided, it was explained that 95% of the civil servants (the non-essential ones) were involved in "policy-making".

Now, we probably have just about enough policies in Canada, enough that we can afford to get rid of 95% of the civil service and keep the tax dollars in our pockets.

abortion

I am a firm believer in abortion. Take a look around you - obviously, we need far more abortions. Personally, I'm a believer in retroactive abortions, up to and including the age of 21.

[Floats]

I understand what your saying costermonger,

Your right, name calling does inhibit my argument, lets remove my "your an idiot" statement then,

Based on the Liberals track record, I can't not understand why anyone would vote for them again.


IRAQ - I'm on the fence on this issue

HEALTHCARE - its a complete mess, needs changing, not sure how liberals can run on a platform of improving healthcare, when they haven't done anything to fix it in the last 12 years(its gotten worse in fact)

GAY RIGHTS - all for them, so is Harper. Marrage is not a right, its a religious institution

MISSILE DEFENCE - I'm not really for it, or against it. It won't cost us a thing though, so if W wants to spend the money, how do we loose?

TAX CUTS - It my money they are wasting and I want it back (I won't go into the whole Tax cuts = economic growth which in turn equals increased tax revenue) why don't people get that

SUPPORT/PARTY MEMBERS - "americans, I hate those Bastards" there is bad apples in every group

ABORTION - well I am all for abortion rights, so is Harper, so what you are telling me, is your against abortion


FLoats

[Dust Devil]

I would still like to hear what Harper will do that scares you so much

Well, "scare" is the wrong word for it. 99% of what I hear from Harper is "Liberals this, Liberals that" and the 1% of the time he actually talks about what he'd like to do if in charge, well, I don't agree with, never have.

You guys may love him, good on you, your choice. I'm not going to be voting for him, simple as that, because (a) seldom does he stop bellyaching long enough to talk about policy and (b) when he does I agree with almost none of it.

I can forgive (a) because that's more or less his job, but (b) is what prevents me from considering supporting him.

That's the problem. Canadian voters are so stupid they don't know how to educate themselves on a parties platform. Sorry man but liberal corruption is the top issue these days. Why don't you educate yourself on the other parties policies instead of waiting for the CBC to educate you on how marvolous the Liberals are. The Liberals don't talk about what their policy is because they don't have one. Liberal policy is lets spend the money needed to remain in power.

[costermonger]

IRAQ - I'm on the fence on this issue

To me, this is a very big issue. If Harper was PM in early 2003, Canadian soldiers would've took part in the invasion.

GAY RIGHTS - all for them, so is Harper. Marrage is not a right, its a religious institution

I don't believe there should be a single situation where the Government can tell you what you can or cannot do based on your sexual preference; if it's a religious institution the government has no business whatsoever being in the business of marriages. I don't hold the view that it is a religious institution, as by the very nature of that sort of belief one has to ask, "which religion?" - there are a few progressive denominations that do think it's perfectly alright to marry homosexuals.

MISSILE DEFENCE - I'm not really for it, or against it. It won't cost us a thing though, so if W wants to spend the money, how do we loose?

It should never be built, we shouldn't encourage it. If we say we'll help, I think there's a very small possibility it will be built without Canadian funds.

TAX CUTS - It my money they are wasting and I want it back (I won't go into the whole Tax cuts = economic growth which in turn equals increased tax revenue) why don't people get that

I think I can probably respond to Hedley here too. "We must aim to make [Canada] a lower tax jurisdiction than the United States."

- Stepehen Harper, Vancouver Province, April 6th 2004.

Feel free to disagree here, this is probably an ideological difference we're not going to overcome, but I don't believe that Canada should sacrifice our social programs in the manner that would be required to get our tax burden lower than the Americans. I think a smaller government could do us good, I think there is a lot of need for reform in our social programs to make us more efficient, but I do not think we should go on a tax-cut race with the most fiscally irresponsible government in the world, just because they're our southern neighbors.

SUPPORT/PARTY MEMBERS - "americans, I hate those Bastards" there is bad apples in every group

Yep. What happened after she said that? Yeah, that's right, she got fired. Martin didn't talk about how she was a vital part of the party or how she's a faithfull supporter of his, he fired her, said enough is enough. Doesn't seem that complicated, does it?

ABORTION - well I am all for abortion rights, so is Harper, so what you are telling me, is your against abortion

Whoa, a strawman argument! So anyway, Harper said he'd allow a free vote over abortion. I don't think that should happen - feel free to differ, but I don't think we should be having votes in our Parliament as to whether or not to roll back the clock on Canadians rights' 30 years. I'm not in the least concerned about this occuring during a minority government, as it's such a touchy topic that it wouldn't even be brought up, but in the event of a majority, it's just another thing I can't agree with.

So yeah, you've had your fun picking apart my reasons for not supporting the Conservatives, but what did you accomplish? Nothing. Don't presume that my positions on these issues are so flimsy that any matter of arguing here will make a bit of difference.

[Floats]

Iraq is not a big issue for the coming election, its done with. ah news flash, Canada had the third largest force in Iraq(behind GB and US) do to our exchange programs. Our soldiers were there anyway. Anyhow lets move on to relevent issues.

As far as Gay marrage , we can agree to disagree on this one. But there are far more Canadians against it, than for it. Harper has said he would allow a free vote on this issue. Something Martin wouldn't do, even though there was a large group of Liberal MP's that were against it.


Missile Defence? who really cares, i can't believe this is an issue. I repeat, it will not cost us a thing, Do some research on this, W is paying the tab, in fact Canadian companies would benifit by being involved. Why are you against it anyway? I don't really have an argument for why canada needs this, but whats your argument that it shouldn't be built


Tax cuts, we need tax cuts in order to put my money back into my pocket. It doesn't belong to the goverment or anyone else for that matter. We pay too much taxes!!!! First of all, you obviously don't understand how economies work. You can actually give tax cuts, but maintain your tax revenue due to increased consumer spending. I'm not asking that social programs that we need be cut. Im asking that money wasted on things like the completly useless gun registry, liberal pet projects and scandals. I could go on and on with examples of goverment waste, if would like to see them, I'd be more than happy to post them.

As far as Carolyn Parrish, What happened after that, thats right. Not one fucking thing!!!!!!!!!!!. She wasn't fired after that, nor after her stomping on a george W doll either. It wasn't until she publically embarrashed Martin personally a year later before she was booted

As for abortion, get your facts straight again, he never said there would be a free vote on this issue. one, because there won't be a vote on it. Abortion will never be brought forward in order to mae it illegal. This is something the liberals are pumping out in order to scare people

But guess what, your arguments are flimsy. Before you make an important decision such as choosing who to vote for, do your best to get it right.

[North Shore]

Tax cuts, we need tax cuts in order to put my money back into my pocket. It doesn't belong to the goverment or anyone else for that matter. We pay too much taxes!!!! First of all, you obviously don't understand how economies work. You can actually give tax cuts, but maintain your tax revenue due to increased consumer spending. I'm not asking that social programs that we need be cut. Im asking that money wasted on things like the completly useless gun registry, liberal pet projects and scandals. I could go on and on with examples of goverment waste, if would like to see them, I'd be more than happy to post them.

Floats, perhaps you could explain this to me in a little more detail, please. It seems that most tax relief that I (earning between $50 -$70K/yr) am given falls under the "pittance" category - my bill gets rolled back by ~ $300 a year. So, assuming that I go out and spend all of that on buying something, as opposed to paying off my mortgage, or adding to my RRSP, or simply saving it, then the government will recieve a 7% return on that from the GST. Using a bit of math, X x7% = $300 Converting that by algebra gives me X = $300/7% Solving for X = $4285.71 Do you honestly think that anyone who is given a $300 tax break is going to go out and spend 14 times that? Or that magically (by some unknown & unnamed economic phenomenon) the $300 widget that I buy is somehow worth $4K in spinoffs?
It is always taken/preached as a given, by the right of the political spectrum, that tax cuts will help the economy, yet no studies are ever quoted to back that up.

[Floats]

North Shore, you are correct. I was oversimplfying. A $300 tax break, does not equate $300 coming back in GST revenue.

Tax cuts = stimulated economy = increased consumer spending = business making more money = more jobs = increased corporate tax revenue = less people of social assistence, and on and on

Without cutting funds to any of our social programs, but taking the money that has been wasted by this liberal goverment and putting that back into the pockets of Canadians. How could one argue that wouldn't be good for our economy?

But frankly, I would like more say on where I spend my money

[desksgo]

VOTE LIBERAL, BECAUSE ALL OF THE COOL KIDS ARE DOIN' IT

[costermonger]

Iraq is not a big issue for the coming election, its done with. ah news flash, Canada had the third largest force in Iraq(behind GB and US) do to our exchange programs. Our soldiers were there anyway. Anyhow lets move on to relevent issues.

Iraq is an issue because it's an example of what Harper would've done had he been in charge at the time. That's why it's important. BTW, unless you can prove we've got more troops in Iraq than the Aussies (~500), I'll assume you just pulled that "fact" out of your ass.

As far as Gay marrage , we can agree to disagree on this one. But there are far more Canadians against it, than for it. Harper has said he would allow a free vote on this issue. Something Martin wouldn't do, even though there was a large group of Liberal MP's that were against it.

Far more? The "majority" (2%) has never been as big as the margin of error on the polls (3%). I'd say the country's about as evenly split on this issue as is possible. Either way, thanks for allowing me to disagree!

Missile Defence? who really cares, i can't believe this is an issue. I repeat, it will not cost us a thing, Do some research on this, W is paying the tab, in fact Canadian companies would benifit by being involved. Why are you against it anyway? I don't really have an argument for why canada needs this, but whats your argument that it shouldn't be built

Well, firstly, it contravenes more than one strategic arms treaty - I don't think it's a good idea to just say "@#$! it" to agreements that revolve around limiting the deployment of nuclear weapons. Secondly, it would just encourage the development of more multiwarhead ICBM's by countries that right now have no need for them. They contravene treaties too, but the US is setting the precedent anyway, so I don't see why we should expect countries like China and Russia to keep up their end's of the deal if the US won't.

Tax cuts, we need tax cuts in order to put my money back into my pocket. It doesn't belong to the goverment or anyone else for that matter. We pay too much taxes!!!! First of all, you obviously don't understand how economies work. You can actually give tax cuts, but maintain your tax revenue due to increased consumer spending. I'm not asking that social programs that we need be cut. Im asking that money wasted on things like the completly useless gun registry, liberal pet projects and scandals. I could go on and on with examples of goverment waste, if would like to see them, I'd be more than happy to post them.

Jeesus christ. I understand econcomics. I understand tax burden. I understand the affect increased disposible income can have on an economy. What you apparently don't understand is that even if you get rid of all the frivilous crap our government loves to spend money on (unlikely, even in the event of a Conservative government), without big cuts to social programs, there's no way in hell Canadians can have a lower tax burden than Americans. I'm all for tax cuts, but I fundamentally disagree with Harper about the level of taxation that is neccesary. You shouldn't be surpised, seeing as I disagree with him about healthcare too.

As for abortion, get your facts straight again, he never said there would be a free vote on this issue. one, because there won't be a vote on it. Abortion will never be brought forward in order to mae it illegal. This is something the liberals are pumping out in order to scare people

"I have always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy."

- Stephen Harper.

[Floats]

Its hard to pinpoint how many soldiers were in iraq at the time of the invasion. We had a fleet in the persian gulf supporting the war on terror. some may argue thats not part of the iraq war, others say it is.

Prime Minister Chrétien says Canada isn't at war with Iraq. But he conceded that some Canadian soldiers could be with U.S. and British troops inside the country. "It's possible," he said - CBC news

As far as sending troops there, Harper had never commited troops to the invasion. He did however at the time support the US invasion. I did as well. Since then it has been well documented that the evidence given in regards to WMD proved to be misleading. Given that, I would not support the invasion.

However, I do believe there are far more pressing issues for the coming election than Iraq.


as for Gay marriage, The internet is full of different polls on this issue, I could post one to suit my argument, but whats the point, reminds of the homer simpson quote

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that. --Homer Simpson

The fact is, i believe it should be put to a free vote

missile defence, you win, it really is not a priorty for me


Tax Cuts- its not a game to beat the americans, its about giving me my money back.


Abortion is here to stay, No goverment in Canada will ever go down that road. It just wouldn't fly, even if it was put to a free vote.

Have a look at http://www.conservatives.ca click on the issues tab, then click Policy Declaration. It lists where the conservative party stands on pretty much every issue.

[CD]

I wonder how this may play out if Sinclair Stevens does take it to the Supreme Court and is successful...

Sinclair Stevens may take fight against Tory-Alliance merger to Supreme Court

17 Nov, 4:32 PM

OTTAWA (CP) - Sinclair Stevens has lost another round in his legal fight to resurrect the Progressive Conservative party and is considering taking the battle to the Supreme Court.

The former Tory cabinet minister said he will decide early next week if he will ask the high court for leave to appeal his case, which asks the courts to quash the merger of the old PC and Alliance parties into the new Conservative party.

Stevens wants to resurrect the Progressive Conservative name, which disappeared in the merger and which Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, refuses to revive because it sounds too much like the Conservative Party of Canada.

"Basically, my bottom line is I feel it is wrong in our democracy to not give people who want to vote Progressive Conservative an opportunity to do that during an election," he said.

On Thursday, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled against Stevens in his claim that Kingsley mishandled the 2003 merger that produced the Conservative party and relegated the old Progressive Conservative and Alliance parties to the political scrap yard.

The three-judge panel unanimously upheld a Federal Court ruling that went against Stevens a year ago.

In that ruling, Justice Elizabeth Heneghan found that the electoral officer should have allowed a 30-day waiting period before registering the merger, but said it wasn't a big deal. She refused to quash Kingsley's action.

The appeal judges agreed that Kingsley was wrong, but said Heneghan was right to use her discretion and refuse to overturn the merger.

"It is not uncommon that a court, in its discretion, refuses to quash a decision made unlawfully," Justice Robert Decary wrote for the court of appeal.

Stevens, however, finds a ray of hope in the fact that the justices agreed that Kingsley made an error.

"We have four judges now saying that the chief electoral officer erred in law," he said.

He said he'll consult lawyer Peter Rosenthal before deciding his future course.

Rosenthal wants to go to the high court.

"I am recommending that we seek leave to appeal because nothing in the decision convinces me that our arguments were wrong," he said.

Stevens is upset that the merger erased the Progressive Conservative label from the political map and Kingsley won't let the name back on the ballot.

That's wrong, said Stevens.

After all, a million and a half people voted PC as recently as 2000.

"For a system to allow the oldest party in Canada to be extinguished where over the years it had that number of people voting for it, I just think is inherently wrong."

[Floats]

I don't see it happening, but yes, it would stir up a big mess

floats