69cat

Excellent example on doctor assisted suicide. I think i should have the right to do so. The left, in its usual for-ever-in-fear mindset says i disagree with it and therefore you cant do it. Reasoning, well it will be a slippery slope and we will soon be killing off handicapped and the old. Of course the conservative response is that the main word is "suicide" and no one in human history has suicided someone else. But yeah, perfect example in the difference of thinking. Illegal activity is quite the reach, but hey, if that is the best you guys got for an intelligent discussion then i will let that one stand. Point to you. Hmm, going through a trial in court is weasling ones way out. Interesting thought, how do you think our justice system should work?

Geez, tough room here Springer - good luck. Looks to play out as usual. Al Gore and David Suzuki being experts because they have read things. Yeah, heard it all before. I look out my window and question things but hey, i should just blindly beleive.

Thanks for that vid Springer. I never did get anyone to take on my post with example of why i think there is bad science regarding GW in your post on voting conservative. Go figure, global warming is something you simply have to beleive i guess. Dont question or apply a logical view to the topic.

Yeah PIK, tough one with the Riders but still lots of excitement. And not to give the "huge corps are bad" any amo, peas were hitting $9.25/bu recently, lentlis at $0.33/bu, yellow mustard at $0.39/lb. All top end prices. Which brings up another fallacy that big business will ruin the farmer without the CWB. Guess what, all those crops i listed we have been selling to those evil big companies for decades and doing a whole better than selling wheat to CWB. But lets keep that all hush, hush.

Cyber, rework your numbers and come back again with a valid argument. What did the artcile say, something like 10.7 million Canadians, you seem to be arguing it is low. Do you think a 4 y/o or 14 y/o is out there wishing they had the opportunity to contribute. And to repeat, yes, TFSA is maxed out fairly evenly across all income ranges. Once again clarifying it is not only for the wealthy but for those with the DESIRE to use it. And so, yes CANADIANS OF ALL INCOME LEVELS ARE BENEFITTING. Let me guess, you your next argument will be that not ALL Canadians are contributing so my statement is wrong. Here is something: Conservative "i would like to do this so i should be able to" Socialist " i cant do it therefore neither should you be able to" Fits pretty well to the TFSA discussion, dont it.

WIP, you need to understand the subject matter and ignore the left wing media that has no intention of explaining the reality of many topics. The "Canadian" wheat board covered alb, sk and mb only. How is it fair to a wheat grower in manitoba to take a set price with predetermined delivery quotas when his neighbor in Ontario had complete marketing freedom. Here is your reality test, if the CWB was such a fantastic entity why did not all provinces lobby to be included and make it in reality the Canadian WB. Yup, you just got the answer. Lets further eloborate on its workings. The cwb set the price, told you how much grain you can sell at that moment and for what price. When you are sitting on say $3M of inventory how do you, as a private business owner, feel about that situation. Furthermore, when you do sell your inventory you are given an initial price, and do not know what the final price will be or when you will get final payment. How do you feel running a business with $5M revenue, cash flow requirements to make your head spin and not knowing when or what is your final pay for something sold a year before. And to top this all off, as much as you hate it, your ONLY choice is not to grow grain that is under the CWB mandate. How does anyone hate Harper for doing away with this system. Lets say you are this private business owner, or you pro or anti Harper? Oh yeah, the big bad corporation angle. Guess what? They are in business to make a profit. If they can make $20 on a ton of grain then they will pay you whatever it takes to get that ton of grain in their hands, that is a free market economy. If they dont pay enough i will sit on it, if another competitor wants it they will have to bid higher than the first. The first company remember is there to make a profit, if they dont pay enough to buy my grain then they suffer by not making a profit. This all makes sense correct? As for the gmo thing i will stay out of it as there is way too much speculation and what if on that matter. I will simply say that i grow grains, i sell grains, i keep some in the bin to seed with next year too. And after my seed is into its 3rd, 4th or 5th generation i will go to a seed company and buy a new batch. As i say in my earlier post, gmo debate is best left alone though we have the luxury of passing judgement here.

Ok cyber lets go simply I say all parties are in favor of low cit. My position supported by: 1) words spoken (not quoted) by Justin Trudea and Tom Mulcair saying there will be little to no change in corporate tax rate 2) provincial govs of all parties following same idea of low cit You say "wrong". Explain why my statement is wrong then we can move on.

We farm here in Sask so i hear enough of the anti gmo talk. We can change our farm practices to meet these demands but the customer needs to pay the higher price because we use the technology to create profit needed to function. I dont buy into the "we need it to feed the world" pro gmo line. And so Springer, you are on track with the real issue i have with the anti gmo lobby. Most people in the west can afford to choose what they spend their food budget on. Simply, we have the luxury to pass judgement. There are many people thst could care less if it is gmo or not, if it is gmo and costs less, grows more or has other benefits then they will take it.

Yeah, it is kind of funny with someone like cyber, you can lay out UNBIASED fact after fact to challenge someones beleifs and hope they will learn and become more educated, and we hope many do. But you still run into those who flip flop around like a fish on a dock on something as simple as whether or not they prefer deficit spending or go so far as to ignore what is written as history as it goes against what they beleive.

One more time regarding tfsas http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/tfsa/exclusive-canadians-maxing-out-their-tfsas-from-all-walks-of-life?__lsa=24c9-f06d Pretty even split across the board for all incomes from $5000 to +$250000 are maxing it out. Therefore supporting the Harper Conservative claim that the TFSA program is for everone, that an increase is still for everyone and that the ndp, libs and mainstream media are out right, unrestrained liars to say it is for only the wealthy. And to prove to oneself, ask 20 people personally if they contributed to a TFSAnand then ask if they make more than $125,000/year. That will be your answer without going to a media source of any kind.

Well said Springer. I think what most everyone who wants government to look after every thing in their lives is that everything is a-ok until your desires/beleifs do not align with the government. When that happens you are screwed. The only way for the utopian model therefore to function is the government must dictate all aspects of the citizens lifes, essentially taking away what we know as "freedom". Basically a dictatorship who does everything in its power for the good of the citizens only you do not decide what the dictatorship says is good for the citizens.

Ok, cybercoma, you prefer deficit spending. Your earlier post you stated you hated the Harper government for running deficit after deficit after deficit and you have other posts saying the same. So i made the mistake of thinking you disliked deficits. Although you will now have to argue how the Harper gov economic action plan, used to outline how deficits demanded by opposition, would be spent. I can remember a number of things done specifically for the working stiff. I remember a home reno grant, but i rekon you figure only the wealthy lives in homes. Ok then, show me where over, lets say 60% of the spending did not help "those most affected".

Regarding the manifesto, i wouldnt put much stock in it, or who supports it. I do get tired of the talk of "we need to get away from an oil based economy and diverify". I fail to see how oil, making up what, 15% of our gdp makes us an oil based economy. But for the typical left wing voter i guess that is enough. I mean, really, manufacturing is 35% of gdp, should not the left target that for making our economy less balanced. But lets speculate and say oil is wiped from the Canadian economy. Yeah, all hugs and kisses and we can finally see what happens. But cant we see right now? How many provincial economies are oil based? One, two or three? I wouldnt call Sask oil based but no doubt the left will so we include it. So there is a number if economies in Canada that can, right now, be viewed with oil removed and their economies can be diversified. How is Ontario doing anyway? Well it is a manufacturing based economy and very, very heavily tilted that way. So by ndp logic, they should some how add oil to their economy as they have all their eggs in one basket with manufacturing only. Funny how the ndp rhetoric makes no sense whether manifesto or not. They will talk of how well economies would be balanced without oil but wont speak of those failing economies already living the ndp dream of no oil.

Did you read my long winded post at all? No. I clearly stated that i gave credit for Harpers budgets to the opposition and went so far as going to a federal election when he got tired of trying to appease their crap - but that is what happens as a minority government. Ok, one more time THE OPPOSITION WAS ALWAYS DEMANDING MORE DEFICIT SPENDING You have, in every way show that you favor a Harper gov in your thought and writing but put out opinions completely against your own beliefs. How do you explain yourself.

Guess what cybercoma, it did force an election. Lets recap history The Conservatives lay out a budget to move get to its goal of no more deficit spending (which as a voter you are clearly demanding), the opposition parties have all the time been demanding more deficit spending and the harper gov has submitted to a degree in the past. The new budget is outlined and the opposition parties are asked if they will vote in favor of it tomorrow and they say no. Again you must hate the position of the opposition on this matter. Ok, so here is where it gets interesting because a few posts earlier you wrote "keep painting that picture of Harper as being so weak and pathetic that he doesn't know what's going on or the opposition parties "bullied" him". You sure wish Harper would take a stand a drive the opposition to more fiscal responsibility correct? So Harper takesba calculated gamble regarding what the Canadian voter wants from its federal gov (ie fiscal responsibility) and does not release spending estimates on a jet program and crime bills knowing very well what will happen. Yup, Contempt of Parliament is enacted and an federal election called and Harper gov gets a majority gov. So through all this you become a hugely pro Harper defender because A) the Harper gov fought tooth and nail against the opposition to get to balanced budgets Harper gov had the balls the size of watermelons (which you clearly demand) to take their position to the Canadian voter - and win. Yet through all this and the Harper gov doing everything you demand of a federal party i sense that you prefer the opposition who had shown to do nothing that you desire regarding the topic of fiscal responsibility. How do you explain yourself.

Ok topaz, in your world of personal finance, if you do not wish to run a deficit personal budget and wish to start saving money, what are your choices? Lets see, you will clearly choose not to reduce your spending. Will you get a new job, maybe one with no secure future so you cannot budget at all Will you downsize, sell assets maybe Hope someone gives you a windfall So you laid out your household budget, you have been racking up the credit card the last few years because you took a pay cut, havent saved any money, but things are looking better for you this year. And so you look at your "entertainment" budget and find out you underspent by $870. Your solution is to spend it on house improvements, because a surplus is a waste and it needs to be put into something, anything. Here is what i do, i say "good for me" it is a few less bucks i have to scrape up elsewhere and one more step to getting to saving money. And i have my spouse also demanding i start saving money which i can now satisfy. Why am i an idiot for this, why is the Harper gov an idiot for this?

So lets be clear cybercoma, you are saying in a very long winded reply the " ndp and liberals did not vote against harper balanced budgets at any time". Give a simple answer, yes they voted against or no this never happened

If you understand the deficit spending so much better than an informed "non-anti harper" voter then read in depth the thread "one of the reasons i wont be voting Harper - economic record" it got very quite there once a bunch of truths were laid out to the lefties. The deficits are addressed there but i am sure you can find away to explain that the ndp and libs NEVER voted against the balanced budgets tabled by Harper thus triggering the 2011 election. The left hates to admit they demanded the deficits to be run. But they LOVE to bring it up now. Read more and learn more before posting things like this.

Evening star, read the link at it is a valid point that a hole is made when a candidate steps down. My opinion is that i would expect someone who lived many years in the real world to represent me in gov. So i frankly would not want a 21 y/o as my mp. That would, by nature, rule out the idea of youthful or not thought out opinions posted in social media. For example, if my mp is 40 y/o and posts are found from 5 years ago that demonstrate a immature nature then i think he should be held accountable as it demonstrates who is representing me and may be best if a new candidate is put in place. If the mp is 21 y/o maybe it is not acceptable to shrug your shoulders a 'take what you get' in said member either, even if posts were 5 years earlier.

Found this link regarding rise of ISIS from Al Queda in the Syrian conflict which follows what Huxley is saying. http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9319293/syrian-refugees-civil-war I dont know much about this matter other than it is a mess and it goes back way beyond the Harper government and likely the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Europe drawing the boundaries. So we have dictators that are necessary to maintain order but that type of order requires methods seen as barbaric by the left and that is not tolerable. So liberals cant have dictators ruling with an iron fist so give them democracy at the point of a gun. Yeah, best is to stay out completely and let the death toll be what it will be but sometimes you have to do what you think is right to keep the death toll down - and so the Harper gov commits on this idea. It would not be humane of Canada to turns it back on the known slaughter would it. Yes, it would be nice if we were not in this position but it did not start with the Harper government either.

What the poll likely suggests is how tiresome the Canadian voter is of the left wing mainsream media trying to control the election outcome. The story of the Kurdi family truely driving home the extent to which the media will sink. http://canadafreepress.com/article/75028 In the link will see the interview with the aunt that is dated many days before the media ran with the final straw of the Kurdi father saying "i do not know why the Canadian government rejected my application". Well, his sister clearly states days before that no application was made. She also says there was no intention of the family to come to Canada and in fact Kurdis main concern was how to get the money for his dental bill. However, in spite of a live interview that says otherwise and circulated widely enough that a simple farmer on the prairies had seen, the media ran with the story of the disgraceful Harper gov. I would say the poll accurately describes voter setiment. It is a sad situation with the refugee crisis but for the media to out right lie, omit the truth and create false storylines is the bigger issue as it polarizes Canadians and creates resentment towards any discussion on the topic being used by the media to further its goals.

Spanky, i would say there is a limit to what should be considered. Personally, i would think anything a year earlier is relevant, four years earlier i would likely take a pass on. The Liberals do feel differently however. The guy peeing in a cup is just stupid, but i dont know the time line on that, but maybe that should not have a timeline? But then if peeing in a cup is timeless then shooting your mouth off like a low life dirt bag should be timeless too? In the defence of the Conservatives, how do you screen for a guy peeing in a cup? In regards to people who spout off as they have on social media that is easier to find, does it make a difference? I agree that we all have done stupid things and each individual voter will judge those actions in their own way. My only concern is the left biased media coverage where a Liberal is found to be worthy if stepping down, a NDP not and neither gets coverage in mainstream media for the voter to judge, but the Conservatives get two days of national media. Why not let the voter judge and not the media?

Well, a Liberal candidate in Alberta stepped down two weeks ago for similar - offensive social media posts four years ago. Of more interest is Tom Mulcair denying any knowledge of the Swampy discussion when media had it in play for two days already. The old "how could he not know and have the balls to outright lie about it" theme. I think the issue is how well candidates are screened. The Liberals took theirs seriously, the Conservatives are taken seriously, and the NDP? Uh, meh. Or your "wow".

More people working is always a good a good thing. Cutting businesses off at the knees with high corporate taxes would go against this. Funny how the media was all over the Harper gov for low corporate taxes over the years but then Trudeau and Mulcair say point blank there will be no significant change to CIT if they are in power. Looks like a gold star for the Harper gov being handed out by the lefties. Boy, that must be a hard pill to swallow for the left, i guess that would need a big distraction, hey a dead boy that we can blame (falsely) Canadas government on. Hey, look, squirrel. Not any counterpoints coming in this thread, looks like there are a few more informed voters now.

Yes cybercoma, i forgot about NDP candidate that Mulcair denied knowing anything about, did not make mainstream media, and is still candidate. Name is Swampy, but since it did not make mainstream (left wing) media i guess most know nothing. Regarding the tfsa, this article from the financial post should be considered unbiased. If so 10.7 million Canadians holding tfsas shows definitely that it is not just "for the wealthy", and even gives the stat showing that there is pretty even split across all income ranges as to who maxes out their limits. That definitely answers your query. http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/tfsa/exclusive-canadians-maxing-out-their-tfsas-from-all-walks-of-life?__lsa=24c9-f06d I guess i come across as an asss in all of this because i run into alot of people who deny there is a left wing bias in the media. Maybe you are not aware of it yet. Review the financial post article, talk with average joe worker, look for yourself as to who has a tfsa and the question over and over why the libs and ndp say it is only "for the wealthy" and why the media promotes that view. As you become more informed, do you not question why you need to go to the internet to find an opposing viewpoint to what the media shows, and learn that viewpoint supported by the Conservatives is supported by unbiased sources, and people in your own life. If you cant trust info you gather talking to real people how do you blindly trust what the media is peddling this week.