SunnyWays

That's become very clear with just about everything they said.....

Two completely different animals. With Harper, you knew what you were getting. Like him or hate him, he knew his files and for the most part, explained his positions well. Clearly, he was the leader and had the final say. As is so very evident with each passing day, with Trudeau - we don't know what we are getting - because the decision-making (such as it is) is being orchestrated by the back-room boys led by Gerald Butts - and communication is fractured. Just in the past couple of days,, Domenic LeBlanc said the assisted-suicide legislation would be a whipped vote - and gave reasons why. Now he's changed his tune and said he spoke prematurely. More incoherence.......

Just another example of this government not really knowing the consequences of its commitments: 1) 25,000 government sponsored refugees by Dec. 31 2015. 2) revenue-neutral on tax changes 3) all 94 recommendations of Truth & recon. being agreed to 4) modest deficits of $10 Billion 5) Death of the F35

Maybe I missed something....the Supreme Court found banning assisted suicide to be against the Charter and said "fix it". The Liberals want to whip a vote that in essence allows anyone sane of mind to end their life for just about any reason. Where does levels of depression in teenagers enter into things - how about foster children that are bounced around and sick of it. How about people with deformities or "managed" illnesses who are just tired of it all. Is it their Charter right to end their life? And should we allow them to? Surely a government - any government should draft some protective legislation first - and then perhaps whip a vote......but to leave it completely open to interpretation is irresponsible - and potentially criminal. There could be a good case for the government being sued by refusing to bring forth legislation as part of a "duty to protect".

And how exactly do you do that? Have you never compared the columnists at the Star, the Sun and the National Post - or likewise, the Editorial sections? Each can use the same "facts" and yet they often tell completely different stories.......and depending on your point of view, people swear that "their guy" has it right.

No - they wouldn't. Harper invited the provinces to go ahead and gobble up the two percent by raising their own Sales tax - and every province has had the opportunity to do just that for 10 years. The provinces need the money more than the Feds - especially for Healthcare - but even basket-case Ontario has declined to raise their Sales tax.

So......your perspective is a couple of billion extra is OK......and I'm OK with that too. The "cast in stone" promise was a "modest" deficit of no more than $10 billion. Would you like to go on record as to how many "extra" billions would give you cause for concern........and how many more billions might make you question the Liberals' fiscal stewardship? Always nice to see where people stand before the news comes out.

The whole thing is a very slippery slope.......the terms "journalist" and even broader "journalism" are pretty fluid with no mandatory credentials. Components include: Newspapers - reporting "the news" Editorialists - expressing the opinions of the Newspaper Affiliated Columnists - expressing THEIR opinions with tacit approval (but not necessarily agreement) of the Newspaper Television Stations - reporting the news TV political analysts and shows like Power Play and Power and Politics And more recently..... BLOG Commentators - often can be described as unaffiliated columnists Activist websites with "opinions" So there's a whole range of "news", opinions, and commentary. More so than "Freedom of the Press", do we really want to start putting limits on "Freedom of Opinion" - which is halfway to suppressing "Freedom of Thought"? Brings to mind the famous quote: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

You're right - what we know at the moment!.......and what we know is that $2 billion of the deficit will be a direct result of the promised "revenue neutral" tax changes. That's 40% of the amount that was originally planned for infrastructure - gone in a single "miscalculation".......and yet, it doesn't seem to matter. And none of that tax change goes to benefit low income people - those making under $40K. No - the government campaigned on the fact that the economy was going in the dumper - and oil had already taken a big hit. They knew - and they have not changed course....but no - they've doubled down. Any additional deficit will be due mostly to their spending - and Lord knows how much that budget will contain.

Perhaps you can answer a basic question.....when you look through a lot of this drug-peddling piffle, most, if not all of these clandestine activities take place in the 90's when Jean Chretien was PM. That said, Chretien was no more involved with your journalistic contortions that Harper was. So - what is your obsession with Harper - who wasn't Prime Minister until 2006?