tml12

They may have only 7 to 8 weeks to roll out the new law if the budget is voted down. Liberals=bankrupt with brand new leader... I do not see a spring election...fall 2007 at the earliest.

Who is to say if the bill will even be ready before the election if it is called in 7 weeks. The Liberals do not want an election in 7 weeks...they are strapped for cash and it is too early after Dion's election.

I'm going to guess at what you were trying to say. You feel the CPC is running contrast ads because they were weak on the environment last year? Hmmm, well no. They are running the contrast ads because they want to win a majority. Is one guaranteed? No. Is this a move in that direction? Yes. This combined with a Conservative environmental plan this year=good politics by Harper.

Good luck getting the environment bill passed. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/...ment-house.html Dion would not vote against an NDP-sponsored environmental bill unless he was crazy. Can you imagine Dion in the next election getting hammered on that?

Sending a copy of the final report to somebody is far different than giving them access to your full set of books. Something tells me the new contrast ads will bring the nightmare of Liberal corruption back to the forefront of everybody's mind... That was ALL I could think of when I heard Dion saying "We need to be back in power again." I had to watch old SNL videos on youtube after that because I was depressed at the thought of PM Dion and the Liberal machine returning to the purse strings.

Catchme, Your posts get more delusional as the days go on. We've got academics and military people all giving you straight facts. How much of Canada would you let Denmark borrow on "long term lease" if you were PM?

I agree, "NDP Defense Critic" Be careful over there and know that you and all the soldiers are in my thoughts and prayers.

I'll give you that...

In the "Not a leader" ad, it's Dion's tone of voice when saying "This is not fair!" and "You don't know what you speak about."He sounds whiny. He does not look prime ministerial in those commercials...it really does not look good when the audience laughs at his comments. Ignatieff looked the best of all...Dion did not at all look comfortable.

Quoting out of context is a favourite form of negative advertising. Actually, those quotes I think were quite fair. And you know what, Iggy was right...the Liberals didn't get it done. Actually, I do not think it was too hard for the CPC crew to find those quotes.

Sort of what the Tory campaign is like now? Those ads (I just watched them) do not even compare to scary. In fact, they are telling. I hope Canadians get the message. "Do you know how hard it is to set priorities?" What a ridiculous comment to make. I can't believe this guy wants to be PM. And that one where he says "we need to be back in power." These guys are power-hungry crackpots. Unbelievable.

I know what the Liberal record on the environment was like. It was terrible. And part of the reason I know is because the media reported it. I see two things here: the first is the negative ads are being shown because the Liberals did it in the past, the second because the media won't tell the truth about Dion. Most people know the Liberals ran negative ads in the past and many didn't like it. Dion has not run negative ads so far. As far as this idea that the media doesn't tell the truth on Dion's environment record, I can look at any paper in the last weeks and find stories that criticize that record. Guaranteed the Liberals run on "Harper majority *scary* *scary* *scary*" in the next election.

The deficits were not solely as a result of healthcare costs. And national healthcare has been cited as a cost advantage by North American auto manufacturers operating in Canada because in the U.S., the cost of health benefits adds to the cost of making cars. What sort of private care do you want? The type that would raise the price of goods and services or the type that is raised by taxes? No I did not say the deficits were solely a result of healthcare costs but that was a huge part. I am not going to deny that national healthcare is a cost advantage but it has resulted in a system that is falling apart. More and more Canadians are opting for private care and many are beginning now to seriously question the system. Socialism is admirable...there is no doubt about it. But for it to survive, there needs to be a national consensus. In Sweden, no one doubts that they want to live in the ideal welfare state (Sweden's population is also very small). Here in Canada, many of us claim we want to live in some Swedish welfare state but the reality is different. My view is that: if you smoke three packs a day and get lung cancer or if you have sex with everything in site and get a venereal disease, or if you use drugs, etc. you should pay for your own healthcare. Personal responsibility is utterly deficient in the system. Furthermore, I don't think there is much of a difference between access to care in Canada and the U.S. While the Canada Health Act is supposed to guarantee this and that, it really does nothing. The rich in Canada and the U.S. pay for the best care they can get. The middle-class in Canada and the U.S. probably get equal care: many middle-class Americans that I know have health care through their employer and while it may not be the best care, they know they'll never have to worry about WHEN they'll get care because the U.S. does not have unbelievably long waiting lists. The poor in Canada may have health insurance but more often than not they'll just be neglected on a waiting list. The poor in the U.S. may not have health insurance but they may be eligible for Medicaid and they will be guaranteed emergency care (unlike the Liberal myth in Canada that the poor in the U.S. are denied treatment if they don't have health insurance...a little research proves otherwise). Ideally, I'd opt for a British two-tier system. I think Canada and the U.S. could both learn a lot from that system. As for the Canada Health Act and the current Medicare system, regardless of who wins the next election I'd give the status quo 20 years maximum. No way it lasts longer than that given current trends.

I haven't seen the Chretien Tory ad discussed here. I've only heard about the Liberal ads and the one mentioned most is the one that never made it to air. Commercial advertisers make no distinction when it comes to negative advertising. Most elections have some form of negative advertising. Harper said he was going to do things differently and when the Liberals got a new leader, many people were waiting to see who would be the first to go negative in election advertising or if both campaigns would refrain from it for as long as possible. In this case, it has been the Tories who have fired the first shot. When I said "discussed endlessly" I meant in academic circles, not necessarily here. It is not important what distinction commercial advertisers make. The reality is, it is the voters who are supposed to be swayed. I never heard Harper say he was never going to show "negative" advertising and, if you consider the ad negative, perhaps you should see for yourself what the Liberal record is on the environment. Here's a hint: it's pretty negative.

I seem to remember Tory advertising making fun of Chretien's paralysis. Look, I doubt very much the public is going to distinguish between good negative advertising and bad negative advertising. They know that if a company such as Pepsi does the taste test, it is negative advertising. It might rate a look from people, it might even change some brand loyalty but it also eventually gets old no matter how "friendly" it looks. jodobbin, that Tory ad from 1993 has been discussed endlessly. It was bad...REAL bad...and no one in their right mind is going to say otherwise. That being said, Argus is correct in saying that there is a difference between good and bad negative advertising. I'll put myself in an anti-Harper position for this example: If I saw Dion do another "soldiers in our streets" commercial, I'd just be disgusted knowing the Liberals were just desperate and making up things. BUT if I saw the Liberals doing a "Harper promised no more taxes and taxed income trusts" or something like that, I'd be like "hey, I'm a Conservative supporter but it really angered me that Harper did that." My point being: one disgusts me and the other reminds me that my party let me down on something I thought they wouldn't do. Same with the Liberals and the environment.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity. Bet that's the funniest thing you've heard in your life catchme...

Army Guy, You must forgive some posters on this board that refuse to accept the reality of the mission in Afghanistan. Know that there are many posters here who do recognize the complexities of the mission and support the troops with thoughts, prayers, and support. We are behind you 100%.

The Government has been involved in healthcare for a long time. The Canada Health Act was passed in 1984. Does it really make any sense to have National standards in an area of provincial responsibility? Your second question doesn't make any sense. Please clarify? The Liberal (balance the budget at all costs) government with Finance Minister Martin passes the CHST in 1995 and, in my opinion, all but destroyed health care in this country. So we can go back to deficits or we can have better healthcare...I don't see it any other way (I prefer balanced budgets and private care by the way).

Choice#2...if they take their share of the national debt.

You did not offend me. I was just trying to clarify the various positions of the Church on this issue. That being said, while I do not like the NDP I have not lashed out at the entire NDP (to my knowledge) but if I have I am sorry.

The issue is so complex that it's hard to really say, but my opinion would agree with you. That being said, I'll glady take any tax cut given. So will I!

It's not really about ignoring the sacrifices made by those who did peace keeping and perhaps it is not a 'Liberal myth" but it is a myth when people maintain that it is the bulk of Canada's military history, which to anyone who studies this country's history, it clearly is not. Unfortunately the role has largely become redundant, there is precious little peace to keep in the world today. Blame that on who you will but it is a fact. Yes, that's true. Perhaps it is not a "Liberal myth (I think it is) but call it what you want it's clearly accepted as true and it simply isn't.

I nearly fell off my chair...I am still wiping my eyes...

If Harper... or whoever comes next... attacks oil resources in Alberta for Quebec votes, which is very likely... we'll all be begging for Morton. He is currently a cabinet minister and no socon legislation has been tabled. Begging? I don't think so. Amend that, I know so. His strategy of mobilizing the Bible thumpers got Morton to the end game. A whole bunch of moderate Albertans recognized the end run and crushed him. Why? Because that kind of simplistic , Stone-age thinking has no place in a modern society. Add to that there is a very limited supply of hardcore Bible thumpers. He may be a Cabinet minister, but if he ever tries to flex any socon muscle- he'll be gone. Stelmach knows who voted for him, and who voted for Morton, and I very much doubt that he is in any way fearful of Morton or his crew of evolutionist Neanderthals. Stelmach beat him easily once, he'll do it easily again. It is Morton who is on probation, not Stelmach. You make Morton sound like a caveman. That's bullshit. Morton is a highly respected academic whose work on judicial supremacy is used in political science and judicial studies research throughout Canada. Morton might be a social conservative but there is a base for that. I think Albertans chose Stelmach as a "dark horse" candidate between Liberal lite Dinning and solid right-wing Morton.

It is unbelievable to find yet another attack on Roman Catholicism out there. I do not think the Pope has said anything vulgar or distasteful toward homosexuals, certainly nothing in the vein of what radical evangelicals have said. The Pope is merely stating the facts: that, according to our Roman Catholic beliefs, marriage is a sacrament that represents the union between a man and a woman in order to procreate and spread new life on earth. In terms of homosexuality and what to do with homosexuals, many of us are divided. Moderate Catholics, like myself, support civil unions but do not support changing the definition of marriage. Liberal Catholics would change the definition of marriage, whereas conservative Catholics (whom I will admit more or less represent the establishment) approve of neither of those options. That being said, to lash out at Catholicism as being "exclusive" and supporters of "moral relativism" is crazy. Most Catholics I know are modern, secular in their public life (including myself), and very open to dialogue and discussion on world affairs. Few of us today would support closed-minded exclusiveness and morals by definition are not and cannot be relative. I am a male in my 20s and few individuals that I deal with every day, save for my close family and friends, know what my religious faith is. I surround myself with people of various faiths in order to try and better appreciate my own faith. Faith and spirituality are so important...to typecast religion as being outdated and fearing modernism is unfathomable. In terms of homosexuals, though, if the Church supported same-sex marriage it would be unprecedented. It would be a direct challenge to the nuclear family and undermine a practice that was defined in the Old Testament by the Jews of Ancient Israel. It is not just Catholics who are against same sex marriage, but also Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and other religious faiths have issues with this. The Church welcomes homosexuals into the faith, but cannot accept marrying them at this time. Opening up a dialogue and preaching peace has been a goal for the Church in recent years. Hopefully, both conservatives and liberals of all faiths will take Catholics up on this offer. We are often better than the ridiculous debates that we get ourselves into.