Vendetta

So I'm guessing you must be VERY angry with Harper for saying such terrible things about Good Nigel then huh?

If alcohol is not dangerous enough that it must be illegal to possess or manufacture, then it is completely assinine to proibit cannabis. In every imagineable way, cannabis is safer

Results of the Fed shuffle? NOw Jason Kenney, the guy behind the scheme to let employers import cheap temporary foriegn labour at a 15% discount to what they would pay Canadian workers, is going to be in charge of employment. Watch for the Conservatives to continue the attack on the working class. The writing is on the wall. Ready to have your wages driven down, Canada? Remember to thank Harper.

Seems to me that Mulcair handled himself well and is quite right to point out that cuts to safety regulations and corporate self regulation need to be investigated. Too funny you jokers feighning outrage at Tom's comments when you were all fine with Harper's cheap politicking and taking cheap shots at Trudeau during foreign press conferences. pathetic

Sona might not talk for fear of losing his senate appointment, like other Conservative election fraudsters received from Harper. He wants a seat in the senate next to the in and out schemers. Canada has no duly elected government we are occupied by a criminal organization.

The NDP dumped her as they should have. Her comments seem to be more in line with cpc thinking. Dumping a candidate for expressing views contrary to party policy is much different than accepting them as a candidate hoping to capitalize on those views with a seat in parliament and then later forbidding them to express the views they had during an election is a totally different story. If Harper truly wanted to not reopen the abortion debate as he says he doesn't he would have denied the nutbars from running as cpc in the first place.

The attack ads are pathetic, just like the CPC. I look forward to a new government be it a Mulcair, or a Trudeau one. I will be happy to have taxpayers money spent wisely on things that benefit Canadians rather than on gazebos, fake lakes, and the millions spent on "action plan" propaganda. When all the info on the CPC involvement in election day robofraud comes out it should put the final hole in the sinking CPC ship. Oh wait I almost forgot, they apprehended pierre poutine, the scapegoat Sona who masterminded the whole thing and had access to all the info in the Conjob database, I'm sure Canadians will be stupid enough to believe that line of BS. NOT.

Somebody should report them to the "office of religious freedom" pfffftt! Harpercrites!

I'd be fine with paying for your vasectomy, wish I could have paid for your fathers, lol j/k couldn't resist

Of course they were. Go back and watch the election debate from that year. Layton totally called Harper out on it and Harper denied that Canada would be affected by any economic downturn. They presented a budget that did not address the recession at all and were forced to come back with a better budget or lose the confidence of the house. Stop trying to rewrite history. Harper is no economic whiz.

Methinks this may have something to do with the change in attitude. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/23/social-media-government-monitoring.html money can be a powerful motivator. I have noticed a real difference in the poster's critical thinking as well. Used to be one of the Conservative posters whose opinion I actually respected, but not lately.

Sure build them a bar that they can get drunk at before going out to persecute cannabis users, who BTW are a lot less violent and dangerous than drunks.

So the Harper's head deflector on the huge Conservative election fraud/robocall scandal is under investigation now for elections financing violations. There is a smoking gun in the form of a 21,000 dollar cheque written from Dean DelMastro's personal account. So Deano, is this just another ubsubstantiated smear campaign? Did your buddies at Hollingshead research enjoy the 125,000 dollars of our tax money? I always said the "action plan" was just a "steal taxpayers money and give it to Conservative buddies plan", but did you guys need to be so obvious about it? I can't believe there isn't already a thread about this, but with so many Conservative violations of the elections act I guess its getting hard to keep up. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/08/pol-questions-for-dean-del-mastro.html

I know Conservatives would love to change the subject but this thread is dedicated to the discussion of the massive Conservative election fraud, and the resulting illegitimate "majority" government illegally forced on Canadians. This attack on our democracy makes me ill.

Too funny! thanks for the laugh!

So obviously you are not really an NDP supporter. Is Harper paying people to pose as socialists now to try and scare people away from a balanced sensible leader like Tom Mulcair?

90,000 for a household is not rich. If 2 people bring in that much thats 180,000. That is pretty well off for an average family of four. I'd say start the higher tax rates at around 250,000 per household, progressively increasing for each half million over that. Randomly pulled those numbers from the sky but sounds like a reasonable place to start. First we need a new election because it gets more and more obvious everyday that the election fraud robocalls were engineered by the Harper Conservatives.

90k is not nearly rich. People in that tax bracket already get hit the hardest. Not everyone should live "equally". That does not motivate anyone to strive to improve their lot in life. Hard work should be rewarded with a higher standard of living. The scales at this time are tipped heavily in favour of the very wealthy. Pivate corporate interests are able to interfere with the democratic process and have too much influence over our government. The rich should definitely be giving more back to the society that they benefit the most from, but 90k is not even close to rich.

I hope all the unions will band together with the rest of the workers for a full out general strike. Bring Harperland crashing down.

Remember when the Cons were doing their own "investigation"? A while back they said they were going through their call logs looking for irregularites. I said it then and it seems I was right, they were looking for evidence to delete.

We could probably start a thread called "keeping junk from junkies and charging the cost to us". The cost to keep drugs prohibited is in fact much higher than it would be to allow "junkies" to maintain their habit. The cost to keep prohibition going is huge and multi-faceted.

What an idiot, the party and grime minister, desperation.

I am pro-choice, and I support the NDP position. I just question whether both genders should have a choice to make. Right now one gender has the choice made for them, so I find that situation a little sexist and unfair.

I really don't care enough, and even if I did I would never take anything up with Harper. I can't stand the man, he makes my skin crawl. I just think that its interesting that nobody cares at all about the rights of men in this context. If the woman is the only one who gets to decide if a pregnancy results in a child then maybe she should also bear the financial weight of that choice. Does anyone really think that no woman ever gets pregnant on purpose to try and "keep" a man, or the financial support she expects him to provide?

One part of the discussion that never seems to happen, is why the man has no say at all over if he wants to be a father. It was mentioned that we can't have a man purposely using a leaky condom and then forcing the woman to have his baby, but what about if a woman sabotages birth control to get pregnant without the man's consent? He has no "choice" but to pay "child support" for the next 18-25 years of his life, that may or may not even be spent on the support of that child. Maybe his money goes to support the woman's drug habit, or to pay for her to entertain her new boyfriends. Maybe men ought to be able to "abort " their financial responsibilities to supporting a pregnancy that they did not want? Maybe that choice should be limited to the first trimester, can't have deadbeat dads wanting to abort their financial responsibilities to the children they decided to have. I know that is pretty controversial but why don't men get any say in whether they want to be a parent? You can say "well if they don't want to have a child, don't have sex", but wouldn't that apply equally to females? The man should not be able to decide what a woman does with her body, the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy should be the woman's alone, but maybe the man should also have a choice on whether or not to participate in raising the resulting child, since he has no choice in whether the pregnancy should be allowed to continue?