normanchateau

In that case, NATO beneficiary and Afghan President Hamid Karzai deserves the "Taliban Karzai" tag. See: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines Karzai might be willing to sell out the women of his country to buy a little security, but that doesn't mean we should. The government, Karzai included, sold out long ago. In case you hadn't noticed, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy where women are second class citizens. The Koran trumps the constitution in Karzai's Afghanistan. If you think that NATO will remain in Afghanistan long after Karzai and the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ask them to leave, you're dreaming.

Well, then I have to ask you, what should they be cutting, which programs go tomorrow? Your going to be very hard pressed to find a few billion to scrap. Anyways, you posted this article on January 13, 2007: In context, it seems like you were against these cuts, and the cuts to the child care program... I do recall posting that. I don't recall the context but it does support your point. Where would I cut? The following petition appears on the website of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It's probably not one you'd support. Correct me if I'm wrong. Stop Corporate Welfare To the Parliament of Canada: The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Canada states; THAT successive governments in Canada have squandered billions of taxpayer dollars in grants, loans, loan guarantees and equity investments to private businesses; THAT taxpayers of Canada object to their federal government’s costly and wasteful corporate welfare programs directed at business; THEREFORE, your petitioners respectfully request that Parliament immediately enact legislation which would prohibit financing of private business enterprise through grants, loans, loan guarantees or equity investments, or any other direct or indirect financing.

My point is that there's nothing wrong with changing one's mind. The problem with Chretien was not that he changed his mind, but rather that he broke his promises. -k So when Harper decided to tax the trusts, he changed his mind rather than broke his promise. Now I get it. It depends on what party you belong to.

No, I don't live in Vancouver and, if you're right, not everyone I know goes to Tims. I am going to rephrase that, every one of my coworkers and most of my friends in the city in which I live, goes to Tim Hortons. Now that I know that about Vancouver I'm going to have TH withdrawal when I go there. I hesitate to post this as it will reinforce Canadian Blue's accurate observation that this thread has degenerated. But I'll post it anyway. Good news Fortunata. There is a small mall at the corner of Dunbar and 18th Avenue in Vancouver. Until recently, the main occupant of the mall was a provincial government liquor store. As of a month ago, there is an additional occupant...Tim Hortons.

...and John Creten promised to get rid of the GST. Guess what? He lied. Your point being that it's OK for Harper to lie because Chretien did? Is changing positions the same as lying? Was fighting official bilingualism part of Harper's platform? Do you feel that voters who voted for Harper may have thought he was going to disband official bilingualism because he said the policy was a failure 5 years earlier? Was Paul Martin lying when he opposed gay marriage in 1997? Was he lying when he supported gay marriage in 2004? Was he lying either time? Is it a lie any time a politician changes his position? Or is does that depend on what the politician's political affiliation is? -k Your point being that Harper can lie or change his mind as frequently as he wants because Chretien and Martin did?

Left leaner? Because I point out that this Finance Minister has spent more in his first two budgets than any finance minister in the history of Canada? What if I said he had spent just the right amount. Would that make me a right leaner?

Actually, I don't. And that's why I'm not voting Conservative. Your having your cake and eatting it to by saying they spend too much and cut too much. I'm saying they need to cut more and spend less. I have a rational position, you, do not. Where is your evidence that I claim the Conservatives cut too much? I merely said that they spend too much. Why is that irrational?

Now that the Karzai government is escalating negotiations with the Taliban in light of the repeated US killing of Afghan civilians, Karzai will achieve what Jack Layton couldn't...bringing back the Canadian troops. "The deaths brought the total of civilian deaths to almost 100 in the past two weeks and followed President Hamid Karzai's declaration that his people "can no longer accept casualties the way they occur". Nato has announced that in future it will engage the Afghan government much more in planning military operations and keep it fully informed about developments. There is unease, however, among some Western commanders that information about previous offensives has been leaked to the Taliban from official Afghan sources. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's senate called on President Karzai's government to open direct talks with the Taliban in an effort to bring the bloodshed to an end. There have been unconfirmed claims that the reason the Afghan capital, Kabul, has not experienced a serious suicide bombing for several months is because of an unofficial agreement between the government and Gulbuddin Hikmatayar, one of the insurgent leaders. Many MPs are now demanding that similar pacts should be sought with the "local Taliban" in many areas." Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2527707.ece

When did we get so picky about negotiating with murderous, backwards scum? I mean, we are helping the Scumbags Formerly Known As The Northern Alliance, no? Yes, they're now part of the Karzai government which means they have Harper's stamp of approval.

...and John Creten promised to get rid of the GST. Guess what? He lied. Your point being that it's OK for Harper to lie because Chretien did?

I'll be voting for the candidate who stands the best chance of defeating the Conservative in my riding. As long as Harper remains leader of the party, no CPC candidate would ever get my vote.

What are you talking about? What's the hateocracy?

Isn't it ironic that your objectives are fiscal conservatism whereas the current Prime Minister has totally abandoned fiscal conservatism in the last two federal budgets? The only vestige of conservatism he retains is social conservatism.

The only irrational nonsense is your response. What other party has a leader who is a social conservative?

So Geoffrey you approve of the Conservatives spending more in 2006 and 2007 than the Liberals did in 2005? Unbelievable. And you approve of them raising personal income tax rates in 2006? Unbelievable. And you approve of Mr. Flaherty being the"biggest-spending finance minister in the history of Canada". Unbelievable. You claim I have whined "about all the cuts to programs". What cuts are those? I don't see the outrageous handouts that Flaherty made to Quebec at the expense of British Columbia in the last budget as a program cut. It's a redistribution of funds designed to get the Quebec vote. No wonder Quebecers got a tax cut as a result. Unbelievable.

Do explain. It seems to me you are making the case for jdobbin as a troll and nothing else. What part of "compels you to respond obsessively" don't you understand? Hmmm. Still no response. It seems that jdobbin is particularly effective in eliciting this obsessive compulsion.

There are some similarities but they're not all the same. For example, only one party has a leader who happens to be a social conservative. Yet most Canadians I suspect are not social conservatives which is why it's inconceivable that the Conservatives under Harper will ever receive a majority unless they can fool more people than they have so far.

If you are giong to quibble let's get some facts straight. Bert Brown was elected before Harper became PM. So no consultation by the PM on that one at all. Stan Waters was the first elected Senator in Canadian history and that was in the lifetime of most of the posters here. The method in which Stan Waters and Bert Brown were selected was the same. Perhaps I should simply change my wording: Harper heeded the previous consultation of Albertans when putting forward a name to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate. Still doesn't change the fact that Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. And if the Harper's going to pick someone who wasn't elected, he may as well go full-sleaze and pick his friend and former campaign manager and make him a cabinet minister from Quebec as he did with Fortier.

Interesting how when the business community complained about losing this tax deduction on interest on foreign investments, Flaherty reversed himself. But when economists and ordinary low and middle income people complained last year about their personal income tax rate being increased by Flaherty effective July 1, 2006, he ignored them. Not only did he ignore them but he REDUCED their basic annual personal deduction. I suppose that if you're in a high enough income special interest group, Flaherty listens. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, when they reviewed the Flaherty budget a month ago, were generally critical of the big spending but did note the following: "A new tax measure in the 2007 Budget will also result in Ottawa collecting more revenues from businesses. Closing an interest deductibility loophole will, according to budget estimates, result in $40-million more flowing to government coffers. Yet a finance official claims this amount is just “the tip of the iceberg.” Private-sector forecasts say the tax measure is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year." Thanks do Flahery's flipflop, that loophole has been brought back this week. So what else does the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have to say about Flaherty? "The Finance Minister dismisses any criticism that he has become a big spender even when his two-year binge will total $24.4-billion. As National Post columnist Andrew Coyne calculates, Mr. Flaherty is now “the biggest-spending finance minister in the history of Canada.” It’s a sad achievement but well-earned since Canada’s New Government is now 14% bigger after two Flaherty budgets." Source: http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2530 For Stephen Harper to have approved such a budget suggests that he's no longer a fiscal conservative nor even competent. Why do the Conservatives have a leader who is a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative? No wonder they will never have a majority government.

I googled hateocracy and the term came up 17 times though no definitions were ever provided. How do you define it? If democracy is defined as government by the people, theocracy is defined as government ruled by religious authority, and plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy, what is hateocracy...government by those who hate? What government are you referring to? The Conservatives? "We are the hateocracy." What are you talking about? Why are you babbling nonsense? Please explain.

I don't remember any specific amount....but yes, he did give some funding. What Canadian Prime Minister increased it by more than 12.8 billion? That increase is over 5 years and is "catch-up" money for a lot of neglect. It's pretty easy to increase something when you've starved it for funds for 10 years. "During the last year of Liberal government rule, the Department of National Defence (DND) spent $14.7-billion in the 2005 fiscal year. The amount represented 8.4 per cent of Ottawa’s total program spending. In fact, the military share of overall program spending actually dropped from 8.4 per cent to 8.0 per cent last year (under the Conservatives) because non-defence spending increased at a faster rate." Source: Canadian Taxpayers Federation http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2547

Do explain. It seems to me you are making the case for jdobbin as a troll and nothing else. What part of "compels you to respond obsessively" don't you understand?

If it compels you to respond obsessively it can't possibly be useless.

No. I'm referring to the Liberal Party of Canada. If it's the same old shady tactics, it must be the Conservatives. Surely you are aware of the $300,000 bribe accepted by the former Conservative PM who helped create the new team: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/24/...ey-lawsuit.html

Where's Ricki when we need him? Someone to monopolize this thread with their unrequited love for Harper before makeup is what's needed as an antidote...though Bluth sure is remarkably reminiscent both in substance and style.