normanchateau

So if someone doesn't share your opinion on an issue, that is evidence of a "narrow little mind." If you don't see the flaw in that logic, there is no point in any further discussion and I will no longer respond to your posts.

It depends. If they asked us to invade Iraq for no good reason other than they were invading Iraq, our response should be to decline. If they asked us to help fight Germany because Germany was invading neighbouring countries and was threatening the UK, we should help. In other words, we should have a foreign policy made in Canada, not the UK or US.

I think you assume that only members of the GLBT community actually care about Harper's attitudes towards them. I'm not a member of that community but I certainly share their revulsion of Harper. It's understandable given that he not only tried to deny them marriage rights but he also tried to deny them the right to be included in hate crimes legislation despite the fact that there is gay bashing and discrimination against them. What if 99% of Canadians were white and only 1% belonged to another race. What if that 1% will never vote for Harper. Should we deny the 1% marriage rights and exclude race from hate crimes legislation? Sounds like an absurd question but substitute sexual orientation for race. Whether you like it or not, Harper did vote against allowing lesbians to marry and he did vote against including them in hate crimes legislation. And his position has not changed. The rights of this community he discriminates against are protected because the NDP, BQ and Liberals voted differently than Harper.

In the paragraph above, change the word Afghanistan to Iraq, and change the word Soviets to Saddam, and you have the current quagmire in Iraq. Even many Republicans who were gung-ho Iraq invasion supporters such as Richard Perle now acknowledge this. Given the mistakes the Americans made by invading Vietnam and Iraq, does Canada really need to repeat them in Afghanistan?

Huh? Makes sense to me.

Our responses crossed so I'll post mine again. Fear of lawsuits? How far along the process did a company need to be to be grandfathered? Doesn't grandfathering create an uneven playing field? There are a lot of reasons 'other than incompetence'. I don't know about the first two but I suppose I could buy the uneven playing field explanation (which I think is consistent with Figleaf's hypothesis about those contemplating conversion). But don't you think that if they had considered the grandfather clause notion then ruled it out, they'd have at least told us so in order to prevent themselves from looking incompetent? I know if I were springing a dramatic change like this and it required a broken promise, I'd want to cover all my bases including explaining why I ruled out the grandfather clause option. You're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because you support their party but don't forget most Canadians don't.

Excellent points. Regarding tax leakage, most advisors are now telling investors to crysalize their capital losses on the collapsed trusts -- ensuring that the government now loses not just the capital gains on the trusts themselves, but on whatever other capital gains the investors set the losses off against. The bare facts are that not only did the government's lie completely 4uck over investors, it screwed itself too. The sheer incompetence of this move, let alone the dishonesty, should have people ready to turf the tories at their first opportunity. Other than incompetence, can you think of any reason why they wouldn't have put in a grandfather clause to avoid the whole fiasco while preventing income trust proliferation? The grandfather clause would have prevented any future conversions of corporations to income trusts which was Harper's stated rationale for the tax.

I disagree that Rae is the best choice for the Liberals. If I were a Conservative, I'd be hoping for a Rae victory. His NDP days will be exploited by the Conservatives in the same way that Harper's Reform/Alliance/National Citizens Coaltion background was exploited by the Liberals. Dion will be a far more difficult target for the Conservatives.

How naive! The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests and will not come to our assistance if it is not in their best interests. The US stood by while Germany invaded Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and other countries. The US stood by while Germany bombed Great Britain and Churchill begged Roosevelt to step in and assist. The US stood by when Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, and Stalin asked Roosevelt for help. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the US declared war on Japan but still did not declare war on Germany. But Germany then declared war on the US to honour their treaty with Japan. That's when the US finally sent their military into Europe. The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests, not because we sacrificed Canadians in Afghanistan.

I haven't seen the Friday figures but at the end of the day Thursday, $36 billion was lost. This was because the government was worried about losing $500 million in tax revenues from the income trusts. Another way of putting it, the Harper government was willing to allow income trust investors to lose, on average , $72 for each tax dollar the government gains in return. If we simply take the $36 billion loss figure and work out the capital gains that would have been due, the Harper government is out, theoreticaly, $8 billion in tax. Suppose by the time the dust settles, the government is out only $1 billion in potential taxes on capital gains. That's still losing twice as much as they're gaining by taxing the trusts. If the Harper government is worried about future conversions of corporations to trusts, why not have a grandfather clause so that only future conversions are affected? Had this happened, all current trusts would have maintained their value. And Harper would not be accused of breaking an election promise.

The only reason we need hate crimes legislation is because our weak kneed judiciary don't treat violence against anyone with the seriousness it requires. Why does a violent act against a gay person require more attention under the law than a violent act against one who is straight? You are raising a different but very important issue, namely, why do we need hate crimes legislation. Had Harper said he opposed hate crimes legislation per se, I would have no problem with that position. But in fact he said he favoured hate crimes legislation for race, ethnicity and religion but not for sexual orientation.

The homophobe issue might be dead in the minds of Conservatives but not all Canadians are Conservatives and many still remember that Harper voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation. Harper's vehement opposition to including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation is even less defensible than his opposition to ssm. Harper has not changed his position on either gay bashing hate crimes or same-sex marriage. Sorry that you view stating this as "old and sad" but that's what happens when your party leader is a homophobic so-con and the other party leaders are not. The Conservatives do have more seats than any other party in BC but they lost at least three seats to the Liberals in the January, 2006 election and Chuck Cadman's seat went to the NDP.

He was involved in the merger but I think you're stretching it to say he brought it about. Key backroom players in merging the two parties were Brian Mulroney, Belinda Stronach and of course, the backstabbing MacKay.

On the one hand it's hard to believe that voters are so gullible that they'll vote for a party because of a name change. On the other hand, it has happened elsewhere. Here in British Columbia the Social Credit Party was so discredited that the only way they could survive was to change their name. Now they're called the BC Liberals.

Yes, you are correct. Oops. Thank you.

Yes, Harper has proven what he can do which is why, no matter who leads the Liberals, Harper won't win a majority. He'll either lose or win another minority at which point even Cons will begin looking for a new leader. And I predict that the next leader won't be a social conservative. Not all Canadians have forgotten that Harper and the other former Reform/Alliance members of the current Conservative party voted against including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. To me, excluding gay bashing from hate crimes legislation is even more homophobic than voting against same-sex marriage. If the Cons are smart, their next leader will be a fiscal conservative, not a homophobic, social conservative. They might even increase their number of seats in Quebec and BC if they do so.

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing. Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't. But you are forgetting (conveniently) that polls have shown that the Afghan's want the Soldiers there. The same polls also show that they would vote Karzai in again with a majority. Are you uneducated about the situation or are you hoping that Canada loses? These are questions that you might want to ask yourself. I don't hope Canada loses. I hope Canada withdraws.

Let's be clear on one thing. On July 1st, 2006 the tax rate went from 16% to 15.5%. The Liberals had *proposed* cutting it to 15% on July 1st. But they didn't win so it was just a proposal. Liberal propaganda that Harper *raised* taxes is flatly incorrect. Misleading drivel! The lowest personal tax rate was 15% in ALL of 2005 and the first six months of 2006. It went to 15.5% in July, 2006. The 15% proposed rate was already in effect when the Conservatives stupidly raised it to 15.5%. How absurd to raise the only income tax rate which most affects the poor and least affects the rich.

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right. Funny that the vast majority of the Afghan's themselves disgaree with you. Evidence?

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing. Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't.

It eventually didn't wash. That was my point.

It'll wash as well as Mulroney's introduction of the GST. He assumed business would suck it up because it came from the Conservatives. Same thing when Mulroney modified capital losses. This was not well-received by investors. It used to be that we could deduct capital losses from earned income. But Mulroney required that capital losses could only be taken against capital gains. Mulroney, and now Harper, paradoxically show a pattern of antagonizing business.

What would Mill say about alcohol which is more harmful to health than marijuana, and actually destroys brain cells? What would Mills say about cigarettes which actually damage the lungs? Would he also say that alcohol and cigarettes should be criminalized given that they are more harmful than marijuana? Why does Harper want teenagers possessing a few grams of marijuana to have a permanent criminal record? I suspect it's because he's a socon, not a liberal.

How is that a bad economic move? You can argue that it is bad politically or "unfair", but I fail to see the logic that this is a bad move by an economist. What is the economic impact of this move? So you think it's a good economic move that people give their hard-earned money to the government rather than spend it on goods and services?

There are 640,000 Afghan War Vets in the former Soviet Union. Here's what the Russia-based Afghan War Veterans Association thinks of Canada's chances of succeeding in Afghanistan: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727636/posts But then again, the Afghan rout of the Russians and killing of more than 15,000 Russians is consistent with the bloody slaughter of thousands of British soldiers by the Afghans in the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) and Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880). Stephen Harper and Ignatieff are both completely out to lunch if they think Canada can win the hearts and minds of Afghans by occupying their country and supporting the Karzai regime which is widely viewed as corrupt and controlled by warlords, mullahs, drug dealers and mujahadeen.