The Honest Politician

I thought their plan was to involve all the provinces. How will they ensure anything? This is smoke and mirrors and very expensive ones. Province by province deals. So you think Alberta will listen when Ottawa orders and with Ottawa needing the approval of Ontario who will call the shots? After reading this posts I wonder why sometimes. The debate never becomes dialogue. Entrenched ideology. As for the private capitalist villains out there that want to put kids in harms way and cut safety corners for profits. I could say the same of lazy union government workers who don't care or like their jobs and wait for the next round of negotiations to extort the public for another raise. Both are ridiculous assertions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every company that is run for profit makes decisions based on that profit. Do you want your childs safety to be subject to profit driven decisions? Ah, although they are lazy they are still monitored and inspected and required to fill out accident reports. It would be impossible to monitor, inspect or require accident reports in the thousands of small private daycares that will spring up. It is far from a rediculous assertion.

What no defense for Harper's obviously flawed plans? Any ignorance of child rearing on my part, does not change the fact that the conservatives plans are seriously flawed. "Better stay away from this issue",Is that a warning or a threat? You internet bullies are really a joke. Once proven wrong the insults fly. By your logic people who don't smoke pot should have no say on legalization. By your logic people who don't own a gun should have no oppinion on the gun registry. By your logic people who aren't gay should not have any say on Same Sex Marriage. Nice Logic. Say hello to the right of free speech for me if you ever see it. Just because I don't have a child doesn't mean I can't spot flaws in a proposal. The fact of the matter is that under the Conservative plan there will be children who are put into substandard and even potentiallly hazardous daycare situations. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh give me a break, we have not had a national daycare program, but it seems that we have avoided "potentially hazardous daycare situations." What happens when the daycare workers strike, like they did in Quebec? Under the Liberal plan only 25% or less of the people would benefit from this black hole of money being wasted. I have noticed that you ignore my posts, because I make sense to most parents, and you can't refute my position. But nice try! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have we? Are there no children who are in substandard care? Where they are exposed to things no parent would wish for. By not creating more affordable spaces it will force people to find cheaper alternatives. Alternatives that it will be impossible for any Govt to maintain minimum standards. With no minimum standards there will be even more children who fall through the cracks, and are put into hazardous situations simply because the parents "trust" someone, and can afford no one else. I wasn't ignoring your posts, I was just letting you and eureka have at it. Do you have any idea what it takes to start a daycare? The cost of private daycare is the main reason there is not a huge demand. Not many people can afford it. There is demand for subsidised spaces. I don't see where you get the NO DEMAND from when it wouldn't be an issue if demand had been met. Who is telling you how to raise your kids? By making sure there is affordable daycare for everyone they are telling you how to raise your kids? That is as lame as the Liberals crying "hidden agenda". You don't want your kids in subsidised childcare keep them at home, or a relatives that is your choice. I agree if you want to do this you should get compensated. But giving everyone a handout and telling them to fend for themselves is just plain foolishness.

Goodale Looking for corruption everywhere is bound to turn up somethings that appear to be more than they really are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, you have no position on this one, RCMP are investigating CRIMINAL charges, they don't do that without some proof! Why is it only the Liberals being investigated? Reminds me of the ad, HAND in my pocket!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought they used the investigation to find facts which corroborate the accusation. Without the CARP exec. saying he got a phone call, and the similar "Buzz words" and "catch phases" used in the online post there really isn't anything. Unless informing someone that an announcement would be made is a crime. If it is then just by scheduling the news conference for the announcement could possibly be a crime if it was done before the market closed at 4:00. In his own words the Exec "assumed" what the call meant. Just because there is a criminal investigation that doesn't mean there will be any criminal charges. If there is something there, look for the investigation to be expanded.

What no defense for Harper's obviously flawed plans? Any ignorance of child rearing on my part, does not change the fact that the conservatives plans are seriously flawed. "Better stay away from this issue",Is that a warning or a threat? You internet bullies are really a joke. Once proven wrong the insults fly. By your logic people who don't smoke pot should have no say on legalization. By your logic people who don't own a gun should have no oppinion on the gun registry. By your logic people who aren't gay should not have any say on Same Sex Marriage. Nice Logic. Say hello to the right of free speech for me if you ever see it. Just because I don't have a child doesn't mean I can't spot flaws in a proposal. The fact of the matter is that under the Conservative plan there will be children who are put into substandard and even potentiallly hazardous daycare situations.

A bunch of people who's job it is to predict what an official will do based on economic and political indicators, actually predicted what an official would do based on the current economic and political indicators. They made a lot of money because they were right. There were also people who lost on that deal because the were wrong. Goodale Looking for corruption everywhere is bound to turn up somethings that appear to be more than they really are.

So for the price of daycare to go down there has to be more spaces created. Isn't that what the Liberals are proposing. Unless of course you meant private daycare spaces would be created. In that case I would have to wonder how the govt. will deal with the expense of monitoring all these private institutions to ensure child welfare. So, you can see that this proposal will, in the end, force some parents to stop working in order to provide their own daycare. It is a good thing they will have the $25 a week the conservatives want to give them. So you are telling me that Harper would rather see Govt. money handed out to a bunch of private business owners, who may possibly cut corners, at the risk of a childs safety, in the name of profits, instead of creating the daycare spaces within the subsidised, supervised system. Is he daft? This is here, so what's all the whining about "no choice" for daycare crap for then? Send your kid to a Monessori program. What is this? Again you mention the govt sinking funds into private childcare. If the Govt is going to be investing money or incentives into a program then it had better have some say as to how the program is run. But then it wouldn't be private would it? Does Harper plan to give the private childcare facilities money and then walk away? That sounds very foolish. Hahahahahahahaha What? I don't speak Harperese. Are you talking about his plan to make sure the childcare provided is of good value? Where are all the inspectors going to come from to ensure value? I hope you are paying for them. That won't cover costs for more than one basic sport, like Soccer or Basketball. Hockey is out of the question. Again it would appear that this is for people who can already afford to do things. Granted there will be a few families that fall into the area where the rebate is the difference between playing and not. But for the most part it will not help those who are already too poor to play. Since it is a tax rebate, where are the poor people supposed to come up with the registration and uniform fees in the first place? Plus there is proper footwear and any other equipment required. Transportation and other incidental costs that are added to the family budget. All this must be paid for, possibly months before filing for the rebate. Sorry, but it is just another policy that doesn't appear to help anyone who doesn't already have money.

Glad to see no one is going on a witch hunt for a reason to youth violence. Immigrants! They are the problem! It has nothing to do with the fact a 15yr old kid can make as much money selling crack, as an architect or engineer. It would be nice to blame it on the immigrants but I know too many white homegrown sociopaths to believe it is mainly their fault.

And how much is the now unsubsidized daycare going to cost them?The same amount that it would cost under the Liberal plan which would only provide enough spaces to meet a fraction of the need. In Quebec, only 50% of people who want subidized spaces are able to get them. The Liberal plan basically offers no cost day care to the priviledged few able to get the spaces and everyone else is SOL. The Tory plan gives less money per child but a least everyone benefits from the program. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So with greater demand put on the private sector, the price for daycare will be less than now? Doesn't that violate the Supply/Demand theory of economics. How is the price going to be the same with higher demand for the same number of spaces? We both know that increased demand and lower supply equals higher prices.

And how much is the now unsubsidized daycare going to cost them? That's odd. I kind of like it though. Is this for only kids under 6 like the daycare? You are assuming they can afford to spend. 2% of nothing is still nothing. 2% of $100 is only $2. How much will they have to spend to save enough make spaghetti and meatballs for dinner? 1 pack of Spaghetti: $0.99 1 pound of Regular Ground Beef: $1.69 2 cans regular spaghetti sauce: $1.98 Cost of basic Spaghetti dinner: $4.66 Money needed to spend to save enough to buy a basic spaghetti dinner: $233.00 I know people who barely have $233.00 of disposable income per month. I am sure they will be glad to know they can have more spaghetti dinners with the money they'll save. Please! I would love to see Harper try to defend his policies to Layton and Martin. He may be book smart but he can't think on his feet, and appears to need a script.

Monty: So even a family with $450,000 income per year is entitled to an extra $1200, for child care? What a crock. I am sorry I must have missed the day when the Liberals made it illegal to have a relative look after your kids. There has always been choices. A tax break for those who use extended family daycare is a much more realistic approach. And I do frequently check the Conservative site. Under Harper's plan poorer families may be forced to put their kids in unhealthy situations because they simply can't afford proper daycare. They will have no alternatives because there will be no Govt. spaces, or other affordable childcare. One big difference in your complete over exageration. People in Canada are not dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, for speaking up about Govt. shortcomings. If there is a problem within the public system, the minimum standards can be raised in one shot, where all daycares must comply. It will be next to impossible to ensure the health and safety of the children if they are placed into the private homes of friends or family. What I was inferring to I will now say very bluntly. If children are placed with friends and family instead of supervised daycare it is only a matter of time before a child is abused or killed. All you have to do is look at who the abuser is in the majority of cases, and that is a relative or friend of the family. Someone of trust and familiarity. By not creating more supervised daycare spaces we are encouraging the possibility of this occurring. They want to take the rights away, and that is why they want a "free vote". Not for one second do I believe they would even consider a vote if they didn't think there was enough rednecks/homophobes in the house to pass such an obvious infringement of rights. They want to use peoples personal views, on homosexuality to force the removal of a groups right to marry. Totally small minded. Democracy means majority rules and minorities have rights. To remove any of those rights underminds the entire democratic society. Are you suggesting the removal of a womans right to choose? I sure hope this isn't prevalent in the CPC. If it is, Canada should be made aware that the CPC wishes to reopen the abbortion debate. First, you are sounding more like a scared homophobe with every post. It is quite possible that two gay men or women could raise a child just as good or better than you or I even could. The preacher was preaching anti-gay marriage rhetoric. It obviously was viewed as unacceptable by some of those who heard it. They in turn brought it to the attention of the authories. With the hate crime laws that are in place, it is a fine line a person walks when they are presenting personal views about a minority or any "group". The Church is not forced to perform gay marriages, so what's the problem. What are the current divorce figures? I find it laughable to be defending something as an "INSTITUTION" or "BEDROCK" of society when such a large number of the people involved break their vows and get separated or divorced. Uh huh. And just how much is a poor person going to save? Since you like percentages, What percentage of low income family's income goes towards food and shelter? What percentage of a middle income family's income goes towards food and shelter? What percentage of a high income family's income goes towards food and shelter? Not only do the higher income brackets live in nicer houses and eat a better quality of food, they also have more money left over after paying bills. Answer me this, because not a single conservative can: If a family has no disposable income, how will a cut in the GST save them any money? I am talking about people who's family income is under $40,000. Let's say $10,000 is gobbled up in taxes. They spend $15,000 per year ($1250 per month)on shelter, and $8,000 per year($666.66 per month) on food. that would leave $7,000 of disposable income, for clothing, transportation and other expenses. If every dollar of that $7,000 was spent on items subject to the GST it would save the family an entire $140 with the full 2 cent reduction. It is less than $12 a month in savings. This is not the way to put money into the pockets of the less fortunate. Contrast that with the millionaire who spends $700,000 and saves enough to almost buy a small car. Who is really saving the money. Betsy: Damn right. His little half assed smirk, that he wore for part of the debate was arrogant and made him appear immature. I wanted to smack it off his face, and get him to show some class. He is a terrible figurehead for a political party. Harper is not smart enough to last in a real debate with Martin and Layton. Harper is so lucky the previous Liberal Govt. screwed up so bad, because that is the only issue he can actually stand behind and not be made to look like a fool.

From a strictly political standpoint, the Liberal message kicked ass. As far as a Christmas greeting the conservatives was by far the best. The NDP thing sucked.

What I've seen from Harper is a person who appears to have to force a simple smile. His T.V. interview in Atlantic Canada at the beginning of the campaign is a perfect example. Almost creepy. I was unimpressed with the debates. I thought everytime he left his script he fell on his face. What was with that smirk he had going on anyway? Made me want to smack him. The policies Harper has suggested simply don't make any sense. GST, Childcare, puttting the same Airborne division in two different Canadian Forces Bases. Once you do the math, you find that what has been suggested, won't do what the CPC claims it will do. This is a person who wants to limit the rights and freedoms of some, who just happen to have a different lifestyle than his own. So after banning GAY marriage, what group will be the next to have rights stripped away? Will he ban mentally ill people from reproducing? Will those who carry hereditary diseases be sterilized? You may think it is far fetched, but once the ball starts rolling, how do you stop it? After you take the rights from one group it only becomes progressively easier to remove more rights from more groups. GST - Do the math. Only people who have large amounts of disposable income, will save any real money. Remember; under the 1cent reduction, you have to spend Ten Thousand Dollars to save yourself a measly Hundred bucks. Under the full 2cent reduction you ONLY need to spend Five Thousand dollars to save that same One Hundred dollars. And this tax cut is designed t o help the poor? Makes no sense. Childcare - One thousand dollars a year to help raise a child. How many families will actually qualify for this? First off $25 won't pay for a day of daycare, let alone a full week. Second, with the horrors that in the news, do we really want people to be forced to place their children into unmonitored situations? It will be impossible to have a minimum standard of childcare if there are a million individuals who are suddenly looking after a couple of kids. How long will it be before some near hysterical mother is crying on T.V. saying " It was the only daycare I could afford." That's what it is about Harper for me. I guess I'm 30/70 as far why I don't like him. My views about him personally, are only reinforced by his policies. But mainly his policies are why I don't like him. Oh ya, that, and I think he's an idiot. As for the picture with his kids. It just looks like a couple of kids who don't really want to be there, and are maybe a bit mad that Daddy has to be away so much. Hell from what you can see they may even be smiling.

I do believe Martin said nobody who refuses to support the charter should be running for Prime Minister. SSM is only a right given under a part of the charter. With all the stupid crap these guys say on their own, there is no excuse for twisting their words. Be it Harper or Martin or Layton.

Going for the knees, for example, is legal in football. The refs are all over plays that are against the rules, from holding on up. So the only thing you can be referring to is the stuff that happens in a pile that no one can see. And frankly, I don't consider a little bit of sneaked-in cleat raking to be in the same league as the bench clearing brawls that happen in many hockey games, and the game-delaying shirt-pulling bullshit that happens in every game, because fans like you demand it and defend it. Again I'll say it: because of this crap, hockey is little better roller derby with sticks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please find and post FIVE bench clearing brawls in the last 5 NHL seasons. I doubt you will be able to find five instances where a single player came off the bench to fight let alone a whole team. There are way more bench clearing brawls in baseball. Obviously you have not heard of the hurry up faceoff rule. There is far less shirt-pulling now then there was 3 seasons ago.

This came up from Yaro earlier in the thread, and the reaosoning baffles me. The issue isn't whether or not Bertuzzi's attack was the worst in hockey history, or even whether or not its in the top 25 worst incidents. It doesn't matter where it ranks in the annals of hockey thuggery, but rather whether or not this act is, on its own, sufficient to justify prohibiting him from representing Canada. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gary Suter got to represent the USA after nearly decapitating Paul Kariya from behind, weeks before the tournament. A tournament Kariya missed. Clarke broke Kharlamov's ankle and was still allowed to compete in the same tournament. Why shouldn't Bertuzzi get to go a year and a half later. Nope. No way. Uh uh. Personally I would have left him of the team for other players. He has only begun playing any good for the last couple of weeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I saw footage of the cheer, as well as an interview with Nolan, and then one of the higher-ups for the team said it was unacceptable behaviour. The team doesn't deny it, so I don't see where you would get some conspiracy theory out of it.

That was truly a disgusting display of human ignorance. But at the same time, those fans use the exact same cheer whenever their own Native player does something of note. The tone of the cheer that was directed at Nolan was definately not one of support. Truly distasteful.

His actions where no more violent than has happened in the past. The end result was perhaps one of the lower points in NHL history. For the record Moore got greedy and tried to sue Bertuzzi in Colorado where injury awards are far larger than in Canada. The judge threw the case out and told him to file in Canada, where the injury occurred. He now has to pay the legal bills for everyone he accused, as is the State law. We could leave all the Quebeckers at home, and still win. The Quebec players know this. A Quebec Team would have to be very lucky to even make the medal round. A higher standard of living is explained by a lack of a national sports team. I'm sorry I just don't see the conection.

In another thread you mentioned your salary. I meant nothing by it. Even so you where offered much higher paying jobs and turned them down, for good reason, but it goes to show how the best are courted by the private sector. Now what percentage of the top half of your graduating class do you think would have made a similar choice? Not everyone will turn down a larger salary. It is not a total brain drain, it's just one side has alot more. Even if everything is perfect, and there is no brain drain from the public sector, once profit is being made it could be argued it is a NAFTA issue. If it is successfully argued that it does fall under NAFTA then govt. subsidies could be stopped. This could be a real sticking point if there are American facilities that can offer a service for less money, than it can be done in Canada. And they can show subsidies are preventing people from going to the states to recieve treatment. If there is no Govt. assistance for lower income citizens to also use the private system, we will be in a worse mess than we are now. If you look at the Alberta model, posted in another thread, all they basically did was increase the number of doctors and more than doubled surgeries per room, per day. That's just common sense. Of course, more doctors, and over twice the number of surgeries per day is going to decrease wait time. So why does that model have to be privatized? It should work as an entirely public system. The basic idea behind a central medicare system is that by taking a little from everybody, we, as a society, can make sure that the individual doesn't suffer, simply because they can't afford to pay for help. Can you imagine how many personal bankrupcies there would be in the next 25 years with our aging population, and a for profit healthcare system. People who worked their entire lives, have it all wiped out by having to pay to get healthy. Yes it's a sad picture, and it is towards the extreme, but it happens in for profit systems. Now what is being discussed for Canada is a two tier system, where if you can't be seen inside the public system within a certain time frame, or you just wish to pay for it yourself, you will be able to go a private, for profit clinic. It sounds good, but how good depends on the NAFTA issue. If it is successfully argued that private healthcare falls under NAFTA, it is the people who have been waiting in the public system that would lose their subsidy. Then we would have only solved 10% of the problem. Only those who could afford it would be accessing the faster service from the private healthcare. The middle and lower income families would still be stuck on waiting lists within the public saystem. In all reality the legal battle over the NAFTA issue would take years. Your a lawyer, you know, every trick in the book would be brought out from both sides. I think any Govt. who puts national two tier healthcare into being, will be long gone before the full effects of a two tier system are felt.

Let me stir the pot a bit... Please, no one take the following comments as a suggestion...but do we have the problems in government that we do because of a lack of a history of violence to our unscrupulous political leaders? I mean, would leaders be so quick to set up secret programs to divert public money for improper purposes if in the past the odd assassination (or even attempt) had occurred? Is it a function of what appears to be the "Canadian identity" that we are just too damn nice? Just putting a thought out there for the board to mull over. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess that is one way to look at The FLQ crisis.

The answer is no. Yes the doctor makes more money for him/her self, but the clinic which is a company itself makes no profit. Repairs come directly out of the same money that the doctor would be taking home. There is no cash reserve or corperate investment portfolio. But then there are always those who do way more than they should have too, and others who abuse the system. A per patient basis is really the fairest way. This is where people get worried about losing all the skilled doctors to the private clinics, and leaving the less wealthy with lower levels of care. Where you the head of your class? Where does the validictorian of your class work right now? Does he/she make more money than you? I am not trying to pry, but usually in the private sector the brightest young people are gobbled up quickly by the big and the rich. Given fat salaries, and golden oportunities. Now if a doctor is getting paid twice as much as another doctor, then the for profit clinic will have to charge twice as much for him do work on you, plus some profit for themselves. One of the first things the new clinics will fight is a set cost for services.

If Healthcare becomes a for profit enterprise it will be subject to NAFTA. What is happening with Canada post will happen to Healthcare.

9/11 elxplained everything I needed to know for invading Afganistan.

I've yet to see how criminals or a criminal organization could love the country they frauded. What the Liberals say and what they mean are two very different concepts in this regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "honest politician" is obviously an ideologue liberal that believes that raping the taxpayer is A-Ok; after all they're liberal.... But Stephen Harper is "scary" and "angry" and has a "hidden agenda". Canada's liberal MSM does not come out and say what this "hidden agenda" is, but they throw deep and dark hints that it is "American style"... The feckin' nerve of trying to pattern yourself after the the world's #1 economy, #1 culturally, and #1 militaryily. THAT AIN'T LIBERAL! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OOOOO More insults. You CPC supporters are whack! You can't debate. All you do is hurl personal insults at anybody who shows reasons for an opposing view. You are perfect examples of why the CPC has such trouble getting elected. You scream that the Liberals are "elitist" and yet it is you who are quick to label anyone who disagres with you a "liberal". Using the term as if it where a racial slur. Does it make you feel like a big man to insult people on the internet? You have all disgusted me. The lack of intelligence that has been displayed appears to run right up to the leadership of the party. Yes, Mr. Hopeless is an idiot! There is a thread asking how many people are affiliated with the liberals, but not one for the conservatives. From what I have seen here there is far more reason to believe that it is the CPC who are filling forums with junior party members than there is to support the young liberal theory. I wasn't going to vote Liberal and I never have. But after talking with all you "nice" CPC supporters I think I just might. More as a protest against allowing someone who shares the CPC ideals I have witnessed here, from ever coming to power, than as a show of support for the Martin Govt. Not that I was going to vote for Mr. Hopeless either, but I wasn't going to vote for his main rival. Now I feel that to ensure that there is a country left for future generations, I must do everything in my power to make sure someone who shares the ideals of the CPC supporters I have encountered here, never comes to power. Have a nice election. Vote liberal, they lie, they cheat and they steal, but atleast they're honest about it.

I've yet to see how criminals or a criminal organization could love the country they frauded. What the Liberals say and what they mean are two very different concepts in this regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does that have to do with Harper being unable to say it?