Hicksey

Is it just me or does anyone else find it funny that whenever the Liberals think they have something to knock Harper down they end up making an apology for it?

I don't get worked up too much, but I am excited for the first time since I started following politics to see the party I support about to get a chance in power. When Mulroney was in power I was 16 and politics was a long ways from the center of my attention.

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics. Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean. I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics. Look at the media today. How many of them are perceived as left/right wing rags? They obviously had to slant one way or the other to get those monnikers. So, since when has ethics had anything to do with it. What's the difference between being slanted and lying about it and being slanted and being intellecually honest enough to admit it? I think he who admits his bias is of higher integrity than he who lies about it. You're absolutely right! I take back what I said about agreeing with Rovik. Tis true come to think of it. If it's against ethics, why would any paper want to be perceived as left/right-leaning? I guess, it is about news reporting that a journalist had to be accurate and straightforward....but editorials and comments are a different matter. The real problem in the media today is that the news and the editorial pages seem to be merging into each other. Editorializing needs to stay out of news stories. And we need less editorials trying to make news. It's this merging that is the most dangerous. To the average joe, it's hard to see the one ends and the other begins.

VERY BAD IDEA. All we'll end up with is thugs better trained to terrorize us, and all the more angry at us to boot.

Why is this such a bomb? The only difference between what is and the Tory idea of what should be is what 'gay marriage' should be called. So, gay rights isn't the issue. Conservatives such as Harper, and I, think that tradition should have been respected and 'gay marriage' should have been legalized under the banner of 'civil unions' and the traditional definition of marriage should stand. We both believe that gays should have every right a hetero couple has in a relationship. But to call that relationship a 'marriage' we believe is an insult to 2000 years of recorded history and tradition. Even Mark Elliot, a self admitted homosexual, from 1010 CFRB in Toronto admits this--and did again tonight on his program. There's no bombshell here. Martin's looking for WMDs that aren't there, a little like Bush to our south did. The war Martin's looking to start over this is likely to take as much hold in the world as Bush's did too.

Do you think our social programs and prosperity has increased in the last 12 years? Honestly, it's a two part answer. First, the number of social programs has increased by one-- the federal child care program. And the only reason for it coming to fruition was that Martin realized he was going to have to buy a vote or ten. If Martin had gotten a majority last time around I seriously doubt we would have seen this one. The promise would have followed its natural progression into the next Red Book. But even then, the program completely alienates everyone that doesn't work days and everyone below $25,000 per year, which essentially is everyone because very few 9-5 jobs pay less than $25,000 per year. And I haven't gotten ahead in the last 12 years because amidst all the Liberals budget surpluses, my taxes, hydro, water, natural gas and gasoline costs have been going up nearly three times as fast as my income. I've upgraded to high efficiency appliances, florencent lighting, gotten a more fuel efficient minivan in the last 12 years and still my bills are higher 10-20% year over year--and I am using less resources than before! The Liberals are calling the success of the business sector, overall success for the country. That's not the case. From talking to people all over the country in places like this and being lucky enough to talk to people all over in my job as a truck driver the sense I am getting is that most people are in the same boat as I, floating down the creek without a paddle. We're being taxed like never before at the provincial and municipal levels because the federal Liberals looted their coffers. The Liberals robbed from Peter to pay Paul (love the pun, it is intended) instead of solving their problems they merely took the money to buy themselves out of their problems from lower levels of government. It's been years since the Liberal party has done any real good in this country. Wow. Not one naysayer. I must be right.

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics. Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean. I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics. Look at the media today. How many of them are perceived as left/right wing rags? They obviously had to slant one way or the other to get those monnikers. So, since when has ethics had anything to do with it. What's the difference between being slanted and lying about it and being slanted and being intellecually honest enough to admit it? I think he who admits his bias is of higher integrity than he who lies about it.

Media should be neutral in my opinion, not endorsing any parties. Why? Well because the media has a very powerful effect in persuading the general populace. The media should be reporting the news, not influencing it. What does it matter really? Anyone with half a brain can see who's slanted what way on any given given day anyway. It's not hard to surmise from the way they slant whom they support. I don't see how not saying it out loud is anything better than pseudo-neutral. Let them say their piece.

Do you think our social programs and prosperity has increased in the last 12 years? Honestly, it's a two part answer. First, the number of social programs has increased by one-- the federal child care program. And the only reason for it coming to fruition was that Martin realized he was going to have to buy a vote or ten. If Martin had gotten a majority last time around I seriously doubt we would have seen this one. The promise would have followed its natural progression into the next Red Book. But even then, the program completely alienates everyone that doesn't work days and everyone below $25,000 per year, which essentially is everyone because very few 9-5 jobs pay less than $25,000 per year. And I haven't gotten ahead in the last 12 years because amidst all the Liberals budget surpluses, my taxes, hydro, water, natural gas and gasoline costs have been going up nearly three times as fast as my income. I've upgraded to high efficiency appliances, florencent lighting, gotten a more fuel efficient minivan in the last 12 years and still my bills are higher 10-20% year over year--and I am using less resources than before! The Liberals are calling the success of the business sector, overall success for the country. That's not the case. From talking to people all over the country in places like this and being lucky enough to talk to people all over in my job as a truck driver the sense I am getting is that most people are in the same boat as I, floating down the creek without a paddle. We're being taxed like never before at the provincial and municipal levels because the federal Liberals looted their coffers. The Liberals robbed from Peter to pay Paul (love the pun, it is intended) instead of solving their problems they merely took the money to buy themselves out of their problems from lower levels of government. It's been years since the Liberal party has done any real good in this country.

I was thinking the same thing. Somebody's got a lot of spare time on their hands.

I find the NDP platform as scary as you find Harper's. The last thing this country needs is another social program. We're up to our eyebrows in them now. Harper doesn't even want to cut them, just the rate at which they grow. The NDP platform is the Nanny State. Before long I'll be able to get a federally funded butt wiper to follow me around.

You know ... a social program to supply them ... There's no party except the NDP advocating places where junkies can go to do their drugs without fear of police action. The next step would have to be supplying them.

The NDP and their socialist message just don't let up. I'd be less than surprised if they came up with a federally funded plan for supplying junkies with illicit drugs and places where they can do the drugs without fear of persecution. That said, their post secondary schooling plans have merit. Tuition rates are getting farther and farther from what ordinary people can afford and the student load program either comes up short in funding or leaves students with an exhorbitant level of debt.

What bringeth out the feminazi in you?

Very good question. However reading through a mountain of NDP quotes would put me to sleep. Get back to me on it.

After Chretien and Martin you think that question still needs to be asked?! I thought the need was pretty obvious.

I think it is most likely a combination of all the factors you mentioned. I also think that a lot of women aren't willing to endure the level of interruption and intrusion into their personal lives that comes with a career in politics. I believe that women have a deeper knowledge of how it can affect their family and are unwilling to open them to it. I think the men are more consumed by the competition of debate and fame and more willing to endure the intrusion.

G & MMedicare, environment, gay rights, foreign wars. If that's it, I don't think there would be a problem. ---- Meanwhile, what is going on between the Liberals and the NDP? Layton asks Liberal voters to vote NDP and then Martin asks NDP voters to join a "progressive coalition". Martin even goes on the attack against Layton for not attacking Harper. As they say, WTF? CBC(This was said in BC where there are a few three way fights - does it make sense for Martin to say that in that context?) Jack Layton displayed that though he and his NDP won't get elected on the federal level, they can still govern by extortion. Ask Paul Martin, he knows first hand. The last I heard, if a member of parliament wants to further his cause he creates a private members bill and brings it to the house for a vote. If a majority of the members of the house believe it is in the best interests of the people, then it becomes law. All indications are that this will continue.

Proof that politics is still largely a boys club. I wonder why so few women? A very good question for Harper. Another reason that while I'd like to see a strong conservative minority, I don't want to see a conservative majority just yet. BTW ... thanks for the info. Been to lazy to google anything. Been googling what seems like non-stop lately trying to find an old article I quoted for another poster.

It's nice you list the conservative numbers and criticize them ... how about the Liberal and NDP number so we can compare?

I stand by my viewpoint that the ad in question here is as bad as those of the Liberals. I really believe that Canadians are exasperated with that kind of smears and that joining Martin in that arena is a mistake. I'll give you that the downside to such a region-targeted ad is not one that would take Harper down, but I think it could be the difference between a minority and a majority. I believe the relative positivity of Harper's campaign has really resonated with Canadians. I don't believe that ad goes anywhere in furthering the positive message.

I know. And yes, I am. There are plenty of quotes to play on the NDP position. Let Layton's words speak for themselves. It was the editorializing of the conservative positions in that produced the negativity to them. That having been said. Nobody but broken glass NDPers have those values and it may hit. But, I doubt it.

He only handed Chretien the GST and NAFTA. Between those two and their defunding of the provinces they had better be running surpluses.

I still don't see where that kind of Martin-type fear-mongering is justified. Until now the conservatives offered quotes and actions and asked Canadians to draw the conclusions on their own. In this ad they basically sunk to the low of the Liberal military ad. I think Harper's refusal to match that level of negativity up to this point has been a large part of his success. This is Harper's to lose and considering ads of this ilk lost it for the Liberals ... they're hardly a good idea at this point.

I have suggested raising the GST to 10%, and eliminating income tax as the best way to help those in the lower tax brackets. If one makes minimum wage, who cares how a 1-2% reduction in GST affects the price of a mink, a jaguar and a pail of caviar. (Just don't let the mink and the Jaguar fight over the pail of fish eggs) You really think that a 3% hike in the GST would produce enough income to forgo the income tax system? The GST is only 7% on most of what we spend. The income tax system, between the feds and provinces take between at least 40% of an $80K income regardless of whether you spend it or not. To do away with income taxes it would take a tax of about 20-30%.