Hicksey

Wow. I just watched some of the new Liberal ads. And they were complaining about the Conservatives going negative ... Just ... Wow. EDIT: I've been through the new Liberal ads and NOT ONE says anything about what they plan (not) to do with the country. ALL 11 are attack ads.

And liberals haven't been bought and fooled by Liberal promises never kept? Thanks! When I read this I laughed harder than I have in a long time.

The Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution is about checks and balances. We are supposed to be governed by the three arms of government: the senate (currently closer to being a joke than to being relevant), the house and the judiciary. Each is to serve to correct the others when they outstep their bounds. But the clause exists because the man whose name Martin evokes whenever he can, Pierre Trudeau, understood when the Constitution was written that the buck needed to stop with arm of government that is accountable to the people. Eliminating it will make us slaves to the whims of the courts and powerless to correct their mistakes. Martin has effectively pledged to destroy the very Constitution that his father and other Liberal meccas wrote. Wait until some constitutional scholars get ahold of this ... Martin will kick his own butt for such a raunchy brain fart.

We'll have to send you back, get you Hannitized and then let you back ... LOL

Martin=Desperate Duceppe=Incoherent Layton=Broken Record Harper=Credible I did not think Layton was profound because of his tired language of class warfare. If I heard 'evil corporate tax cuts' one more time I would have tossed my cookies. Amen.

Gotta love liberal conspracy theories. Keep dreaming guys. It's Martin that last night pledged to destroy the constitution as the liberal mecca Trudeau wrote it. Not Harper. Martin wants to make us slaves to the court. Not Harper. It's Martin and his Liberals that have fostered the increased sentiment toward separation by trying to buy Quebecers with taxpayer money and then funnelling some of that money back to their own party to assist in their re-election. Not Harper. Try as you might to try to editorialize Harper into something people should be scared of. I've read the veiled accusations absent proof above and still ... it's Martin that's scary from where I stand. Martin keeps trying to run on his value system. Martin insists that his values are those of Canadians. I seriously doubt that Canadians hold values like stealing, lying, cronyism, profiteering, etc ... as highly as the Liberal Party does.

I don't know...he seemed too "VOTE NDP!" for me. He was like that in the last election. He kind of goes into these uncomfortable poses. He is like that Video Professor person on infomercials...too "Buy ME, BUY ME!" He reminds me of that also-ran kid of the group that's always yelling to the others "Hey guys, don't forget about me!"

All good except Layton=Annoying

Back then we weren't walking around like the people from the commercial with the Grits hands in our pockets.

$20 a week is not enough to allow a family that would otherwise need two incomes to cut out one income, nor is it much compensation for family members to watch the kids. As I say above, given that the Tory plan is barely enough to cover a babysitter, let alone a daycare facility, how does it help people working nights? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not the answer but its 20 a week more than the Liberals and NDP have given. I personally think a good start is to eliminate the marriage penalty. Each Canadian should get the same amount of pretax income -- regardless of living arrangements.

Oh PLEASE, there's got to be about a dozen threads already open on SSM. Let's not start it again HERE. If you feel that strongly about it that you feel you NEED to discuss it right now, then go revive one of those old threads, or start another on the topic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not starting a debate here, but since it was brought up I stated my opinion for the record ... when I feel like having that debate I will do just that.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. As such the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think that the definition of marriage before the law should be restored, but add civil unions for both non-religious hetro couples and for same sex couples. Because I believe strongly in human rights, the difference between the two should be nothing more than what they are called. Participants should have the same right in either. The only involvement the goverment should have in marriage is the law of marriage/civil unions and in their dissolving.

Like the people you mentioned, I consider a neo-con to be someone who is really not conservative, just appears to be because he's got conservative views on a couple of mainstream issues. With the exception of gay-marriage, Harper supports most of the same socialist policies the Liberals and NDP do. He could never be a true conservative and get elected in Canada because conservatives do not believe in socialist policies like universal health care, social welfare, etc ... In Canada the term conservative is relative. Harper is conservative compared to both the Liberals and NDP.

Sure there is. Don't like it, don't put your kids into daycare. Seriously, though: the Tory plan doesn't do anything to improve the system. It's just a handout. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It allows parents the choice of having a spouse home with their kids, paying a family member they trust to watch their kids and some flexibility in when they can work. Like it or not, daycare doesn't help people working afternoons or midnights. The conservative plan helps everyone equally. Not just the 9-5ers like the Liberal and NDP plans do.

I know what you're saying. I've been harping on our local guy for years telling him that they need to beat Liberals to the punch and define themselves before the Liberals can unearth the "scary scary scary conservative card" in EVERY ELECTION. They've done a fairly good job, though I feel they've made a mistake in unearthing the gay marriage fight that most people had written off as lost anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is about as common as finding a diamond in a dung heap and about as honest as GWB reasons for Iraq. You want to see what Canada would be like under that greasy used car salesman, then just take a look south my friend. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ottawa may be south of you, but its northeast of me. That used car salesman is as greasy as any you'll see. Dubya may not be the epitat of what a leader should be, but he's head and shoulders above Martin.

Now that's a mischaracterization if I ever saw one. What really happened was that Layton figured out his party is but a step ahead of irrelevance. So he decided to rule by extortion. He knew the Liberals were power-drunk and took full advantage. And here silly old me thought that one pushed their agneda in the house with private members bills ...

In my view, he's more of a neo-con than anything. In that, I mean that if you look at the CPOC policies you'll see that he's cherry-picked a couple of conservative ideals, but still mostly conforms to Canadian liberalism. The last conservative goverment was knocked for years and it is only now that people are finding out that the Liberals success regarding the economy and debt reduction are due to gifts bequeathed upon them by Mulroney/Campbell -- namely NAFTA and the GST. People constantly knock Mulroney's government for their utilization of deficit spending to finance our way out of the recession following the 1987 stock market crash. But I submit that if they had been given a chance to right it, they had legislated the tools they needed to give the Canadian economy a boost and the taxation needed to not only balance the budget but also provide for debt reduction. My point is that conservative ideas usually stand the test of time. I think Mike Harris is the one notable exception to the rule. His ideas have only gotten worse with time. He took the Liberal "band-aid" approach. Anyways, my question stands ... What about the conservative platform is so scary to Canadians?