Mimas

Ya, all this I've learnt from neocons. Being rude is the only way to talk to neocons because they don't understand anything else. That and being a hypocrite. First we hate Kyoto, then the Libs have failed Kyoto. We hate the "democratic deficit", but Harper is great for not letting MPs talk. We hate welfare for single moms but if they happen to be our lazy wives then they deserve tens of thousands for sitting on the couch watching TV while the kids are at school. France sucks for not providing enough support in Afghanistan, but it's perfectly fine that our US friends did absolutely nothing in Afghanistan for 5 years. And it keeps going and going........ There isn't a single thing neocons say where they don't contradict themselves or the facts - total hypocrites.

Ya, gee. France's emissions are also less than half of ours. Ya, it's so easy for them. We already pollute more than twice as much as they do, how the heck can they expect us to cut our crap by 6%. Gee? France uses nuclear energy and Alberta is building more coal plants. Hmm?

There we go again. geoff, the uninformed one. Of course we love nuclear. We are trying hard to sell some Candos to China. Yep, Harper is posturing at home talking about human rights in China and in Hanoi he is kissing the Chinese' behinds and trying to get them to buy our nuclear reactors. And yes, Alberta does nothing but gamage to our economy. Your oil has raised our dollar from 60 to 90 cents US, which makes our exports extremely expensive and we've suffered huge job losses in manufacturing in the last couple of years. Can you follow that? Get out and adopt another currency, cause your damn oil is killing our jobs. Besides, all the hard work in the oil sands is done by people from other provinces, while Albertans sit in their offices in Calgary and whine about how they feed the rest of the country. Are you damn nuts? Your "booming" economy is still smaller than that of Toronto, so shut up and mind your own business. You can't possibly imagine that the 9% of you feed the other 91% of us. You think that you are the centre of the universe but you're too damn small in comparison to be able to do anything at all for anyone else. Not that you'd want to do anything for anyone else.

You shit on their environment, don't expect much support from them. What Western values are you talking about anyway? Supporting a bunch of warlords and druglords who execute people for converting from Islam to Christianity? BTW, when the hell is Alberta going to separate from Canada? We are getting fed up with your arrogance and bullshit and your oil is hurting our economy. And finally, Albertans are a bunch of big-mouth, selfish assholes. Get the hell out!

Time to remove that maple leaf from your backpack. "Canada's New Government" is doing one hell of a job trashing our reputation: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/16/kyoto-ambrose.html Of course Rona's response is to accuse Olin of "meddling in Canada's domestic politics". What's "domestic" about the Earth's atmosphere, Rona? When people tell you to stop smoking in their face or pissing in the public pool are you going to accuse them of invading your privacy because second-hand smoke or your urine in the pool is a private matter? Geez, this woman is beyond stupid!

I'm glad to hear your kids are fine. I agree with what you said here, which is why I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize stay-at-home parents. If a couple can choose to forgo one income, then they aren't starving. If they really need the income badly, they won't choose to have a stay-at-home parent. I also don't like the fact that even multi-billionnaires will get the baby bonus. They don't strike me as the type of people who need help to raise their kids. As for daycare, it's a bit of a different story because there is such a shortage of daycare spaces. I know plenty of people who started looking for daycare before their child was born and they still can't find spots 2-3 years later. I don't think that people should be forced to stay home and waste their talents/skills because there are not enough decent daycare spots in this country. If the private sector won't provide the number of spots needed, then the government should step in and do something about it (after all, the government loses a lot of tax revenue by having parents who want to work stay home because of the lack of daycare spaces).

I never said that parents who stay home should have access to subsidized daycare. What stops the parent from paying for daycare is the shortage of daycare spots. You can't pay for goods or services that don't exist. Secondly, a large number of daycare spots right now are just moms with no training or credentials setting up "daycare" in their basements. I don't blame people for not wanting to leave their kids in such places. I disagree. For obvious reasons (that I've pointed out numerous times), the tory plan discriminates against working people and encourages laziness. Consequently, it is bad for the economy. Any economist would agree. It doesn't count because it does not pay the bills and it's also very inefficient. If we all sat at home and raised kids, then we would all starve. If we put our kids in daycare and got a job outside the home, we would both earn money and create jobs (for daycare workers, people who would produce the goods and services we'd buy with our income, etc.) Imagine an economy made up of 100 moms with 2 kids each. If every mom stayed home and simply raised her kids, then everyone starves. If 20 moms set up a daycare, they could take care of the 200 kids. Another 20 moms could become farmers and grow food, another 20 could build homes, 10 could get into health care, etc. Even without initial training, each mom would get better and more efficient at what she does. In this economy, everyone has a job, the kids are taken care of and everyone is richer than in the economy where 100 moms stay home and starve. This is called specialization. This is why you go to the doctor when you are sick, why you go to the accountant when you need to have your taxes done, why you go to the grocery store to buy your food, why you go to a mechanic when your car needs a tune up, and why you should go to the daycare specialist for daycare. You can't be a doctor, an accountant, a mechanic, etc. all at the same time. You are best (most efficient) in your training (whatever it is), so you are best off working in that area. If your training is not in raising kids, there is no reason for thinking that you are the best in the world at it. To make a long story short, I'd rather have my doctor and my lawyer at work and add a daycare specialist to the picture, than having everyone sit home raising their kids and wasting their very important skills.

Haha, I hate to disappoint you but any idiot should be able to do his own taxes as it is. Most personal income tax returns are quite simple. And quite boring. Anyway, it is precisely about the kids. I am not at all convinced that it's better for the kids to be raised at home, in fact, I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. If it's not better for the kids, there is no point for the parents to lose income, careers, etc. There is no point for others to pay taxes to help the parents to stay at home. In fact, I think that staying home is a mistake and I don't want to help people make that mistake. Finally, having more people stay home is bad for the economy. I mentioned that one conservative said that the baby bonus is bad policy but good politics. Harper is an economist and knows it's bad policy (no he isn't stupid or naive) but it was a good sell to get more votes. That's all.

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that? Your claims are hearsay as well unless you have a source? A parent is the best person to raise their child, not the cold hands of a government employee. The government can't love kids, its heartless. You are just dumb. Loving has nothing to do with raising. I loved my fish when I was a kid but they kept dying on me because I wasn't competent enough to take proper care of them. My teachers didn't love me, but they gave me a good education. I have pediatricians in my family and you'll be terrified to hear how people who love their kids make them sick simply because of incompetence and ignorance. Again, giving birth doesn't make you a competent parent nor an expert in early-childhood education. Cold hands of a government employee? The emergency room doctor is a government employee, so you can't trust him to treat you? Firefighers are government employees, so you can't trust them to get you out of a burning building because they don't love you? Maybe only your mom will do it because she loves you? Or your beloved military won't protect us because they don't love us? Blah, blah, use your brain once in a while. You probably have one.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic. You think one income families don't pay taxes? There we go again. As someone who's worked as an accountant and done thousands of tax returns, I can tell you that one-income couples with kids pay substantially less taxes than two-income couples with kids. This is because 1 - one-income families generally have less income (surprise surprise), so they pay less tax, and 2 - because the tax system transfers a lot of credits from the no-income parent to the working parent, so they pay less tax even for the same amount of total income than the two-income couple does. So effectively, discrimination against two-income couples is already built into the tax system. On top of that, I already mentioned the $6000 per child benefit that one-income couples are much more likely to receive than two-income couples. I don't mind too much paying benefits to parents (it's not their kids' fault that the parents made the bad choice to deprive them of income) but enough is enough. Even more benefits for stay-at-home parents will make more stay-at-home parents and who's going to pay for those benefits when we are all sitting at home? Getting benefits is fine but someone has to work and pay for them, no?

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that?

By the way, what's with Cons and such anti-social behaviour? Why are you so afraid of "strangers"? You meet "strangers" every day - at work, while grocery shopping, when going to the hospital, etc. Are you afraid of strangers because you think they hate you for some reason (like most Cons seem to hate everybody)? Really, are you afraid to see a specialist because she is a stranger and would rather treat yourself than see a doctor who is a "stranger"? Are you afraid of "strangers" because your mom raised you at home and never let you meet "strangers"? And 30 years later you are still afraid of "strangers". So instead of having your kids get used to "strangers" and to not be so afraid of them (yes, kids who went to daycare have better social skills than those raised at home), you want to keep them at home so that they are the same xenophobes that you are. I bet you are afraid that, god forbid, your kid may become friends with a black kid, or an immigrant kid, or even worse - the kid of gay parents and lo and behold, your kid won't hate/be afraid of such people. What happens to that argument when your kids are old enough to go to school? Do you want to home school them because you don't want them to be taught by some evil teacher "stranger"? I mean, what's with the "stranger" phobia? Really, most "strangers" are wonderful and very competent people and there is nothing scary about them. Why are you so afraid to have early childhood educators - who by the way have university degrees in raising kids and you don't - take care of your kids part day? Or does childbirth make you more competent to raise kids than university graduates in that area (who also have kids of their own)? Or does it all go back to finding bad excuses for not working and living off other people's taxes?

I guess that when you don't have a good argument then you resort to violence. Not a smart choice! When you choose to have kids and you choose to raise them at home instead of working, then that's your choice - not mine. So don't expect me to pay for it! Personally, if you CHOSE to give up a career, to deprive yourself and your kids of a second income, and you (or your wife) is not incredibly lazy, then I think that you are a real fool. I'm not being mean here, just honest. And just a little friendly advise, don't harp to your kids about it (You know what we gave up to raise you?), you don't want to make them feel bad about your dumb choices.

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky? I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers? In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness. There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb. Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

If that's the case, parents should put their kids in daycare and go out and be productive instead of "working" so hard at home while being completely unproductive and living off other people's taxes. Moving piles of large stones pointlessly back and forth all day is hard work too, but it doesn't do anyone any good, so I don't see why working taxpayers should be paying for it. If you prefer to stay home instead of working, don't ask me to pay for it. If you are healthy and capable of working, don't expect others to pay for your whims, like choosing to stay home - it's nobody's fault (but your own) that you are staying home.

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money!

If you are to take away Personal Welfare, why don't you take away Old Age Security? OAS is close to $6,000 of tax free cash that seniors get just for being 65 or older. Personal welfare costs approx $3 billion nationwide, while OAS costs about $20 billion or 7 times as much. Why the hell am I paying taxes so that some snowbird with income higher than my own, can spend my taxes in a foreign country? At least welfare recipients spend it here.

You should form your opinions based on facts rather than prejudices. 40% of your income doesn't go to bums, it goes towards the commonwealth that decides the best way to spend it. You should do your part within that framework and inform yourself if you're unhappy with how it works. Bums are lazy when it comes to working, ignoramuses are lazy when it comes to thinking. Don't you dare preach to me Commie, I know how you left leaning assholes think. You want the governement to take your money and decide what to do with it!!! thats bullshit. Thats communism in a nutshell, and I for one say "screw that" I quote the voice of metal, Ronnie James Dio: "The stronger the government gets, the weaker the people get. You let them take one penny, the wolves return for more. If you let a man set fire to your home, would u lead him to your neighbour? Stop telling me how it should be, I already see what it is" Now thats poetry!! Ok, "smarty". Why don't you take that big mouth of yours to Africa (third world that is) to see how well things work when there are no taxes. Strangely enough, the higher taxes are the better off and the more developed a country is and the lower the taxes-the shittier the country. You may think you already see what it is, but the reality is that you can't see further away from right under your ignorant nose.

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Don't you dare talk about "lefties" because you've obviously never met one! All you know about "lefties" is what you've read in the National Post and heard on Global TV.

Unsurprising how all the lefties love a conservative who speaks out against the party. It's similar to the white supremecists and Nazis who love to find Jews saying bad things about Israel and Jews. Turner will not run again. If he tries his papers won't be signed. So by spouting over relatively innocuous things like this, but doing so in such a way as to embarrass his party and leader, all he's done is made himself irrelevent. He won't be listened to in caucus, his phone calls and letters to cabinet and the PMO will be ignored, and come next election someone else will be running for the party in his riding. Pity, really. He might have accomplished something. Unfortunately, it looks like sour grapes over not getting a cabinet portfolio have revealed a sulkiness and selfishness the party is better off without. That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...508906-sun.html Well, that's one with the balls to openly claim his right to free speach so far. I think every Conservative MP who defends thier right to free expression deserves a vote in the next election. This guy needs to shut his mouth for the good of the people in his constituency. Why rock the boat a second time around? He is hurting his electorate more than himself. This is one guy who should have never got behind a mic. I guess the Conservatives need a more comprehensive background search on their candidates, because one idiot made his was through! You are right! There is no room in a democracy for free speach. Also, our "democratically elected" representatives and cabinet ministers should not be allowed to talk unless they read their statements from documents written by the PMO and its brainwashing PR firm. In fact, we should just get rid of the MPs all together and set up voting machines that have only a "Vote as the PM does" option. Than maybe we should call those who disagree unpatriotic and facists or something. Welcome to communism my friend. You may claim your ideology is different but your tactics are just the same! Btw, how is he hurting his constituents? By reminding them that this country is still not a perfect dictatorship?

For those of you considering the Western Standard a rag, check out the London Free Press and you will find the real definition of RAG! Oh BTW, Harper is the Devil.... Harper is the Devil!!! Give me a break! What liberal media? The Asper media that openly endorsed Harper? The Thompson media that did the same? It was the media that elected Harper! Now it's liberal and wants to do him damage? You people are so out to the right, that even Fox News must look like communist propaganda!

Harper asked Ed first precisely because Harper knew that Ed would decline the offer and for the optics of it of course. No credible person has accused Shapiro of being biased so far, although his qualifications have been questioned in the past. Only hypocritic cons would claim that Shapiro is a liberal lap-dog and only because he wants to do his job which includes investingating complaints about unethical actions by MPs, which includes his majesty Harper. If he wanted to investigate anyone outside the Con party, they would be cheering. Actually all parties were talking of scrapping him less than a year ago. All the parties see him as a biased failure. I did say that his qualifications for the job were questioned. But if all parties wanted to get rid of him, "all parties" includes the Libs. Wouldn't that contradict the claim that he is a liberal lap-dog.