sir_springer

How do you know for sure that the "Canada Healthcare Act" is essentially ideological twaddle? The State Ruling Class who use it to beat the masses over their collective heads, and to marginalize "non-believers" to the fringes of society (f'rinstance, reference Mr. Dithers hysterical rant at Stephen Harper in QP a couple weeks back), wouldn't trust their own health and well being to it for nothing. They can afford real healthcare, and the price of airfare to get to it...usually in the US. In the same manner as Communist ruling classes in the USSR, China, Cuba and N. Korea live, not like the working class, but wildly wealthy kings. Baaaa....baaaa....baaaa...

I'm not even going to read any of this thread. I tend to avoid ideological BS, especially when it's raised to the level of religion. You know... Hitler had his Arian supremecy thing, Mao had his little red book, Lenin had his worker's revolution, N. Korea and Cuba have their cult of personality tyrannies... And in Canada, we have "The Canada Healthcare Act/Medicare". All of them effectively used to herd appropriately fear ridden sheep according to the whims of the State ruling classes.

When someone pipes up with statements like, "Protect us from what?", "Yes, national defense cheap as possible!", and "14 yearold children don't need the protection of the State."... There's no point even going there because a) I don't have 3 hours worth of my valuable time just to bring them up to date on reality, and if they don't know any better than this already, nothing I'm going to say isn't going to make an iota of difference. Boy, if there's one thing in this world that never ceases to shock and amaze me, it's the unrelenting, yet remarkably self-righteous, naivity of your average Liberal Lefty. I'm starting to wonder lately if long term exposure to freedom, democracy, and relatively safe and easy living doesn't somehow negatively mutate DNA from one generation to the next. The people who built this country, and fought and died for it, must be turnin' in their graves right about now.

Miss Trudeau... Afraid I'll have to pass on a rebutal. My computer doesn't allow me to employ crayons enabling me draw a few pictures that you'd understand.

1) Deep integration? This would mean Canada actually coming to the table to participate in the defense of our own country for a change...as opposed to leaving it up to Americans to cover our butts for us, and even pick up the tab for it. Yes, I can see that this is definitely a "hidden agenda" of which to be frightened. God forbid Canadians should enjoy national defense on their own dime. 2) Irresponsible decentralization? Yes, Trudeau federalism, code for centralization of power in Ottawa, has certainly created a united Canada. Well, except for the time we came within a hair of blowing apart in 1995. And except for the reality of western alienation and rampant comtempt for Ottawa. And except for growing contempt for confederation in Newfoundland. And a political map that reflects a degree of fractured regionalism reminiscent of post WW1 Europe. Not to mention that we now have a bloated federal government that literally can't do one damn thing right...like, f'rinstance, manage its most primary responsibility, our national defense, or our trading relationship with our largest market, or our international political relationships that now find more in common with bastions of democratic principle and freedom such as Russia, China, and a host of banana belt dictators than it does with the likes of Britain, Australia, Japan, and America. Or forget the fact that federal coffers are bulging with billions in surpluses each year, while provincial governments are sucking the hind teat in perpetual defits and mountains of growing debt. Yep, proud times to be a Canadian in this world, that's for damn sure. 3) Religious catering? That's rich! Forget that this entire nation history is premised upon Christian values enshrined directly in our Constitution and Charter of Rights, or that hundreds of thousands come from around world each year to live in Canada primarily so they can engage their religious beliefs and values without fear of repression and persecution. I'm agnostic, and even I find this assertion preposterous...if not intellectually insulting. 4) Recapturing of social progress? I certainly hope so. 14 yearold children turned loose by liberal laws to be preyed upon by pedofiles is revolting and a disgrace. Our children beating the bloody crap out of each other, when they're not actually using knives or guns, on school grounds, while teachers stand paralized by legal crap and political correctness. And the best the Liberals can come up with in a policy convention is legalizing both prostitution and smoke dope. No surprize here, from a party that's been busy lining its bank account from the public purse for a decade, eh? And we wonder why our children are confused about ethics and morality? We re-elect proven liars and thieves as a matter of general rule in this sorry ass country. 5) Privatizing gains while socializing costs? Ah, yes. I assume you're referring to our wonderful healthcare system...a model for all the world to avoid, which they do. My family has had four run ins with this sacred healthcare system in the last 5 years. Final score: 1 dead from a misdiagnosed appendicitis that nobody had the time to deal with 6 weeks earlier. 1 permanently injured from an undiagnosed hematoma due to concussion because nobody could be bothered to use an available MRI. 1 who agonized for years waiting for hip replacements. And 1 doomed ultimately to life on anti-psychotics because it took 9 GD months for doctors to finally concede she needed serious attention. Why did this litany of avoidable tragedy upon tragedy happen? Because we have a GD healtcare system that is predicated first and formost upon a half-century old obsolete ideology raised to the status of freakin' religion in this country. And we don't give a rat's ass how many people we have to kill or torture to make sure it remains there, either. Our healthcare system is an unmitigated disaster and a revolting national disgrace. Been there, done that. The sooner it's overhauled into something workable, the sooner we'll all be a hundred times better off. :angry:

Hidden agenda??? We're all getting a first hand look at exactly what a "hidden agenda" truly is. The Liberals are masters at it, lining the pockets of party hacks and cronies with tens of millions of our tax dollars so that they can skim millions back into their own hands. Anyone buying into this typical Liberal demagogery and utter crap needs their head examined to see if there's any functioning braincells left.

Harper is the most qualified man in the country for the PMO. His integrity and honesty, conceded to be impeccable by even his staunchest critics, make his candidacy at this time particularly timely. Can't imagine anyone more qualified to clean up this thoroughly corrupted federal government. Once he becomes PM, he'll be there for some time to come. Far as I'm concerned, this is Canada's last gasp. If Ontario and the Maritimes persist in inflicting this country with corrupt, abysmally incompetant, and just plain asinine Liberal idiots and clowns to run our government...yet again over the pleas of westerners and Quebecers for some GD common sense and decency...then to hell with it.

Yo... Layton is playing with political dynamite. There is going to be an election in June, regardless of what he does. By jumping in the sack with the Libs...or even offering to...he has established several things with voters, or re-confirmed an ages-old suspicion about the NDP, which is that they're essentially little different than the Liberals. Apparently there is so little difference that he's even prepared to make a "faustian" deal with them, regardless of the aura of corruption surrounding them. IOW, "Yes, you're a bunch of liars and thieves...but we can still do business." The only surprize in this is that it took the Liberals this long to get around to exploiting this eternal weakness of the NDP...but then again, Mr. Dithers isn't known for his political accumen anyway. And believe it, the Liberals will exploit this for all it's worth, which is not to prolong their own lives nearly so much as it is to draw the NDP into their web so that when the election does happen, voters who might have toying with departing for the NDP will wonder what the point is; obviously there is not enough difference to keep them from shacking up together anyway. As a Conservative, I hope Layton goes for it! Voters who can't bring themselves to vote Liberal because of corruption, will look at the NDP as the party who propped them up regardless, and thus move to the CPC...particularly in the west. Or they'll stay home. Either way, it works for us. As the old saying goes, ya lay down with dogs, ya get up with fleas. Layton's problem in all of this is that he's a bit player being crowded out by the main cast, Martin, Harper and Duceppe. So he sees this as an opportunity to acquire center stage. What he doesn't see is that, a) he's being used, and he's assuming a role he will live long enough to deeply regret. Why? Right now the CPC, as it should be in its position as the "Official Opposition", controls the agenda as to when this government topples. In doing this deal, Layton assumes this role...and then he will not be able to get out from under it. For when he does, it will be he who is seen as responsible for forcing an election. I believe David Lewis found himself in a similar position some years ago, and when he finally pulled the plug on a coalition that was unworkable, he and the NDP got busted chopswise by an electorate who virtually ignored him for the afore mentioned reason. Previously, the same thing happened to the Socreds/Creditistes in the '60s. IMHO, Layton is being played for a patsy by the Liberals. And his ego is too damn big to allow him to see the long term result of this. Then again, why am I not surprized, eh?

The poll was taken from 2 to 5 days after the convention. Expecting a significant bounce immediately on the heels of Harper's election is being more than a tad naive. While polling now becomes increasingly relevant as talk of an election ramps up, and people start to actually consider their options for more than 10 seconds, we won't see big changes until the event is actually declared. Historically, I would remind everyone of a few pertinent items: 1) In 1984, Mulroney et al started further back than 11% behind the Libs. 2) In 1993, Chretien et al started further back than 11% behind Kimmy and the PCs. 3) The Liberals always backslide once the election is actually called. 4) BC entered the last election with the CA, after trailing the Liberals for most of midterm polling, at about the same level as the CPC are in this poll...38%...and almost immediately leapt to about 49%, where they finished on election day. 5) A mere shift of 5.5%...i.e., about 5 Liberal voters in 100...to the CPC puts them tied at 32.5%. Bottom line: The Libs are deffinitely within striking distance. And Harper is only just getting started. Up until now he's been campaigning to Conservative members. Now the real war begins...with Pauly and the Liberals. Oh, and BTW... Layton is screwed. NDP support has peaked and is now starting to fade back to traditional levels. Say goodnight Jacko. Goodnight Jacko.

You're next correct prediction about anything political will be your first.

Sure weren't meaningless around here when the NDP were at 28% in BC, eh? Then the usual suspects were predicting up to 20 seats for them out here. When pigs fly!

Atlantic Canada: Libs: 47% CPC: 31% NDP: 14% Quebec: Libs: 33% CPC: 8% NDP: 6% BLOC: 44% Ontario: Libs: 47% CPC: 28% NDP: 17% Sask/Man: Libs: 33% CPC: 28% NDP: 30% Alberta: Libs: 24% CPC: 54% NDP: 11% BC: Libs: 28% CPC: 38% NDP: 18% The only place were the NDP haven't slid in Sask/Man. They're tanking like hell in BC.

Much has been made about a list of quotes by Stephen Harper being circulated about Ottawa by the Liberals. They did the same thing to Stock Day. Well, to begin with, Stephen Harper is not Stock Day. Ever see a political leader within living memory of anyone around here who would not back down on his principled stands, not from anyone? http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/politics.html On the RHS, click on the Monday PM broadcast of Politics. It begins with Newman getting a report from Ditchburn regarding this list of quotes. Following is an interview with Stephen Harper in which Newman confronts him with a handful of what I would imagine are supposed to be the most damning of the bunch. It turns out that, unlike the customary courtesy in which guests like Harper are advised in advance of the theme of the interview, such was not the case this time. In fact, Harper did not even know that Ditchburn was spieling off this list immediately prior to his interview. Think Harper was caught off guard or rattled by this literal attempt at bushwacking him??? As your watching, try to imagine Paul Martin or Jack Layton under the same circumstances. This guy literally does not so much as miss a heartbeat, nor break even one tiny bead of sweat. And...unlike just about every damn politician in recent memory...he does not back down so much as an inch. It simply does not get any better than this, people. BTW, this link will only be good until next Monday's broadcast, which will then replace this one. Enjoy!

Layton is pathetically desperate to prove he's really a somebody and a player. Like I said: Harper is running for Prime Minister. Layton is running to share the Prime Minister's bed. Layton's latest idiotic rant? The Liberals are going to pay down the national debt over the next ten years by...and I'm not making this up...$200 billion dollars. Um, Jacko... That's about $20 billion per year. Twit and doofus are too generous to describe this...dolt. It would appear that Jack has deftly decided to target, not the under $30,000 wage earner, but the under 30 IQ sector.

Okay, let's assume that you're referring to a proposal put forward by the CA during the 2000 election. Under that proposal, a family of 4 would pay no federal income tax on the first (from memory here) $30,000 of income to that household. On every dollar earned over and above that $30,000, a single rate of tax would apply. Thus, if you are married, with two children, and your gross combined income (yours and your spouse's) is $100,000, you would pay a single rate, for example, 20%, of federal income tax on $70,000, which equate to $14,000. If your gross combined income is $50,000, then you would pay 20% on $20,000, equaling $4,000. Now, you tell me how the richer family earning $100,000 is paying less tax than the family earning $50,000. You know, this ain't rocket science. It's just plain old common sense and arithmatic. But apparently people prefer to defer to others to figure this stuff out for them than use their own GD brains...and then wonder why they always get jammed up the hoop on payday. Now here you go again. The Liberal Left has supplied you with a user-friendly label for something that you don't even begin to try and figure out for yourself. Who is preaching "two-tier" health? Do you even actually know? Or are you merely parroting what the Liberal Left media and the Liberal government has pounded between your ears in order to scare you into voting for them as opposed to those other dreaded options? Neither the CA nor Day nor Harper nor anyone from those ranks you can point to has EVER advocated "two-tier" heathcare. I defy you or anyone here to provide one single quote from Day or Harper or the CA policy manual to that effect. No, I don't want to hear what the Liberal Left media has said that someone else said that someone else interpreted from something Harper said in a highschool debate in 1978. I want facts. It was the CA's policy, it was Day's policy, and it is Harper's policy that...and get this straight...private provision of services funded by universal healthcare (Medicare), where feasible, is an acceptable option. What does this mean? It means that, instead of the government putting up $20,000,000 of your taxes...or more commonly, borrowing it and then using your taxes to pay the interest on top of the principle...to build a medical facility, private investment provides the money. Cost to taxpayers, zip. They fees they charge to medicare for the service they provide in turn pays for the cost of the facility. It's part of their operating expense. The cost to taxpayers is no more than the fees paid for services provided...the very same fees that would still be paid to a government owned hospital or facility for the same services. Now, where the government can't find $20,000,000 to build a facility, private investment can. Should we build the facility using private investment? Or forget about it until another day when, hopefully, the government has some extra cash laying around, or the inclination to rack up some more public debt that never gets paid back, and thus goes for eternity sapping (6% x $20,000,000) $1,200,000 out of the public purse each and every year without ever paying down the principle so that your grandchildren will still be paying interest on a medical facility down the street that's about to be torn down because it's been condemned resulting from old age/obsolescence. And, more importantly, if the private facility does a poor job of managing its affairs, then they will lose their investment by going broke. Their loss, not taxpayers. On the other hand, if a government facility does a poor job of managing its affairs, no problemo: The government just pours more of taxpayers' money into it...and more, and more, and more, without the problems every getting seriously addressed. Why don't they get seriously addressed? Because there is no real pressing reason to, such as going broke or losing a $20,000,000 investment. Because, when the government runs things, people don't want to hear about problems or failures. It's bad politics. So they pump money into problems until they go away, whatever the cost, does not matter. There's always more money where that came from. Etc, etc, etc, and on and on and on it goes... Same old, same old. Why is it always same old, same old? Because people are such asinine suckers for government produced and promoted user-friendly labels (read, propaganda) like, f'rinstance: "two-tier healthcare". What would you prefer? #1) A foreign investor buying a factory or business and keeping it going? Or closing the doors because a Canadian investor can't be found? #2) Canadian investors who own a company accepting $100,000,000 from foreign investors? Or accepting $50,000,000 from a Canadian investor because foreign investment is outlawed? Who makes up for that other $50,000,000 to the shareholders? Shareholders such as the pension plan on which you are relying for your retirement? Oooops! Didn't think about that one, did you? #3) Shutting the doors because foreign investment is outlawed? Or pumping taxpayers' money into it to keep it afloat? And then more money, and more money, and still more money, until someone finally figures out that it's a toilet and closes the doors anyway...thereby writing off millions, maybe tens of millions, often hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars that could have been spent on...hmmmm...how about healthcare? Or a fleet of real helicopters to upgrade what has become "Crash and Burn Airlines" over at the DOD. #4) Pumping hundreds of millions into companies just because? This generally means, just because they in turn pump hundreds of thousands back into Liberal party coffers, as we are now learning. (e.g. see Bombardier) #5) Getting the government involved in picking winners and losers, thereby tilting the playing field in the direction of whomever they feel like...which generally turns out to be whomever is making it worth their while, vote-wise. #6) Getting a bunch of government bureaucrats involved in running industries of which they don't know the first GD thing about, and never have to anyway because the money-well of taxpayers' money is bottomless and will make up for their stupidity without anyone ever knowing what is going on in the first place... That is, until an efficient Auditor General arrives on the scene and blows the whistle to tell Canadians that they just got sodomized for another couple billions dollars gone up in political smoke. I could go on and on and on and on... Read the book, "Tax Me, I'm Canadian"... And then come back here and tell us what you've learned, and whether you still think government should be meddling in the affairs of enterprize and the marketplace.

Read Ezra Levant's book on the Kyoto Accord. It's very enlightening. Will give you a tad bit of insight into Paul Martin's mentor, Maruice Strong, as well. If...and this is a huge IF...Canada can actually live up to its commitments on Kyoto, the net cut in CO2 emmissions worldwide will be .2%, two tenths of one percent. The cost to the Canadian economy will be astronomical. CO2 has nothing to do with smog, and the particulate matter therein that hovers over our major urban centers like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal. It is that pollution that is responsible for health problems, acid rain, polluted waters, and defoliation of forests. Kyoto does absolutely SFA to address air pollution. Harper announced as a major part of his policy platform intentions to bring down tough new standards to address all forms of pollution, reaching far beyond anything Kyoto could possibly achieve. Kyoto is to air pollution what the gun registry is to crime control: a bunch of fluff to con the masses into thinking something substantial is being done by politicians. IOW, it's a scam that, far as actual results, isn't worth the paper on which it is written.

Where did you dream up such utter crap as that one? Good grief. US led slaughter of 8 million Iraqis??? What? Can't make a case on facts, so just make it up as you go along or what? You know why Harper is against Kyoto? Because it's a ludicrous bunch of garbage, and will contribute dick to solving air polution. However, it will transfer a ton of cash out of our country to others. Great idea. Do your homework. Anyone can be a parrot.

Get past the inuendo and tell us just exactly when did Harper "backstab" Preston Manning? In his own words, Harper left politics in 1997 primarily because of his very young family. Yes, he did not agree with Manning on everything. As he said, Manning strayed from policy to get wrapped up in process. I agree. And today, Harper is the leader of a united conservative party...and Preston Manning isn't. Nor is Stock Day. No offense to either of them; I was an ardent fan of both of them, and still am. But neither could hold a candle, frankly speaking, to Harper's street smarts, savvy, and political accumen. It's not hard to tell from where you are coming. You're a hardline Reformer who can't get past his remorse for what appears to be the death of an ideal. So you need someone to blame. And Harper is handy, particularly in light of his successes where both Manning and Day failed. It was Manning who birthed the United Alternative and Canadian Alliance for the sake of unity. It was Harper who delivered. And don't kid yourself. Harper has not forgotten from whence he came. Get past your sour grapes, pal. This thing is going with or without you. Your choice.

Had Harper not won yesterday, there indeed was a significant danger of great numbers of western "anti-establishment" voters abandoning the CPC. I fail to see why elections hang on Quebec. A quick bit of math suggests that: 36 + 28 + 14 + 14 + 106 = 198. It takes 155 to form a majority government. Tuck into that equation the potential of 20 MPs from Atlantic Canada... We can quite easily see a CPC majority government without a single MP from Quebec. Sure never bothered anyone to see Liberal majority governments with a mere handful of western MPs, did it? The fact is that, as Harper says, a great many Quebeccers are disgusted with the Liberals...but do not align themselves with separatists. They need an alternative...and I think we will see that many there now may think they indeed have one. Voting "conservative" is not a foreign concept in Quebec. The dynamics of widespread voter fatigue with an incumbant government, coupled with a very palatable alternative inevitably engenders polarization among voters desperately seeking real change. This is not rocket science nor mysterious stuff. Happens all the time...and I can cite numerous examples. It is now almost a certainty that this next election is going to be one of the pivotal watershed events in which the electorate will polarize between the status quo and change. In such elections, there very rarely are exceptions to the maxim that third parties get slaughtered in such moments. Why? Because a vote for a third party equates to a vote for the status quo. This reality is inescapable. No one...and I mean no one, not even NDP diehards...envisions that party as a government in waiting. (Thank God!) The divisions on the conservative side of the spectrum are now history; this much is clearly obvious. More importantly, western Canadians have in Stephen Harper a touchstone with whom they can identify. Momentum has swung from the Libs to the CPC. And will continue to do so as each new day more crap is revealed about the true depth of the rot that has become synonymous with this Liberal government. Without intentionally being trite, it is so bad for the Libs now that all Harper has to do is smile for the camera and subliminally ask, "Do I look and/or sound extremist to you?" No, he sure as hell does not...regardless of all the garbage the Libs and NDP will crank out to the contrary. In fact, in their tripping over themselves to do so they will look more than a tad extremist themselves. Let us not forget that we are political junkies here on these forums. Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that the other 99.9% of voters engage the finer points of politics on the level we do. This morning Paul Martin got out of bed to a whole new political dynamic in this country. And to the stark realization that the guy sitting across from him is no slouch in the game of politics...as his track record of the last two years clearly proves to all but the truly naive and/or ignorant. As one journalist started off his article this morning, Stephen Harper is Paul Martin's worst nightmare. As for Jack Layton? If he has any brains at all, he knows that he's in deep ca ca today. For he knows the consequences of polarization upon his party will be devistating...as it has in the past. He knows that those soft Liberal Left votes he was counting on sucking off the left flank of Martin's backside suddenly have good reason to reattach themselves. We are in for the classic political battle that comes down to "either/or". There will be no third alternatives, there never are. Harper clearly understands a fundamental of politics in Canada: The center ground is not won nearly so much by moving to it... As it is won by pulling it out from under the other guy towards oneself. And incumbants tend to have a habit of falling off the center ground headfirst into a heaping pile of arrogant, corrupt, and self-absorbed bullshit. Bottom line: Get used to the idea of "Prime Minister Harper". This next election is his to lose. And, as we've all seen...and in spades...losing isn't what Stephen Harper is all about.

Harper doesn't need to defend his ideas against the likes of a mental midget like Jack Layton. It is Jack Layton who desperately needs to prove that he's at least relevant. Which is precisely why he wants to debate Harper, no more, no less. By getting Harper to acknowledge his mere existance on a stage, he proves he's a significant player. Which he is not. Harper is far too savvy and intelligent to allow himself to be manipulated by the likes of an ass like Layton. But then again, who isn't?

Best of my knowledge, the percentages I posted at the end of each line were the final results. There might have a few riding yet to report, however. I predicted that Harper would shock in Ontario, as well as surprize in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. This puppy knows his stuff, eh!

My prediction vs actual percentages: For Stephen Harper: BC: 3600 pts x 85% = 3060 79.89% AB: 2800 pts x 85% = 2380 85.26% SK: 1400 pts x 70% = 980 81.49% MB: 1400 pts x 65% = 910 73.43% ON: 10600 pts x 60% = 6360 56.72% QU: 7500 pts x 40% = 3000 33.03% NL: 700 pts x 40% = 280 32.90% PEI: 400 pts x 20% = 80 21.53% NS: 1100 pts x 30% = 330 37.31% NB: 1000 pts x 40% = 400 44.51% NWT: 300 pts x 50% = 150 47.39% TOTAL: (30800 x 50% = 15400 + 1) 17930 58.21% Actual: 55.49% (Maple Syrup: )

Why do you presume that a country that is not a welfare nanny-state in which people/regions line up for their turn at the government teat like trained puppies... Ipso facto then must be a dog-eat-dog world? It is possible to be a caring, nurturing nation without having to lead people around by a ring in their noses, or putting three feet of padding under every single ass in case they stumble. Time for some of the people in this country to grow up a tad, and lift themselves off their mommy's laps for a change.

Harper's support in both Ontario and Quebec will shock everyone.

Assuming this goes by new boundaries... For Stephen Harper: BC: 3600 pts x 85% = 3060 AB: 2800 pts x 85% = 2380 SK: 1400 pts x 70% = 980 MB: 1400 pts x 65% = 910 ON: 10600 pts x 60% = 6360 QU: 7500 pts x 40% = 3000 NL: 700 pts x 40% = 280 PEI: 400 pts x 20% = 80 NS: 1100 pts x 30% = 330 NB: 1000 pts x 40% = 400 NWT: 300 pts x 50% = 150 TOTAL: (30800 x 50% = 15400 + 1) 17930 Base assumptions: 1) CA members are more certain to vote. 2) Low turnout of new members signed by Stronach. 3) Half of the 252,000 members are Reform/CA. (Compas poll results) 4) Ontario members at least 60% CA. 5) CA members will overwhelming support Harper, and in every province. 6) Stronach support in Quebec is overestimated, and poor turnout for her. Bottom line: Harper on the first ballot, over 17,000 pts.