Ricki Bobbi

So you're guessing the Liberals won't pick Rae?

Fair enough. When I first got here I was a lot more open to debate with my posts than I am now. My changing tactics was in response to those posters. I started this thread to move away from that. If people want to debate, that is fine. But there is very little actual debate here. When there isn't somebody taking on those who loathe Harper what will this board degenerate to? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

John Ibbitson said it best in today's column. (Sorry no link, firewall...) "There are a lot of people in this country afflicted with a visceral, collective loathing of Mr. Harper, Western Canadian conservatives, American conservatives and George W. Bush, despite their many differences. They are, in essence, the reverse image of liberal-hating, flag-waving, God Blessers who support both men, come what may. There is no point in conversing with such people, on either side." Do I support both men? No. Have I ever supported Bush on MLW? No. Am I, and fellow CPC supporters on this board, automatically linked to Bush by those posters filled with a visceral, collective loathing of Mr. Harper, Western Canadian conservatives, American conservatives and George W. Bush, despite their many differences? Yes. There really isn't room for debate on this board. The bashing is knee-jerk and automatic because of the loathing. Which leads to knee-jerk defences. The times that I have criticized the Government or the PM have been used by those here who loathe Harper as evidence to further their agendas. It isn't respectful, constructive or a real debate. I don't feel good about having fallen into the trap of automatically defending the Prime Minister from attacks. Ibbitson is right. There is no point in having these converations. Congrats to those here who loathe Harper. May your victory here be as pyrrhic as it was in winning Led Namont the Democratic Senatorial nomination in Connecticut.

When a post in a thread on softwood lumber brings up income tax changes, income trust and Harper being replaced as Finance critic more than a decade ago that is bashing. Take a look at what I post and what I am replying to here before telling me to give it a rest. Or better yet, monitor your behaviour and I'll monitor mine.

That is the key. Some people will simply oppose the deal because it was struck by Harper. Yet another decision made in the interest of Canadians. Good work Prime Minister.

So no evidence or support to backup this claim of 'extraordinary' political pressure. The provinces agreed, industry agreed.

A judicial inquiry proved that $1.14 million dollars of taxpayer money was illegally diverted to supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada in Adscam. If you refuse to acknowledge that as mismanagement of public funds then there is no 'backup' you will accept about the previous Liberal government. I will mark your words.

The provinces signed on because of extraordinary political pressure from the federal government. Why are lumber companies still bitterly opposed to the deal? You might want to read the following and find out for yourself: http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/ What was this 'extraordinary political pressure' from the Federal Government? It was a Government explaining its position and why it wanted support for an international agreement it had reached. Nothing extraordinary about that.

Despite the private views of members of the party the CPC never officially praised Bush or called the Liberals anti-Bush. They did call the Liberals anti-American and chastised their childish behaviour. For example Carolyn Bennett stomping on a GW doll and Martin's Director of Communications calling White House staffers a**holes. America is our most important ally and trading partner. We need to maintain a professional working relationship with them, regardless of who is in the White House or controls Congress. Our Conservative Government will continue to do that even now that the Congress is under Democratic Party control. In that sense the results on Tuesday are a good thing for the Conservatives....

Fair enough, there are valid reasons to have voted for either side. The issues will be different this time around. SSM will be done for good. The socons in the Conservative party want to take one more kick at the cat, they will get it, the issue will be over. This is exactly what Mulroney did with abortion, and despite attacks to the contrary, the Conservatives have no intention of re-opening that debate. There will be further tax measures in the upcoming budget. The ad probably helped the Conservatives long run. The major issues in this campaign appear to be the environment, Quebec nationhood (please don't reopen the constitution) and fiscal imbalance plan....

No one opposition party controls the timeline. Unless the opposition works in unison, which they haven't done yet, the timeline will be up to the Conservatives. The Conservatives will attack the Liberal leader because it is what works in Canada. The Liberals stayed in power for 13 years with a strategy of attacking Kim Campbell, Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper in succession. After 13 years of mismangement and corruption the Canadian people had enough. Failed policies and broken promises? Whatever .... Kind of tough to judge a policy as failed weeks after it has received final approval from the House of Commons. That is if you were actually judging results instead of making kneejerk blanket attacks without thinking. Why weren't the Liberals, the party who got us into Aghanistan, linked to the Bush Administration? Because that doesn't play to their electoral advantage ... the only reason you are trying to link our Government to the Bush Administration now.

Hmmm Torontonians voted more strongly Liberal than pretty much any other part of the country. The ads re-inforced the *scary* *scary* *scary* Harper message that only the hardline anti-Harperistas bought into. But you know that the Liberal voters in Toronto didn't buy into this patently false and misleading ad.

Robert McNamara lasted a little over 7 years and the US was in Vietnam for the majority of the time he was in office. Counting Rumsfeld's time as SecDef for Ford and he might end up being the longest serving SecDef in history. Depends when Robert Gates is confirmed. Bush will be able to get Gates' nomination through the Senate relatively easily. The Dems want to prove they can govern not just obstruct. Gates is a reasonable choice. Unless he takes a hardline on Iraq, which is doubtful, he'll probably sail through the nomination...

Income trusts gives the Conservatives the money to *solve* the fiscal imbalance. Environment is a tough nut to crack, but it is doable if they can work with the opposition parties to create an 'actual' made in Canada plan. I do agree though, if the Conservatives can accomplish those two things a majority is in their grasp.

Hmmm, let's look at the tax cuts the Conservatives have delivered. Lowering the GST from 7% to 6%. Child Fitness Tax Credit. Textbook Tax Credit. Tax Credit for Employers who hire apprentices. Canada Employment Credit. $1 Billion in tax relief for seniors via income splitting and the aged tax credit. The Conservatives will be more than willing to fight the next election on their record of cutting taxes...

We are a long way off from the next election. The Conservatives control the timeline and will focus their attacks on the new Liberal leader when he is chosen. One of the Conservative's greatest regrets is they didn't have the time to use their huge advantage in fundraising with a massive pre-writ ad blitz. The Conservatives still have a huge lead over the Liberals in fundraising. They have far more control over the timing of this election than they did over the January election. Their numbers will go up before the writ is dropped.

If there is no such thing as corporate taxes then how come you hae tried to turn eery thread over the last week into an attack on the Conservatives for raising taxes...

Fair enough. It's another minority unless we earn a majority. We can live with that...

The deal was, and still is. the best thing for the country.

Are you sure Harper has more money than he started with? How much did the GST cut cost? Did you not see the GST cut? You conveniently failed to mention it. If you honestly think the Conservatives will lose 200K to 300k votes nationwide over income trusts you really don't get it. Just what ridings do those voters come from? Who will they vote for? Your anger on the issue has gone from justified to histrionic.

Just like that. An anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

Not in this case. Sometimes closure means making the best economic decision in the long-term. Which was the case in this situation.

What if we lose the appeal? Or the one after that? Or the one after that? Sometimes closure is a good thing.

That's the interesting point. Better to take a little less now than let the thing drag out on and on and on hoping you might get a better resolution in court. Private individuals and decisions make that choice all the time. Why shouldn't the Government....

I did yesterday...4:47 pm. Here's your quote. There is support for the comments from a Greenpeace representative. It is fair to say Greenpeace is from the left, isn't it?