scribblet

"We've eliminated corporate funding for political parties and we don't think corporations should get away without paying their share, and this is the problem," he said. I don't see what's wrong with that, heck it actually sounds very NDPish. Maybe the Liberals are so ticked because some of themhave offshore investments that might be considered a Trust Fund - I believe something was said about "At least we don't have to explain our decision to the RCMP" Goodale could have changed this some time ago but caved in to Bay St. making some of them pretty rich in the while they were at it; we should hope Flaherty doesn't do the same, the Liberals are not ahppy with the loss of their favourite tax loophole. IMO the CPC is looking good for cracking down on corporate welfare and offsetting some paper losses by giving goodies to seniors many of whom were extremely supportive of these changes, even those with income trust invefstments. Politically speaking, I see the CPC and the dippers as winners in this, the Libs are beeing seen as catering to their corporate friends even while in opposition . Time will tell

He probably will go down in flames, and rightly so what a scumbag. However, the accuser failed a poly test and it is pretty obvious that the timing of this is suspect.

Well, this Wall St. Journal piece is very skeptical about the report, says the numbers are 'dodgy' http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182 Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off. The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure. The review is also one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change. Mr. Stern sees increasing hurricane damage in the U.S. as a powerful argument for carbon controls. However, hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal. Mr. Stern is also selective, often seeming to cherry-pick statistics to fit an argu

Which is why he's not a 'socon'

Should have waited until Nov. 5th to to do it, you know gunpowder treason and plot

Now its Harper's fault that years of llegal fishing and bottom-trawling in deep waters are depleting the stocks- what's next, blame Harper cos your socks are dirty.

I nearly fell off the chair when I read this from the Red Star... Editorial: Flaherty correct to close loophole Nov. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM But Finance Minister Jim Flaherty nevertheless deserves much credit for doing the right thing by plugging a tax-avoidance loophole that he rightly described as "a very bad thing for Canada." Despite protests from some investors, Flaherty's move is good for Canada because it plugs a major leakage in government tax revenue, levels the playing field for businesses, and removes a perversity in the tax system that actually encouraged companies to underinvest in their own future. -snip- At the same time, he tried to make amends with pensioners who have invested in income trusts by giving them about $1 billion in new tax breaks. Still, disgruntled investors may always charge the Tories broke an election promise. However, it was a vow they should not have made. Income trusts were tax-avoidance schemes that never should have been allowed in the first place. Flaherty deserves praise for acting as quickly as he did.

Bill C-22 passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, despite opposition from the NDP. Looking good !!! To read the Hansard debate: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...784#OOB-1733963

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more. The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense. He's not holding the vote to revisit the issue with the intention of losing it, he's holding it because he agreed to, but most people realize that it won't pass. The big problem here for the Liberals is whether or not to let the MP's have a free vote or expect them to toe the party line. There are a number of Liberals against SSM also.

Not in my 'conservative' circle, but definitely in the left wing circle and the tinfoil hat club.

Glad you see the Liberals as being shameless - but since their actions have proven them to be far superior so far its a non starter.

I believe this bill should be coming forward for voting very soon, havn't heard much on it lately, does anyone know if it is being stalled somewhere? Last I heard was that Egale is opposing it .

Agreed.... and all these threads on the same issue are getting pretty repetitious - obviously the people who hate Harper will never see the forest for trees, or remember that it was Liberal malfeasance in the first place that caused this - but that doesn't count. For some, it wouldn't matter what Harper did, it would never be right under any circumstances. cheers

ROTFLMAO sure whatever, and the Liberals aren't shameless - Read about Goodale & Brison’s complicity in their income trust debacle before and after the election. It’s “Pot Calling Kettle Black” syndrome.

This is what some people said when Mulroney awarded the CF-18 contract to Quebec. They said it took courage to do it. Was it the right decision in the long run? It is interesting to read how some people would prefer that a campaign promise be kept even if it is detrimental to Canada and our economy. Nothing like a hatred of someone such that it blinds them to any sense of reason. Maybe we should have a poll: do you think that a politician should keep his promise even if a situation changes, such that the present situation is harmful to the country and the economy.

I guess I learned more about Harper this week, that is, he obviously has the guts to make a decision based on what they feel very strongly is the right thing to do for Canada, regardless of the political ramifications. That takes courage and integrity.

As I said in another post in I think one of the other threads on the same issue; I would rather see Harper doing what is best for the country, then what is best for the party, they must have known how much heat they would take over this, they don't make these decisions in a vacuum. I can only believe that they (CPC) believes that in the long term the economic gains outweigh the political backlash. Maybe this is all a reality check for the opportunists who rushed out and unwisely stashed too much of their portfolio in one basket. Does anyone have any idea how many individuals actually did gamble heavily on income trusts?

The two most recent one's, i.e. the one's with the "astonishingly" anti-Harper titles were started by the same poster. Who always starts multiple anti-Harper threads. Maybe to combat this we are better off to start more threads with pro-Harper themes... right on !!!!

I don't ever see them going away, no matter what we do (and that includes Iraq) the radicals will be there to regroup and attack. I saw some news coverage a couple of days ago and was surprised at how many of them there where, the Taliban is not going away. They are part of ATHENA, International campaign against terrorism, but Canada is involved in a lot more than actual fighting, they are providing a team of strategic planners to assisting the Afghan. gov't with nation building and reconstruction. They have aProvincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) there until 2009, I don't think that a lot of their reconsturction efforts are given enough press.

I agree. I also agree that there seems to be a proliferation of threads all on the same theme, it's getting kinda getting repetitious and boring, ho hum, same old same old. cheers

I am gainst a fully universal day care program and I'm no social conservative, I'm against it because I don't believe in the Nanny State concept. Harper is an economic conservative, he has always believed in limiting and reducing gov't, reform of Senate etc. He has changed and does seem to be leaving his libertarian tendencies and leaning more a centrist position. I don't think the old Stephen Harper would have ever defended our bankrupt healthcare system,

That is what I'm hearing too, next spring... hope so I'll be away over the winter.

Did the Liberals apologize over their broken promises, particularly the GST and I doubt it will break them in the long run.

I'm not happy that an election promise was broken - hardly a lie as we don't know that they actually intended to tax the trusts when they said that. IMO They are doing what's in the best for Canada, sometimes it hurts in the short term - sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. I don't feel too sorry for individuals to might have put a lot of money into income trusts, after all, any kind of investment in such things is a gamble. If people close to or retired put a large chunk of their portfolio into income trusts I'd say they got some bad advice at best.

There are many sources to check out how the radicals feel about the infidel, quotes and actions etc. The Christian right may have some nut jobs but nothing in comparison to the rise of radical Islam today and the wholesale slaughter of people. I caught the tail end of the John Moore show on CFRB yesterday and wish I had heard it all as he had Dr. Waffa Sultan on, the lady who forcibly speaks out against the radicals. This lady is banned from speaking on any Arab stations and has to be protected because of death threats, so does the Canadian gal, Irshad Manji. John Moore is very definitely left wing, but is very well spoken, I don't always disagree with him, this time he made a lot of sense. Even he said that the radical Islamists are growing and there is no comparison to today's Christians. (words to that effect I don't have a transcript).