scribblet

So far, the Conservative party has shown more faith in democracy than the ruling Kleptokrats. From child care, in which the parents would decide how to spend the money as opposed to state-regulated daycare, to a free vote on same-sex marriage (as opposed to Cabinet being forced to vote one way), the Conservatives are establishing themselves as the more democratic party. The Liberals, by way of contrast, have 1) passed laws restricting democratic expression during this election, 2) centralized power in the office of the prime minister, and 3) moved the decision making on important social issues out of the hands of the people and into the hands of undemocratic appeals courts, while dismissing the instincts of the democratic majority as "oppressive." or, unintelligent. Not a good move to call people who oppose liberal views 'unintelligent' .

You learn something new everyday, and another reason to want a cut in the GST. http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/2005...d-you-know.html GST on Savings - Did YOU Know? I sure didn't! According to Stephen MacPhail, President and C.O.O. of CI Financial, the government is quietly taxing our savings - even though they were originally exempt from GST (for obvious reasons, one would have thought). "Now that the GST has become an election issue, Canadians should be aware of the severe impact of this tax on their financial well-being. Over one-third of adult Canadians own mutual or segregated funds, yet few know of the hidden GST that is taken out of their savings. What is shocking is that the GST is supposed to be a consumption tax, yet is now quietly draining about $750 million annually from Canadians’ nest eggs. When the GST was introduced, financial services were exempted for good reason – savings clearly are not consumption. Though many financial services remain exempt from GST, the savings vehicle used most by average Canadians was specifically targeted by the federal government. In 1997, the government quietly introduced legislation to ensure that GST would apply to mutual funds, segregated funds, wrap accounts and other managed savings products. If the Ontario government harmonizes its sales tax with the GST, then the tax on savings would exceed $1 billion annually. As Canadians save more, the bite taken by the GST will keep growing – and in a way that is hidden from view. By the time many Canadians retire, they will have unknowingly paid tens of thousands of dollars of GST on their savings. How does this make sense when the government’s own figures show that the vast majority of Canadians do not save enough to maximize their RRSP contributions?" (emphasis mine) So Harper needs to remove GST on all savings products at the same time he drops the rate from 7% to 5%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting discussion here: http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/142032.php A new twist to the story that someone in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office called a senior investor at CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, to let him know that an announcement would be made later that day that income trusts would not be taxed. CARP's William Gleberzon, an associate executive director, told CTV news, point blank, that he received a call from a "senior policy advisor", delivering the inside scoop. But now CARP is denying any of it happened. They are trying to blame Warren Kinsella, but as far as I can tell, Kinsella didn't do anything wrong, while CARP seems to be engaged in some serious misquoting of Warren's blog entries.

So therefore the NDP is a radical, communist party? I guess that means we can judge all the parties based on their most extreme followers. Is that a road the CPC believers wants to go down? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did I say that?

And everyday Martin has been selling, no difference.

Havn't seen anything on this posted yet so have a read of Warren Kinsella. Geez, poor old Martha was jailed just for lying about it. http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm There can't be much doubt, now, that Ralph Goodale's office disclosed confidential information - and that, in the hands of unscrupulous investors, millions of dollars could be made with that kind of information before the markets closed on November 23, 2005. And millions were, in fact, made. This says it all: a massive spike in trading activity, hours before Goodale performed his policy flip-flop. The NDP and the Tories are right: Ralph Goodale should call in the police, now, if he really wants to demonstrate that he and his staff did nothing wrong. If he won't, this election just got its first, real scandal.

The most significant difference between the Conservative proposal and the Liberal proposal is that the greater part of the Liberal-proposed funds will be absorbed by administration of the program, whereas the Conservative funds are administered directly, per child, by the parents.

If we agree to to keep the discussion civil, I won't comment in kind about the off-the wall comments from FD. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe in keeping all debate civil and on topic, some thread drift is unadvoidable.

I'd like to see the CPC do an ad similar to the 'hands in the pocket' one about banks, but I imagine it would be a copywright infringement.

Why, yes scriblett, Normie figures if he keeps repeating himself on every thread that he can singlehandedly convince us that Harper is scary. Sort of harping on Harper. All he's managing to do, however, is to start a trend of Normie fatigue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm, I put him on 'ignore' something I wouldn't normally do, because I like diversity, but it just gets tiresome having every thread hijacked.

Isn't Layton a bit out to lunch on this one: Jack Layton Implement a ban on sale and import of all assault and automatic rifles Isn't that allready the law?

Some of the more radical lefies in the NDP are very close to communism, have you ready any of the more radical stuff on rabble? BTW Layton did come up with a good concept, which I believe was a CPC idea, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. If not a by election then they should have to sit as an independant. Jack Layton MPs should not be allowed to change parties without resigning their seats and running in a byelection.

scriblett, Then they should not be able to make promises that they cannot keep. It is similar to a car manufacturer saying, "If you buy one of our cars, I promise that our engineers will develop, and equip your car, with a device that will give you 100,000 km/tank of gas". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Problem there, is no party knows how many seats they will get, I think most voters realize that. The intention is there (well for the most part) to keep promises, but who knows how many seats they will get.

Good link thanks, I think these tactics are going to scare the beejeezus out of most thinking Canadians. Except the criminals of course. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is cute: http://www.robertphillips.ca/index.php?blo...1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 Paul Martin Bans the Conservative Party! December 8th, 2005 While Prime Minister Paul Martin was busy banning just about everything this morning, including hand guns, murder, and winter, he took time out of his busy schedule to announce a ban on the Conservative Party of Canada. "This is part of an overall National Unity Plan, where any dissenting voices will immediately be banned from existence. The Conservative Party Ban is just the first step in the Liberal Party's cleanup of Canadian politics; soon there will be no parties at all, and the Little Red Book will become required reading for our unity!" Martin went further to add that "The only reason Canadians have lost faith in their government is because of the Conservative Party. Without them, they would have never found out about Adscam, the Gun Registry, HRDC, or any of the other scandals and boondoggles of the last 13 years. With the Conservative Party banned, Canadians will once again have full confidence in their Liberal Government!" When asked how his plan would impact democracy, and the freedom of political association, Martin added "This brings me to my fifth policy announcement today; a ban on Democracy!"

Good link thanks, I think these tactics are going to scare the beejeezus out of most thinking Canadians. Except the criminals of course.

Good points, but unless we have a majority government its not likely a lot of these promises can be passed. What I would like to see is accountability, politicians held to account for all their promises. I would also like to see a mandatory public forensic accounting of all government monies, before each election. That way, no one can say they were tricked, or the finances were not what they were lead to believe etc. etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is it lately that almost every thread is turned into a 'gay, SSM, homophobe' or similar commentary, is there some agenda here to hijack every thread and turn it into this one issue?

Indeed. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is reminiscent of the Russian system, you know, take away the kids at an early age, put them into kindergarten gulags, educate and brainwash them. Put them under the tutelage of social engineers paid for and indoctrinated by a government whose lack of scruples was evident by the Adscam and a record of broken promises, is this what we want for our children? Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' Nanny-State approach to day care and gives parent choices and maybe an opportunity to stay home. Next thing you know, the Liberals will ban stay at home moms, heck doesn't the nanny-state know best !! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now we're just getting ridiculous. Comparing government funded daycare to russian gulags is simply assinine. Why not make an accurate comparison. It will become like a mix of our public education and public healthcare systems. Both of which are underfunded and in shambles. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Might be a bit over the top, but its not far off point. Heck isn't it now 'Anti-Canadian' to disagree with aLliberal, isn't it now, 'you can only be Canadian if you have Liberal values' ? Really, they might not be the equivalent to Russian gulags, but it a further step towards more and more state control over everything we do. The Conservative way? A plan to effectively and efficiently solve a problem, while being fair to ALL parents. The Liberal way? The usual inefficiency and ineffectiveness we have witnessed for decades, while indoctrinating your children the way the state wants. Sure sounds to me like the way of the old Soviet Union! What's next, red shirts and salutes! Not to mention that the Liberal plan excludes the families who have chosen to have one parent stay at home to provide adequate care to their children. Not to mention another huge billion dollar Liberal boondoggle.

Indeed. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is reminiscent of the Russian system, you know, take away the kids at an early age, put them into kindergarten gulags, educate and brainwash them. Put them under the tutelage of social engineers paid for and indoctrinated by a government whose lack of scruples was evident by the Adscam and a record of broken promises, is this what we want for our children? Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' Nanny-State approach to day care and gives parent choices and maybe an opportunity to stay home. Next thing you know, the Liberals will ban stay at home moms, heck doesn't the nanny-state know best !!

I thought hand guns were allready banned, is he actually saying he will come into our homes and confiscate all legal hand guns ? I'd also like to know where he gets his statistics from as to the statement that 50% of gun crimes are committed with stolen legal guns. I don't own a hand gun never will, but this smacks of facism and a step towards confiscating long guns owned by hunters et al. The good part of course is raising the minimum mandatory sentencing for gun crimes; a conservative position which the Liberals have always ridiculed the conservatives for having. It seems now they all of a sudden buy into this. And of course we know how inept they Liberals have been at handling the gun registry, so it doesn't bode well for any new gun control legislation. I did think it was inappropriate for Mayor David Miller to be there with PM, an obvious endorsement of the liberals. Would he have been there if Harper had been making the same announcement?

Layton seems to be joining the conservatives, didn't he say something about Standing up for Canada? Good thing he agrees with the CPC

Which MP would you most like to see lose their seat ? Me: Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach

Where do you see the one Green seat? In Cadman's old Surrey riding? BTW: Was that idiot banned? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which one ?

I don't think he knows that at all, IMHO they are trying to keep the libs on the defensive rather than the other way around. I think a liberal win is a greater threat to unity than the CPC, as it could effect both Quebec and Alberta. Another mninority will be a tough one, there's no way the electorate would tolerate another election too soon, they will have to try and work together. Right now, I'm not sure how or what it would take to keep a minority government together. Either way, I'm guessing that unless either one of them comes up with an improvement in their party standings, they will step aside.

Personally I think its too early to place too much emphasis on polls, with such a long campaign who knows what can happen. Even Liberals are not happy with that one. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...5/campaign/&c=1 December 5th, 2005 NEWS STORY By F. Abbas Rana Many Liberal incumbents unhappy about 56-day election campaign Two weeks ago, Liberal incumbents and party strategists clashed over the length of the campaign. Incumbents didn't want a long campaign. Strategists did. Most incumbent Liberals running for re-election, some in the fights of their political lives, are not happy about the Prime Minister's decision to opt for a 56-day campaign, but they say they are soldiering on. and "But the MPs who have to run in the bloody thing are saying the opposite, the shorter the campaign the better it is for the incumbents," said the Grit source, who said most Liberals incumbents would have wanted to go to the polls on Monday, Jan. 2. The Grit said the Liberals believe a shorter campaign would be more advantageous because the opposition in most cases would have to field a new candidate and if you factor in the shorter campaign and the break at Christmas, it makes it tougher for new candidates to make headway. Moreover, a lengthier campaign is more expensive......