daniel

"Those that forget history are bound to repeat it."

It still resonates to this day. Just as "In and out, not a moment longer." does.

1. Flaherty is positioning himself to take over from John Tory; 2.He's trying to position Ontario the take the blame over the Federal deficit that he's currently hiding (check the last provincial election Flaherty ran); 3. He's turning his back on the Chamber of Commerce

From today's events, it won't be long before we are there.

Heaven help we shouldn't allow educating our children get us into a deficit, that job is reserved for the military.

It doesn't work. I grew up with a (anti)smoking education in school beginning when I was 11 years old. Even before then, I knew I didn't like my Dad or older relatives smoking around and in the car. As I grew up, some people with the same education and environment as me took up smoking anyways - we all knew about cancer and emphysema. But young people think they will live forever. The more you nag, the more they'll smoke. It's not a health thing. It's about rebellion. The only education is consideration. We shouldn't say that smokers don't have the right to smoke, they do. What they don't have is the right to is to impede against the right of others. Smokers have a choice for the quality of air they wish to breathe. Non-smokers don't.

Ha ha, Conservatives potentially hiding a deficit and he's ok with it. So much for accountability.

Remember when the Ontario PCs were campaigning on a balanced budget? Then the Fraser Institute discovered Flaherty actually left a $7billion deficit. Since the Tories have squandered the $20billion surplus they inherited from the Liberals to only a mere $2billion, I wouldn't be surprised if Flaherty is actually hiding a deficit. His blatant use of the term "back to Liberal deficit" he has been using in the past year is trying to shift the Tory deficit as if it were the Liberals creation.

There you have it, UShaditcoming. Straight from the horse's mouth. Now you know you can't take these guys seriously.

$100/mo will help parents to stay at home only if they are already at home. $100/mo doesn't release the stay at home parent from looking for full time work outside the house. $100/mo isn't enough to fully pay for any kind of childcare for a parent working full time outside the house. $100/mo before tax doesn't even come close to subsidizing childcare which can be at $1000/mo. And it doesn't offer a viable option to quit work to stay at home. The Conservatives only promised more childcare space at private institutions - which as we all know, never materialized. And if you're lucky enough to find full time childcare at $100/mo it's probably a kiddy-mill. So what other kind of option could you possibly be thinking of?

What may seem so scandalous to the general population are normal course of events for Conservatives. That's why Harper and his gang can't understand what all the fuss is about.

Hey UShaditcoming: Welcome again. I see in your short time here you've subjected yourself to a feeding frenzy and survived the shark attacks. From the start, you would have already picked up on the leanings of this forum. You probably have already picked up on it but decided to join in the fun anyways. Well, lucky for some of us there was a poll posted in these forums sometime back that gave us an opportunity to gauge the sentiments of the forum against the actual sentiments of the general population. Rest assured, no matter how disturbing it is to read some of those wacky posts and threads, the views stated in this forum are not shared in the general population.

...until that scenerio repeated itself at another time. You think that's the only example there is?Duh And that little example of yours - I wonder how many occassions they had asked before they finally got fed up. Duh Nice comeback. So logical. Duh

I read your argument and my interpretation still applies. I once asked a person in my car to please put out her cigarette. She complied while going on for the next five minutes how considerate she was.

This is one of those Duh laws. If smokers had been more considerate, non smokers wouldn't have been so irritated at them and this law would never have needed to exist.

Plus their squandering of the budget surplus doesn't leave much wiggle room for emergencies and other adjustments - good fiscal management eh? Just as I had stated two years ago, the Conservatives will George-Bush the surplus.

No, in other words, the Conservatives have taken options away. And contrarily, it seems like people who supported the $100/month wanted somebody else to pay their way. Yes, now imagine the context of the last election. While Harper was campaigning on accountability, his own members just a few months earlier had tried to use bribery to bring down another government.

As a parent of two, the Conservative Child Care plan was one of the main reasons I don't vote Conservative. Even though they took away another child care option, replacing it with some pittance of cash isn't enough for me to quit my job to be a stay-at-home parent.

It wouldn't be so bad if the Tories weren't squandering the $14billion surplus down to only $2billion.

It'll just show everybody how the Conservative's carrot-on-a-stick polices are just nothing more than a smoke screen. This new bill will really benefit middle-class parents and the Conservatives are against it. They had $14 billion surplus and they say the RESP bill is too expensive?

Here are some real examples of warm and fuzzy: 1) $1000/yr Child benefit - which is taxable; 2) GST cuts - which amounts to nothing beneficial to the average consumer but reduces Federal revenue; 3) tax incentive for hybrid vehicles - that are so restrictive it can't be used; 4) personal income tax reduction - that actually resulted in personal tax increases; 5) Tax-Free Savings Plan - that amounts almost nothing at the end of the year RESPs benefit middle income families and helps students by relieving them from alot of debt. Here's something that's truly of value to average Canadians and lower income Canadians who can scrape up some money and the Conservatives are against it. Just shows you that Conservatives are against students and middle-class families.

Actually, oppression is a bigger threat.

Then Leafless would have no problem since, thanks to official multiculturalism, most are Canadian.

Of course you do mean to include Mediterranean-whites, Semite-whites, Slavic-whites, Baltic-whites, mixed-whites, honourary-whites as well as all their ancesters.

This is either paranoia or strawman at its extreme.