Keepitsimple

Like I said - be careful what you wish for. This is the first time in the history of Canada - if not the world - that a Government scandal centers around someone who is trying to give $90,000 back to the taxpayers. Duffy and other senators may be sleazy on their expenses but the government got into this whole mess because whether the expenses were legal or not (and ironically, they still may end up to be technically legal) - Harper told Duffy they weren't proper and PAY THEM BACK. Then Wright started to make his fateful decisions. Now - how about those millions that the NDP owe? How about that Liberal senator Mac Harb - whose house that he claimed for expenses wasn't lived in - and was 99.9% owned by female Brunei Ambassador to Canada. Where's the investigative journalism tracking down that juicy tidbit?

.....and you really - seriously - think Trudeau's handlers, the omnipresent Liberal Backroom Boys - will let you "get your democracy back"? The Liberal Party in third place, trying to put on a fresh face of "hope and change" - and yet they have already shown it's penchant for dictatorial autocracy. As I've often said - be careful what you wish for.

....and that's the way it should be - I'd even go with half that requirement as long as the seats were in more than one province.

Exactly. It's also telling that the CBC tried to do the same thing.

I see.....so no matter what, in your eyes, Harper is at fault. If Duffy is found "innocent", yet they paid back the taxpayers money anyway because Harper felt that regardless of the legal technicalities, it wasn't right or proper......Harper is still the bad guy....is that right?

Wrong thread again. Deflection again. We're doing the ba-zillion Trudeau gaffes here.....plenty of other threads to vent your anti-Harper frustrations.

On Guard's usual deflections have wasted more posts - they are best handled in the Duffy thread. This one is about Trudeau gaffes.....has anyone yet figured out what the heck "....grow Canada from the heart out" means? Where's the heart? Toronto? Montreal? Ottawa? Maybe the apologists can shed some light?

I guess he went a little off script again. I'm sure his handlers will be out in force saying "Don't you understand? What he was saying was.....blah, blah, blah".

It's only started - but Day One for Nigel Wright filled in a lot of the blanks - and makes a lot of sense. Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/nigel-wright-informed-mike-duffy-that-nobody-was-going-to-find-his-argument-persuasive-if-he-didnt-pay-back-money

To that vagueness you can add the "make the polluter pay" lie - because common sense says that WE are the ones who end up paying.

If they were as confused as I was about what the plan was - then the poll is meaningless. There was a lot of hoopla about "having a pension where there was no workplace pension". What wasn't said was that the ORPP was in addition to the CPP. I actually thought that somehow, it was directed at part-time and contract workers who for some reason didn't contribute to CPP. Now it's clear - it's Nanny-State gone wild. Forcing people to contribute to the ORPP in addition to CPP.

Kathleen Wynne is bashing Harper over her ORPP - and strongly implying that if Justin Trudeau is elected, she'll get her way. Have a look at what Ontarians think of the ORPP in the G & M comments. Wynne - and the ORPP will be an anchor around Trudeau's neck. Her approval rating is in the dumpster. When you jump in bed with the dog, you're bound to get fleas.

I finally understand what Kathleen Wynne is trying to do......and I personally don't like it. For those companies that do not have a workplace pension, workers and employers will be forced to contribute to the ORPP - in addition to their CPP obligations. To be clear - in Quebec - the QPP is a replacement for the CPP - not an addition to. In Saskatchewan, they have a completely voluntary SPP to supplement their CPP. Today, Wynne announced that the ORPP would be "phased in" - larger companies in year one, medium in year 2 and small businesses last. Is a mandatory ORPP a good idea - forcing employers and employees to contribute in addition to the CPP?

That's fair statement - because it is a big IF. How I see it though is that Harper's opponents have framed the economy as being in the depths of despair - so any sign of a turnaround will be good news for Harper - and of course, Canada......and it would put his opponents ramblings as either truthful - or something less than that. It's all a crapshoot because there are so many moving parts and the reality is that we have little control over many of them. I'm cautiously optimistic that we're on the road to some steady economic growth. It's a crazy time around the world.

Nothing is certain nowadays - in elections or the economy.......even though you seem to be absolutely certain of everything that is emitted from the Waldo exhaust pipe. Good luck with that.

Looks accurate - but a link always helps.......

Another of your deep-thinking one-liners. Careful what you wish for......the economists are predicting good growth going forward as the low Canadian dollar has finally gained some traction on exports. GDP figures come out in September. If they end up being better than the doomsayers have been yapping on about (i.e. Mulcair, Trudeau, et al)......people can rightly question their faux-outrage once again and be inclined to better understand what "steady hands on the tiller" means. So go ahead - keep spouting off about a recession, failed plan, blah, blah. blah.....but it will likely come back to bite you in the backside.

No - actually Harper said we might be about to enter a technical recession because as was posted previously, a real recession is one that is broad - across several sectors when in fact Canada's challenges are almost exclusively in the resource sector - and chiefly oil and gas. And you find that surprising with oil at under $50 per barrel? Have some faith in the country - we're not a one-trick pony. I know you hate the guy - but facts are facts.

Don't care about yesterday - only today and going forward.....leave the old battles behind.

Good luck with that. Kathleen Wynne had Don Drummond create a blueprint to get the province out of debt and moving forward. She threw it in the trash can and has moved on to "accept" advice from Ed Clark - affectionately known as Red Ed. Now Justin's Liberals are looking at Chrystia Freeland and Scott Brison as their economic brains to chair their own version of a think tank. Trudeau's track record makes it clear he'll likely ignore their recommendations and do what he alone thinks is a political winner. So far we've seen "open" nominations, the abortion "my way or the highway" and the expelled Liberal "independent" senators - all heavy-handed Trudeau dictates that elicit "Bozo eruption" comments from his own party. Trust his "think tank" all you like - but can you really trust Trudeau?

Why haven't you said that before....that you agree with a low-tax approach to attract investment? Now we're getting somewhere. Since that automatically negates a vote for the NDP - and you absolutely hate anything Conservative, I guess your hopes rest with the Liberals? Or did I miss something?

I see. So you're saying that Harper isn't really a dictator - as many posters openly cry? That the PMO actually controls Harper and a change in leader won't make a difference. Interesting - haven't heard that one before.

I believe he has already said that if he is asked to form another government, he will be passing the baton to someone else at some point in his mandate - sooner in a minority.

Last I checked - Ontario was part of Canada..........

Go back and read exactly what Trudeau and Mulcair have said - then get back to me. Can't be any clearer than their own words.