mtm

I think that Harper would be foolish to not use religious groups to his advantage if they are ready and willing to support him. They command quite a pull over their flock. I don't however think there is much risk in him acting on their ideological standpoints. As long as he maintains the illusion and keeps those groups happy, I would think that is all that counts for him. Unfortunately for the anti-religio's it creates the appearance or fear that he may be working in their interests. It is kind of a balancing act. I consider myself centre-leftish, but I think it would be absolutely nuts to not work religion into your campaign rhetoric as a lot of people vote that way. You need to convince them that you are on the 'moral high ground'. Its the same as the BHP in India or the Republicans in the USA. You need to do what you can to consolidate your base, and Harper is blessed in that he's in the party that Christians tend to lean towards. Progressives/small l liberals would pander to them too if they felt they could. I honestly think that politicians are too savvy, naturally critical, too well educated, and far too motivated by personal goals and machiavellian instincts to be won over by religion. Its just a very powerful tool that can be used when required (see GWB). That is just my opinion of course. I may not agree with Harper's policy or his style of governing, but I'm willing to say he's a very smart man. I wouldn't have said that 18 months ago, but hey, even I have to say, I've been surprised with his moves. He's got good people around him now and he seems to play the game well. Its all about the common man and he's realized it.

I've seen them online. I don't have TV at the moment, so I can't verify that they are running, but I wouldn't question it since its been so oft reported. All I can tell you is that they werent on during the leafs/pens game the other night. I heard a story just yesterday on Rogers radio (news 88.9 Saint John) that the negative ads were working, for example. and its not even the content of the ads. They could say anything. I just don't think its appropriate for the government of canada to be running partisan ads attacking other members of the government of canada while the parliament is in session. Thats for an election and it has no place. I don't care what party they are from. It makes a mockery of our democracy. thanks for your insightful rebuttal though. Are you actually going to comment on my point or argue semantics some more?

i see partisan personal attacks are a matter of course here. I've said before, the cons and libs each have some good policies. The party system in Canada really bothers me though. For example, when the income trust thing happened, that was something that the Liberals wanted to do. The cons were dead set against it. In the end, the cons realized the libs were right, and it needed to be done. So they did it. Instead of the libs saying "there, stephie, I told you so". And shaking hands in a spirit of comraderie, the Libs did an about face on it, turning it right around saying "you broke your promise". So I talked to my MP, Paul Zed, a Liberal, and he said, "as the opposition we have to keep the government accountable to its promises". I said "but you guys supported the income trust thing, it was one of the things I supported. Who cares if the tories broke their promise, they ended up doing the right thing!". But their idea of "opposition" is that they have to oppose. When you oppose everything, you lose all credibility. In my opinion, that tory promise, and a lot of others, were promises worth breaking. But in Liberal land, they now see it as their duty to hold the Cons accountable to the promises that they fundamentally disagreed with in the last election?! Is that not TOTALLY backward? Should not they be forwarding their agenda by working with the Conservatives in order to work in the spirit of what the liberal voters wanted in the last election too? Now, getting on topic here, to why this relates to the TV ads. While the Liberals are leading the Opposition by opposing, Harper is trying to govern by opposing. This latest move is a pre-emptive attack on the Liberals, against what they supposedly stand for. But Harper is leading the GOVERNMENT. As such, he should not be performing partisan business on behalf of his party, he should be governing the country. Let the citizens decide if he's doing a good job. To resort to partisan ads tells me that he and the party must not have much to do, and that they are not willing to work to make this minority situation be as productive as it can be. Quite frankly they have not yet realized they won the election, and havent got to the business of governing. Stephen just wants his Majority. What he hasnt realized is that in the meantime, there IS a government, he's running it, and he should do his job, for us. This minority has not been effective, as he has been governing from a position of opposition. The TV ads disgust me, and I am not a Dion supporter. I think its a shame that the NDP have been marginalized as a "socialist" bunch of lefties. Theyve proven they can work with anybody, right or left. They dont care who leads the minority, they can just get to work and try and get the other two to implement some of their ideas and strategies. I wish that Stephie and Stephane would be so accomodating as to try and actually make things work, instead of automatically opposing each other. There are commonalities between all three parties, but due to the system they will never work out anything mutually agreeable.

I think we've established that no matter what is reported, there are still a lot of powerful interests that will refute whatever comes out about global warming/climate change/CO2. It should come as a surprise to no one that there are still detractors. Cigarettes don't cause cancer you know. I smoked one and I don't have cancer. I think its foolish to think that pumping all this junk into the air that wasn't there before and altering the composition of our atmosphere won't have some adverse effect. Its only common sense. But then again, common sense isn't so common.

what about the case of the privileged getting all of the prestigious jobs? While I am not proposing a pure meritocracy, we should have increased scholarship opportunities for students who show obvious potential but have no means to pay for education. For example, what of the brilliant kid next door who could grow up to be a supreme court justice, but since his parents can't afford to send him to university, he lives out his life as a janitor? Should he not have the opportunity to live out his dream? We all know that in Canada, it is possible for this kid, if resourceful enough to rise above his financial detriment. But it also takes much more work for him to overcome these obstacles, while the wealthiest of our citizens are able to walk into law and medical schools across our country and their chequebooks can compensate for their deficiencies. I really don't think we are all that far off, as I agree, a poli-sci or MBA or whatever degree is of little benefit to society as those fields are not defined by training. You can succeed in politics or in business and you don't need a piece of paper to call yourself a businessman. Many degrees are just a piece of paper. But professional training, trades, and hard skills are needed in our country and youth should be encouraged to fill needs in society and to live out their potential in those specialized fields if they show the ability. In NB in particular, we should stop pumping out all these countless BBA's and BA's and such, as they don't contribute much to the labour force. But we desperately need public investment in our post secondary education system. High school just doesn't cut it in this day and age. And while you say not too many people go to university, that is a function of the system more than a reason for not changing it. It is not as accessible as it should be. There is nothing wrong with strategic investment. Also consider that these doctors, lawyers etc will be contributing to our society with their tax bills too, so when you say they provide no benefit, they do provide an indirect benefit and will, arguably, pay more in than paid out. Now, even given I said they should focus investment to required sectors, even if they did pay for all degrees: A lot of jobs (mine included) stated that they needed a univ degree. It wasn't really required, I could tell you, my old job a monkey could do. But they wanted that degree. And since I got that degree, which I paid for myself, I now make a decent wage, and within 5 years I will have paid into CCRA more than I would have paid for tuition. Within another 10, I'll probably be making much more and have paid in over triple what my tuition was. When you factor in what I would have made with just high school, I dont see how you can possibly say it wasn't worth it to the tax base. I've more than made up for your contribution to my education. My degree has allowed me to put more back into government revenues than what the government would have paid for it (if such a program had existed). Perhaps the counterpoint to this would be to get companies to stop having unrealistic employment conditions and requiring qualifications that have nothing to do with the job. Then you will see people not going for the simple arts and business degrees that contribute little, and a focus on skills-based education.

(See the rest at this link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=TopStories) Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but wasn't there once a time when people didn't expect others to pay for everything for them? This is yet another sign of a growing socialist movement in Canada. They expect the taxpayer to pay for their tuition, their childcare, their ATM fees, not to mention all the socialist programs that are already in place. Personally, I find their arrogance frustrating. The world doesn't owe them a favour. What are your thoughts on this? I wouldn't call it old fashioned. I'd call it closed-minded. Seriously, this is my first post on this forum, and I felt complied to respond. In terms of affordable education, you must first realize that in this country, if the student was to pay for their entire education the costs of tuition would be at least $10,000-20,000 per year and that almost every university is at least in part subsidized already, probably the one you went to (if you did). Secondly, investments in education are an investment in the economy as a whole. If education becomes unaffordable we simply would not have enough skilled workers to fill the needs of the workforce and our industries would suffer. I think financial aid for students makes perfect sense, so long as that student is proven to be capable and is getting training that will contribute to the economy (i.e. arts degree thats not so useful and dime a dozen probably shouldnt be gov funded, but a trade, medical, science or other necessary degree should be encouraged). This is especially true where I come from. In New Brunswick we have the 2nd highest tuition rates in the country despite having one of the least prosperous economies, due to economic dominance of a small number of firms, and the continuing exodus of young people. Those young people are not encouraged to stay to gain an education if it is prohibitively expensive to do so, and leave the province for work or education elsewhere. Many will never come back. It would be a very smart investment for the provincial and federal government to encourage NB's youth to stay here. As far as your comment about the "growing socialist movement". Does this worry you? If so, you must not support the tenets of democracy. People are allowed to be 'socialist' if they want to be, its a free society. However, this is not even a socialist policy, it is domestic investment. The returns on investment in our own citizens is surely going to see much more returns in Canada than our 'investments' in Afghanistan, for example. All governments engage in investment in the economy, that is what they are there to do. There are two ways of doing this, investing in industries or the people themselves, either by tax breaks, subsidies or social programs. It is not "socialistic" to want to put money into the economy any more than it would "socialist" to give subsidies directly to the companies themselves. Its these kinds of labels that point out just how rigid people are in their thinking. There are good "socialist" policies, and there are good "fiscal conservative" policies. A good idea doesn't have to have a label. A good idea is just a good idea. Open up your mind and throw away labels. P.S. I'm curious at how you think getting rid of ATM fees is a "socialist" plot? Presumably just because it is an NDP idea, no doubt. If the income-trust killing Conservatives had have come up with it, you'd think it was brilliant, perhaps? Once again, there is nothing socialistic about this policy, as the banks are making record profits off of unfair charges. They are making money off of your money, and my money, by investing it every day, and yet on top of this, they are charging us to get access to it, simply because we are using another bank's system. The interac system is all one, and the banks are essentially colluding to skim funds off each others customers and this has to be stopped. I should not be punished because my bank doesn't have a machine where I am located and I am forced to go to another banks machine that has the same system and technology and they are incurring no real costs. (Proven by the fact that you can use interac swipe the stripe at any retail location and not be charged service fees, regardless of which bank they get the machines from). I find it interesting that you call the proponents of these policies (tuition and bank fees) 'socialists' who want something for nothing, however you could quite easily point the argument back to the corporate interests such as the banks who want the same. They want their interest on student loans, and they want their bank fees on you and I. Is that not something for nothing? Maybe the banks are just socialists in groups. Greed is the same on either side. Its a human trait. The only difference a 'socialist' and a 'capitalist' is in which group believe gets to have the money. Unfortunately, you are 'old fashioned' or, as another definition, blinded by labels that really don't mean anything.