Alta4ever

Total BS and you know it. You can't eliminate all taxes and conservatives know it. It is a conservative policy though to to move the tax burden of provincial government services back to the those provinces. It is not my responsibility as an Albertan to subsidize Quebecs provincial childcare, or more recently their provincial tax break.

Then you have no argument and are slandering a whole group of individuals.

Only after the outrage created when the then government wanted to subsidize NHL teams to the tune of millions.

I would like to see your list conservative Mp by Conservative Mp, what makes them a liar. I want to see you provide proof an itemized list with each conservative mp's name with the reason and proof to back up the claim that they are either a liar or a hypocrite.

Fiscally conservative policy would have reduced federal taxes to make room for provincial taxes to pay for the costs the federal government (liberal) downloaded on them. But I am assuming that you are ignoring such facts.

They sent them in to combat without the correct equipment. Real nice liberal policy. The liberal party didn't balance the budget Nafta did. They simply continued collecting more taxes of a growing economy, and gutted core services and military spending. They downloaded costs onto the provinces without making tax room for the provinces to pay for these services. Then bribed the havenot provinces with equalization money. Do you remember in the nineties why they were going use some of the money to subsidize NHL teams? Better go ask you high school social studies teacher for another argument.

Barring some monumental shift, you are dreaming. The trends over the last year show it. For someone polling so poorly in the approval polls to lead his party to a victory of 60 more seats is fantasy.

http://www.moral-politics.com/ Good luck, people have written volumes on politics, with such a topic, you could write book.

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050819-Harper-Contributions.pdf on the conservative party website

Isn't funny that while the liberals and the NDP blast harper for giving his Mp's a "vacation" the leaders of these parties are themselves on vacations out of the country while Harper continues to work.

bump

A question why is this such a hot topic yet the forum about liberals not paying off their leadership loans not being discussed....hmmm

I think the paycheck is the most likely motive, for both, but for different reasons.

So o enlightened one, what do those people do on the weekend when they want to visit the family 4 hours away, do they take the bus or drive the car? Have you ever left the city have you seen the world beyond your commute to work?

Just remeber this when posting responses to these types. There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell

Shows how little you know about Alberta politics, Heathers pension is already maxed out and Rob hasn't even sat one term yet so no pension yet to save..... I question their motives but the pension wasn't it. Maybe just a steady pay check

Whats wrong with people having money and why does the amount they have matter to you?

The problem is that loans that go over the the amount of time elections Canada gives you to pay them off, become a donation, and donations can't exceed 1100 in one calender year to the eda, to the candidate, or to the party. That is the problem, what should happen now, is that the Liberal Party should have to pay back the loans out of party money.

I was wondering how long this would take to show up here. The Wildrose is getting into a sticky situation just how many PC's do you let cross the floor.

Whatever floats your boat. Klien once suspended an entire sitting of the legislature. BTW Parliment would not have sat until the last week of January at the earliest anyway so its more like a months break, oops I forgot about the break week in February, so now we are down to about three weeks, and that has been done before, soo now where are you. As for the senate sour grapes, as fpor the genvea bs, those charges would have to be made against the afgan government. If they do find something from 2006 will the liberal ministers that negociated the prisoner transfers be held to account? it was within Harpers right and you would be very much in approval if it was layton or iggy in power instead, this is just more venom from you.

Delusions of grandeur?

Just wonder what you think of a liberal prime ministers doing this one a year, their was and can you guess which one? This is a normality of canadian parliment, we have never screamed and crowed every time parliment was prorogued before, why is now when a Conservative Prime Minister does it is it such a problem? As for the lowest point in politics in this country, I can think of many more points in our parliments history that far surpass this. how about insatuting the war measures actbecause a Cabinate minister is kidnapped, maybe the cancellation of the arrow program, or what about more recently the sponsorship scandel. I doubt this could rank anywhere near the bottom of policits in Canada, I doubt it would even enter the top 100 lowest points in government. We aren't suck with harper, if the Liberals had a little brass maybe they could force an election.

As for the "simple" Bonsia was largely a fight supported by the west in an effort to protect the muslim citzens that were being ethincally cleansed. The war in afgansitan is largely a war against the infidel, not connected in a linar way to past conflicts as you think. Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989/early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda The has been against this group and expanded to those countries that harbour them, most notibly Afganistan. So to the simple this isn't just a result of the wests pasts conflicts.

Afganistan was harbouring those that attacked the US.

Article 5 of the Nato treaty The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. One Question for you how to apply diplomatic pressure on a country that has nothing? That statement is as smart as Curtis Lemay Remarking "we will bomb them into the stone age".