Sully

I was impressed by him too, but its easy to be as good as he was on the debates for many reasons: 1.) He worries about Quebec and only Quebec, he only wants to deal with Quebec issues, while the other leaders have the rest of the country to worry about 2.) He asked the same questions which dealt with Quebec, thats all he has to ask, he does not have to worry about asking questions from consituents in BC ridings 3.) He will never form government 4.) He is riding an even a bigger wave of anti-liberal resentment in Quebec 5.) He is a regional party and does not need to cater his message to anyone outside of Quebec He has an easier agenda to achieve than the others and therefore has an easier time with the debates, not surprisingly he looked focused and was direct.

I am from BC and I am voting conservative. I think some people watch VILand Voices with Moe Sihota (and I mean lets face it, a majority of the people watching that program have to be pro-NDP to follow old Moe the NDPer) and see all the NDP comments and how left leaning people skew the polls on that show. I love watching it because Norman Spector always reminds Moe of his history and how his editorials need to be revised with logic and reason. Most the people I know are not voting NDP.

I do not believe there is an easy answer to address this problem of reducing debt and maintaining programs. Some programs can have their budgets cut, some programs can be cut altogether and others should be maintained and that depends on what programs each one of us cherishes, so there is no way to make everyone happy. But either way future generations will have to pay, its just a question of how much they will have to pay? Yes and those socialist policies of the western world are becoming too expensive and programs are having to be slashed. Well Harper's tax cuts are different from Campbells, no where has he said the tax cuts will pay for themselves like Campbell did. Nor was Campbell sitting on surpluses. There is a similarity tho, both would come into office with a bloated bureaucracy, leaving room for significant cuts in those areas. I don't know why you believe the military to be a pet project, its an important program for Canada. I mean all your answers lie with the NDP, let the military die, significantly increase taxes, implement new social programs we do not need, etc etc. Vote NDP if thats what you want. Here let me look into my crystal ball and tell you!!!!! Who knows, we do peace keeping round the globe and who knows what conflicts will arise, but having OUR OWN equipment to move OUR TROOPS to those areas, is that a bad thing. Well good for the Italians, who knows where they would be made and who would make them. And the timeline over which they would be paid. And the final price tag. Tanks like the ones you propose are not the on the table, they are looking towards APCs (ARMORED PERSONEL CARRIERS). Jets we definitely need upgrade on our CF-18s. Why are you mentioning Joint Strike Fighter, why don't you throw in some B-2 Bombers, F-117 Stealth Fighters, some Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear subs too. The point is the stuff proposed is what we need. As for an increas of 52 percent I do not know what the perfect number is. But definitely an increase. Says You!!!!

In other words, Martin followed the Reform/Alliance playbook on economic policy. If you expect Harper to fix Canada's social programs, you're dreaming. Harper will fix 'em the same way vets fix horses with broken legs: with a bullet to the head. You can draw that comparison all you want. Doesn't mean the outcome would have been the same, as most certainly the directions of the spending cuts would have been different. There are many programs from which to cut from and there would have been a decade to do it in. Debt and deficit reduction are good things, they need to be done, unless you want to unload the burden to future generations BD. Harper is the only guy I believe that is not afraid of reform. NDP and Liberals, like things the way they are, they just want to tax us more for the exact same service levels we are getting now and thats the scariest thing to me. Hybrid carriers , carry personel and helicopters, we will not have to rent boats to get us to the battlefield. Used for transportation purposes. Costs not too sure, but no where near the multi-billion dollar cost of a significantly larger nuclear powered aircraft carrier as PM PM likes to say the Cons will purchase, I mean we would have to get new jets then too. Cause they share most of the same values with me and to me are more believable. Liberals are liars, NDP couldn't run a tour of a telephone booth without raising taxes, Cons are the only possible choice for me. Honestly: why do people expect the NDP to be any better? Because they say so?

CBC right wing, when did that happen!!!!

Paul Martin wiped out the governments operational deficit by slashing transfer payments to the provinces, not a hard thing to do. You can thank old Pauly for contributing big time to our ever increasingly poor health care system. A slash here and there saves a lot of bucks, so all these social program promises are only going to be topped up to the levels they were before old Pauly brought out the ax and made the chops, sad you cannot see that. Haha you would love Pauly to take credit for low unemployment and low mortgage rates eh, if only that were true. You should be thanking the Bank of Canada and first and foremost the U.S. Treasury Board for the low interest rates, not Paul Martin. B of C adopts the decision for the most part of the U.S. treasury board to cut interest rates to the current levels because they have to. Its called perfect capital mobility, the interest rates of our coutries have to be in line with each other, because capital will flow to the other country where people would seek greater returns, but borrowing would be somewhat curtailed. Ahh thats too much information for you. Yes based on GDP and productivity we are falling drastically behind the Americans. Wow must have been some great initiatives that Pauly implemented. Hahahahaha, Could you rifle of some of the world reknown social foundations that we have that the world envies us for? hahahahah Wow you and Paul Martin must have went over the numbers together to discover this 50 Billion Dollar Black Hole, since Pauly won't tell us how he figured that out, maybe you could shed some light on the situation for us? Yes that military crap, some of which Paul Martin is also supporting, yes what a bad idea to better equip our military. What would you like them to use, cap guns, make their own clothing and use their own personal mini vans to get to the battle field. Secondly there is no buying an aircraft carrier, its a hybrid carrier for carrying personnel and helicopters, far cheaper and smaller than an aircraft carrier, hahahahah you buy into Pauls lies too much. Funny how Paul Martin screwed up on the debate on this issue, what a twit. Yes Harper bought the remains of the Berlin Wall and as soon as he becomes PM he will re-erect the wall round Alberta, you are bang on there. Yes you could see during the debate that the Cons and BQ will be best of buds, and the Fedral Libs WOW-E-WOW they have an amazing record of managing our money, bang on again. Beat the fear mongering drum, yes women and gays better look out as Harper has said time and time again that the first thing he will do is pass legislation, most likely under a minority govt. (not sure how this would be accomplished) to outlaw abortion and make homosexuality illegal, wow you found the hidden agenda!!!! Can I ask you a question? Are you Paul Martin? Are you disguising yourself under another name? You better come clean now while you have the chance!!!!

I do not support a national day care system from the point of view that parents are responsible for their children, I believe everyone wants to hand off their responsibilities nowadays. The only way I support this, is if the numbers show that it is beneficial to Canada as a whole to implement such a program. There are too many poor decisions made by people is this society and I for one do not want to be the one flipping the bill for those decisions.

Unfortunately for Layton, Duceppe and the BQ see eye to eye on many issues with the NDP, but with one striking difference, the BQ will solely focus on Quebec's issues. The NDP does not have that luxury, that ability to focus on Quebec issues will for surely favour BQ in regards to Quebec voters. There is no real strong reason for a Quebecer to vote NDP, they could do more by voting for BQ. I mean chances are pretty good BQ will take a significant majority of Quebec seats and outnumber the amount of NDP seats federally. But Maple you have to understand that you are a die hard fan of Layton, which is fine we all throw our support behind the person we want to win. That being said, we all have a tendency to focus on everything perfect our leader says and stuff under the rug all the points we wish we could dismiss. Here is my opinion on the leaders: Martin - Seems refreshed from his little hiatus, not looking like the senior citizen we have come to know over the last few weeks. Unfortunately for him, he spent the whole night defending himself. Cannot see this debate having any significant Liberal movement in Quebec other than down. Duceppe - Looks so high strung or like he has a thyroid problem, no one spat him on the back or his eyes will pop out. Duceppe did the best, but thats not a surprise with it being the French debate. Focused his efforts on Mr. Martin and did an effective job at asking the right questions. He will gain Quebec votes. Harper (the guy who has my vote) - nothing impressive here. Needs someone to light a fire under his ass and wake him up, maybe that will bring forth a lot more passion. Did not expect big things from him in the debate and was not disappointed. Impact on Quebec voters will be a slight, slight improvement for the Cons. Layton - When does Jack not smile, I could tell him I ran over his dog and he would still be smiling. If only we could all smile like that when we have no chance of winning. Well Jack did alright, but did not give any concrete reasons for Quebec to vote for him over BQ. At times Jack does not put forth enough substance in what he says, sounds too much like fluff (Innovation, Green economy, uses too many buzz words). NDP fortunes will rise only a little in Quebec, for the reasons mentioned above.

Thats it, hahahahaha!!! I have proven it, you just won't admit it. You avoid the questions I ask and still make that claim above. Well good luck on your next debate!!!

I have seen takeanumber refer to something called pro-aparteid, does anyone know if he means apartheid SYLLABICATION: a·part·heid PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: -pärtht, -ht KEY NOUN: 1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. 2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation. Takeanumber, I wouldn't go down the road of pretending that you are an English teacher. I mean we all make mistakes here, all of us do......

Who in your riding supports apartheid, please provide links and facts to back up that statement. Would be good to make it public who this apartheid supporting jerk is right!!!!!

Let the wisdom and brilliance shine through. Even for you this comment is stupid. In this case I wonder if people like you Takeanumber, who believe themselves to be the epitome of tolerance, actually realize how intolerant you really are. You champion the rights and freedoms of many causes (gay-rights, abortion, etc.) and that in your own understanding of yourself, you think you are enlightened. You think you are doing a great job, which is fine, I think we all agree with our own viewpoints. But the very things you accuse the conservatives of (i.e. intolerance) is so blantantly obvious in the rhetoric you spout. You lash out at the right all the time, because they are of a different opinion, man just stick to the facts and accept that everyone is not the same, we are all gonna support our beliefs. But lets debate each other with facts and valid opionions.

No, that will not be my ARGUMENT at all. Sad how you jump from the issue of family which I have solely focused on throughout this discussion and make the leap to women not being to be police officers, better stop while you can, you are making yourself look bad!!! Hahaha your arguments are weak, you are flopping all around the issue like a fish out of water. But hey I give ya an A for your effort tho, but sorry a big fat F for content, hahahah I am starting to sound like you a little. Keep up the good work tho, you are making this too easy.

Wow, I sunk your battleship!!! Nah lets not talk the Christian thing, if you never respond with facts and answers to questions I have, there is no point, you are just running in circles. I have explained to you over and over again, women and men are different, that being the case, men and women cannot fill each other roles. Thats commom sense man, ignore it all you want. If in your world men and women are the same, then hey thats great if it works for you.

Where is this happening, where can someone like this get away with it night after night. Where have the cops not got involved with this continual beating. Hey you seem to think I promote gay bashing, I am 100% against it, I could care less if people are gay. You love to use isolated examples of where a gay man gets beaten up and then proclaim that there is this wide spread systematic abuse going on. Wow you are creative I ll admit to that. But one thing I am very curious about is why do you love to bring out your label gun so much against others. I bet a good dream for you is too have double the amount of fingers on each hand, eh!! Just think of all the finger pointing you could do!!!

You are bang on, and by starting off with the word weak I am to assume that you are referring to your subsequent post. Sure you made your point known, but it seems to me to be largely unfounded. If you could provide more facts, then your argument would be strengthened, but in this case your ship is sinking and sinking fast. Why would I trash the way you were raised, I try stick to the subject with as much fact and useful opinion as I can. I am not here to bash anyone personally, but sometimes I can lay sarcasm on nice and thick, especially when some remarks are completely out of line and unfounded. Actually the way you were raised is totally revelant to what you and me are debating. I think a loving father and mother are the best way to raise a child. And you disagree with that point, am I correct? So I asked you if you were raised by your birth parents, and if you were, to imagine that your father never being there and trying to realize all the things that you would miss by his absence, things that your mother cannot compensate for. Thats my point!!! Go back and realize why we are exchanging this back and forth man!!! Ah, ya they do!!!! If your point is that many different families in many different ways can be successful. YES I AGREE. But I do not believe to the degree that a traditional family can!!!!! Bout time you broke out one of the anti-conservatism mantras. No where have I mentioned Christianity in this debate, you brought it into the fold. I am not a Christian, but I love the thought of a traditional family, so what, you make that out to be bad, sad that you are so narrow minded. Women cannot impart masculine lessons to a child like a man can, keep dreaming if you think they can, your ship is sinking, come back with less rhetoric and more facts. Cya in a few!!!!

Actually look to Ireland if you want to see Christians being labelled as terrorists!!! They performed acts of terror and were thus labelled terrorists. Isolated incidents cannot be labelled as terrorists, but in some cases they can be. But if thats the case many more people could be classified as terrorists too, muggers, rapists, etc.

Thats what I waited for, thats your response, thats it. To say the least I am bitterly disappointed, I was expecting something good and worthwhile. Firstly, I am not trying to knit pick but ARGUEMENT IS SPELT A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T. I know I make mistakes too, but you did it a few times so i just thought I would help you out there. Its your belief which you are entitled to, as am I. I think men and women can comprehend each other on many things of course, the world would not function without that being true. But there are still many differences between men and women, and no we cannot replace each other in the family. You can fill one role, not two simultaneously. A MAN IS NOT A WOMAN AND WOMAN IS NOT A MAN. Tell me you agree with that, please!!! Good shot!!, well you covered that side of the spectrum, what is the left guided by, irrationality and emotion. Don't buy that one bit, not all women are equal and nor are men, too many variables come together to make a person. You are painting a broad picture with that view. Since there does exist at least one man who fully comprehends a woman's point of view, counterexample shown. Who is this man? David Rayside, U of Toronto. (and after you're done trying showing that that man doesn't fully understand a woman's point of view and if you pull it off, I have a list of about 25 men who do.) Wow this guy must get all the women. Tell you what lets put together a small group of women, comprised of all different walks of life. They can ask him questions and decide for themselves if this man comprehends all their views. Hahhahaha lets make a little wager on that one!!! And we could do the same for your list of 25 men. Hey BTW are you on that list you sly dog you!!!! Haha retreat, man I am pushing you back, seems like your arguments are crumbling. And also you never answered my questions on how you were brought up. One. Two parents and how you would have been affected otherwise. Hey if thats too personal to answer thats fine, but I think your silence is answering my question!!! Also one last thing if you were raised by two parents, ask your parents if they could have done both the job of father and mother at once? Now that would be something of interest to know now wouldn't it.

Not bad you got some wit !!!! But only if you had some...........!!!!

Wow checkmate, takeanumber!! Once again you just take over debates with the facts, logic and reason, amazing, just amazing!! You got all us cons running for the hills!!!

This argument is just common sense. Do you agree that men and women are different? I would say so, just look at the way men and women would vote on different issues. Men and women generally look at issues from different angles, but not always. That being said a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's viewpoint and vice versa, that makes it impossible to teach both those viewpoints to a child. Therefore when people come from two different viewpoints it establishes a clear distinction between the way the two sides interact. Those actions as a result of different viewpoints would have a clear impact on the development of young child, would you not agree? Having a child raised under a single parent would only expose them to a one set of viewpoints and therefore they would develop a biased opinion, I do not think that is as healthy or as positive as having two healthy viewpoints from which to choose. Let me ask you this were you raised by two parents? If you were, would you be the person you are now if you raised solely by say your mother? Think about all that you would have missed and learned had your father not been there...... If you were raised by just your mother, you may never know how much not having a father has affected you and yes thats not to say you will not turn on to be a productive member of society, cause you were raised by your mother. There is no denying the fact that having a loving and caring mother and father is better than just having a single loving parent, after all we are a product of two people not just one!!!! There is no logical reasoning behind how a woman could replace a man, women and men are equal in the eyes of the law, but we are very different in how we think and that has an effect on the development of a child.

I read it, sounds like a great idea. Be nice to know we do not have two agencies working against each other and rather working with each other.

No where did I backtrack, I pointed out the exceptions to the rule, which I am sure someone would have raised and those are not the issues that are being talked about here. If you like to call that backtracking go ahead, call it what you want. But where are your valid points, prove to me that a woman can replace a man, prove to me that a woman can perform the role of mother and father at the same time, its impossible and you know it people cannot be the two people at once!!! I am waiting to hear it, you are still silent as of yet on this point!!!! I guess we will see on election day how the vote stacks up!!

Hardly a hedge, just beating you to the punch where your defence of your points will focus on the family already being dysfunctional. Nope sorry you would have to prove me wrong on this one with valid points. So go ahead, your relatively shortwinded post makes me think that you have nothing valuable to add to this debate. But provide facts please if you are going to respond. Justifying your position is the whole point of a debate, see in order for someone to understand you have make sure they know how you feel on a particular subject whether it be opinion or fact, wow such a simple point on a forum for debate and you are unaware of that, I guess I gave you way too much credit. Yes you are right BigGunner, I mean I see the polls showing support for the conservatives increasing, hmmmmm shoots your theory all to s!@t........