Moonbox

Could be a lot of things.

Depends on what the money was actually spent on. I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Yeah the CPC is the old Reform. It's not like the PC party swallowed up the reform, it was the other way around.

Probably explains why you're so keen on provincial welfare spending....

Our principles?

This is a bunch of people choosing to live in back-asswards communities out in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure if people need to get out of town the occasional bus could come grab them, but sending a giant bus regularly to go pick up a handful of people is nothing but a waste of money unless there is enoug people to pay for them. Go drive up there yourself to get them if you feel so strongly about them. They NEED you.

No comment, no comment - YES. Now work on your critical/objective thinking. There are a myriad of problems with pulling out immediately from Afghanistan. You can chew on that by yourself though because that gets us way off topic.

A lot of smart people appreciated his no-bullshit approach to things. I'd vote for him again and so would a lot of people.

Now work on your punctuation and the people here might actually read your posts. As it stands, your posts are painful to read and for every word a normal person would post you string it out into 5.

Yes, his successor, who happened to be a dried-up old man who disagreed with many of Harris and Flaherty's policies. Ernie Eves was a gaff machine and things like Walkerton, the 2003 blackout and the idiotic decision to announce a budget at the corportate headquarters of Magna instead of in the legislature all blew up in his face. Dalton McGuinty ran against a political buffoon in 2003 and in the 2007 election, polls indicated he'd lose until the genius PC leader John Tory decided to introduce the mind-boggling proposal of funding faith-based schools. You can imagine what the prospects of Jewish-only, Hindu-only and Muslim-only schools did for John Tory's chances in the election. It almost seemed he was trying to lose. It's absolutely fascinating, however, to hear how much kids in Manitoba know about our politics here in Ontario.... Let's just see how old Dalton does in the next Ontario election okay?

Oleg look into Ignatieff's history and writings, as well as the history of the LPC in this matter, before you make your decision. Once again, however, you've managed a giant block of text full of useless natterings in which you wrote a lot but said very little.

Yeah...that's why he was re-elected right? Somehow you seem to think that money for government spending comes from thin air. Mike Harris knew better and brought us back from careening public deficits. Mike Harris is hated by people who depend on public spending. It's no surprise that welfare recipients, unemployed students or people in general who barely or never work for a living didn't like him. He was elected and re-elected by millions, however, and I don't think he could care less about what children in Manibota thought about him.

First off, you misquoted and have it that Jdobbin said all of this instead of me. I'm probably one of the last people he'd want to quote. Anyways.... The distinction must be made because we're not rationalizing in a vacuum. Your argument is rational only so long as you ignore the practical consequences of what you are suggesting. You're saying that the ONLY way that even basic dialogue gets established is that Israel evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers and dismantle entire communities at ENORMOUS cost for absolutely no tangible or likely benefit to themselves. This is absolutely false. Negotiations ALWAYS come first before violence and aggression is stopped. The basic and very first step is that both sides agree to talk. There is NOTHING that prevents both sides from talking while 'aggression' is committed. To suggest as much is foolishness, not logic. Okay let's get right back to the principles of 'logic' shall we? The overall goal of the peace process should be the end of aggression and violence correct? You're saying that the peace process and dialogue cannot commence until the conflict is deescalated and the aggression stops right? Follow this thought through and the only conclusion we can make by reading your post is that peace talks and dialogue cannot start until the aggression from both sides has ended, both sides have what they want, and we ultimately have peace. Do you see the problem with that? De-escalation of aggression is the GOAL of peace talks, not the prerequisite. If Israel is going to abandon it's settlements across the make believe 'borders', you have to show them they'd gain something by doing so. Some guarantees of peace and safety might do the trick. If, however, they're still going to have all their neighbours financing, committing and vowing the same violence afterwards AND they're going to have hundreds of thousands of homeless evacuees, logic and a basic understanding of human nature would suggest they shouldn't.

The common sense revolution was exactly that. It was a shift away from spending money that we didn't have. Other than the 407 being sold off I loved Mike Harris. I'd take him any day over McGuinty. He has no idea how to run an economy.

I agree with this 100%. Why should a private company be forced to run unprofitable and impractical routes? I'm with Greyhound on this one.

It's not a rural/city divide. It's a metropolis/everything else divide. It's not the 'plight' of the urban or rural voter that's in question here. The problem a lot of people outside of those three cities have is that an excessive portion of federal/provincial funds go towards big city projects.

The Liberal votes aren't concentrated on urban centres in general. It's just three VERY specific cities that account for close to 25% of Canada's population.

That's all fair, though I do feel that $300 million is a steep cost to develop a budget plan where the election results will likely be the same as last time, or at least another useless minority. To be honest, if Ignatieff would back the f off of the EI issue and promise not to start throwing money around, I'd probably vote for him just to get Harper out of there and show leaders on the right that excessive spending is NEVER okay.

It's because Liberal social programs, or social programs in general, are largely concentrated in large cities. Combine this with the LPC's over-generous immigration policies (family re-unification and refugee claims etc) and the heavy ethnic populations in these cities and you have a perfect stew for pandering.

Nobody has one. You and I both know better. Ignatieff was just recently saying that Harper needed to do MORE to stimulate the economy. I've already judged him on his demands for more and faster stimulus as well as more and easier to access EI. Now he's pulled a complete 180 and thus I'm left with the VERY distinct impression that he's just firing shots out into the dark and waiting to see what the polls say. I think whoever proposes tax increases, before or after the election, will fare VERY poorly moving forward. We've had one year of stimulus spending and our national debt is still VERY manageable. There's no reason to increase taxes and slow growth when simply reversing some of Harper's silly spending increases. I'm no media spin man myself, but I don't think it would be very hard to flay Ignatieff alive if he tried that. I could drown in the quotes and media clips that the CPC could show where he was demanding more stimulus. It wouldn't be hard to make him look like a used car salesman. Hey I don't mind it being an election issue. I'd love to see reduced spending.

The Bloc AND NDP both need to vote against Harper.

This is really my point about your argument. I'll apologize for my use of the words 'fart' and 'prattle' but what you're presenting is an almost philisophical approach that ignores the realities of the situation and the various interests of the affected parties. You're dumbing it down to the point where no distinction is made between various forms of aggression. You're also making the assumption that what YOU and the UN think should be the standards and terms of the conflict are what the Israelis and their enemies are thinking. Clearly this is not the case and thus you have to take a more pragmatic and realistic view to any negotiations and go from there. This is where it seems you really fail in your approach to the conflict. It's almost like you're refusing the concept of negotiations outright and that Israel and its enemies should just automatically accept what you and the UN think is right. Any approach to the peace process MUST be a negotiation. The fundamentals of ANY successful negotiation, be it for peace or for business, is the concept of mutual benefit. Both parties have to feel like they have something to gain in the peace process otherwise nothing is ever going to happen. Universally recognized means nothing if the people in the area don't recognize the borders themselves.

Hey once again we agree at least on what SHOULD be done, just not who's more likely to do it. The way Canada's going to get out of the deficit is by having the economy improve and stimulus stop. Perhaps Harper or the LPC (whoever wins) will need to decrease public spending. I'm alright with that. Either way, Ignatieff saying he'll eliminate the deficit without raising taxes is like saying the sun will set tomorrow. As long as spending doesn't increase, of course you can make the deficit go away. We were running surpluses before the recession even WITH Harper's increased spending. GDP growth will kill the deficit on its own. The main thing we have to consider is who's most likely to NOT increase structural program spending over the upcoming years. On one hand, we have Harper who's admittedly not been able to do this. On the other hand, we have Ignatieff who has declared that we need increased spending on TOP of what Harper's done. It's kind of a pick your poison sort of situation.

Myata I never said one side is blameless. They're both bad. What I find questionable in your argument is the notion that Israelis should make massive, enormously expensive and life-changing concessions/withdrawls as peaceful 'gestures' in the interest merely of appeasement and de-escalation. You cannot demand one side make these sort of concessions when the other side is refusing to offer even talk of peace. The notion that the settlements are 'illegal' is at BEST shakey. Like you, I'm going to try and let this thread die now but I'd be happy to continue on another thread if one shows up.

The election before must have been an anomaly too. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Liberal votes in Ontario are in Toronto. That's practically a province by itself. It's the same in Canada's other 2 big cities. It's not really an anomaly. The 90's and early 2000's were the anomaly because the Liberals enjoyed better than usual fortunes due to an impotent right wing. I'm not saying the Liberals don't get a good chunk of their votes in Ontario. I'm just saying it's not exactly a Liberal stronghold like the West is for the CPC.