Moonbox

I've voted Liberal before. I'd do it again if there was someone I felt would lower spending and keep taxes low. Everything Ignatieff has said thus far indicates otherwise.

The CPC was a divided mess for the last 20 years. It barely even existed. The Liberals have a stranglehold on Toronto but other than that it doesn't have a firm hold on Ontario at all. Northern Ontario is dirt poor and might as well be Manitoba. There are also very few seats up there. Throughout the 90's and up to 2006 maybe. Even so I was taking exception to the earlier poster who said Ontario is a Liberal stronghold. Clearly it isn't considering the last two elections (other than Toronto) and historically the big blue machine has dominated provincially. The CPC candidate in Guelph was a moron and she was competing with a well-liked, well-known and popular lawyer with credentials up the wazoo. That said, it was 32% vs 29% in favor of the Liberals. The NDP and Greens were a DISTANT third and a large part of those votes are generated from a university that boasts like 25% of Guelph's population. Guelph was a red spot in a sea of blue and it was the same around the province. If it weren't for Toronto, the LPC would do terrible in Ontario. It's the same throughout most of the country. Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto is all the Liberals have to hang on to right now, which speaks volumes of how they run their show.

Only Jdobbin and his beloved Liberals can confuse themselves into believing it will be so.

You didn't. Your argument the whole time has been as insubstantial as a fart. You've done nothing but prattle on about how unfairly everyone is to Hamas etc yet you've danced around the very simple fact that they don't want peace, are saying they don't want peace and are offering nothing to the West or Israel. In return you think massive concessions from Israel are both wise and justified.

I like this guy less and less every time he opens his mouth. "We're not spending enough stimulus money fast enough, nor are we giving out EI money easily enough. Mr. Harper hasn't done enough to help Canadians out of the recession. I'm going to make sure EI and stimulus money is made more available, but at the same time I'm going to eliminate the deficit and not raise taxes."

Ontario is largely CPC territory and has been for a long time. Other than Toronto and parts of the GTA, it's like 90% Tory.

Mr. Harper's stances on gay marriage and abortion are pretty obvious examples of this, and some of his MP's are even more wild over these issues. He 'apologized' for funding the gay pride parade because the red necks in Alberta cried about it. Why? Other than bible thumping adherence to a silly and outdated religious doctrine, there's no reason to get bothered about it. When he was elected in 2006 he actually said he was going to try a free vote on the issue of gay marriage. Ignorantly posting dumb questions and demanding proof of things that are out in plain view is a poor excuse for posting. The best part is that overall I support Harper over the other candidates, I'm just not a hack and I actually realize that there are some significant problems with him as a PM.

and that's really the next step. The reason why the CPC doesn't do better in Quebec and Ontario is because it still sticks too close to its bible-thumping western roots. Harper's fiscal management hasn't helped things along too much, but he'd have long ago had a majority if he didn't cling to backward social beliefs.

Neither could the Liberals before them. Remember? Also add into the mix the fact that Ignatieff's main talking points have been that the CPC hasn't been spending stimulus $$ fast enough and that EVERYONE should be entitled to 9 week work years with EI. Only in your own Liberal pole riding world would these be signs of future fiscal restraint...

Strangely enough it's also why they did so poorly in the last two elections

I don't admit anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that it's a pretty flimsy position for Ignatieff to declare Harper's policies since the recession have been poor and wrong for Canada and then, just like Dion, vote for them and support them. It's even more flimsy for him to say AFTER the fact that these were the wrong policies and that great harm has been done, since he voted for them in the first place. What I'm saying is that if Ignatieff had better plans and he thought Harper's policies were going to cause damage, he shouldn't have supported them. That's really the whole point isn't it? The opposition is more concerned, like Ignatieff is right now, with political games than he is with the good governing of Canada. Harper played similar games himself while he was the opposition leader. That doesn't change the fact that it's still games and many will see it as such and be annoyed with it.

The political party you support can change at any moment. When voters feel that a party is playing silly political games at the expense of their wallets and time, they may vote for someone else or note vote altogether. Voter turnout also becomes a problem when the election is too soon. We saw that last year. Unfortunately for the Liberals, voter turnout is generally stronger on the right than it is on the left. No argument there

There's nothing in the DESIGN of the system that implies the opposition parties should quietly stand by while a presiding government self destructs and brings the country down with it.

No, but there's a fine line as to how soon is 'too soon'. There's a HUGE difference between one and two year terms between elections and my thoughts are that Ignatieff will fare badly this fall. Instead of sticking Harper where it hurt (on fiscal management) Ignatieff has instead come up with his own idiotic ideas for spending even more money. He hasn't made a good showing of the official opposition and he hasn't presented himself as a good alternative to fix all the problems he's nailed Harper with. The recession is disappearing. Ignatieff has worried voters with expensive proposals on EI etc and his credibility (which the opposition usually has an advantage with by default) is severely lacking with Canadians.

Yes. It is. It's the job of every elected representative to put forward ideas and suggestions to improve the well-being of Canada.

Great idea Iggy. Stand by meekly while Canadians are upset with the recession and by extension the government, test the waters with several unpopular proposals, wait months and months until the recession lets up and the economy starts to improve and only THEN realize that your golden opportunity is swiftly dissapearing. That's political acumen at its best people.

Please delete

You're probably right.

The Liberals have no policy. It's typical straddle the line type politics. They're trying to please as many people as possible but I think just like with Dion they'll end up pleasing nobody....well except Jdobbin.

Myata like I said on page 78: How can the settlements be 'illegal' when Israel's neighbours themselves are refusing to recognise the borders the settlements are 'apparently' crossing? Are we saying that what the lines a bunch of European bureaucrats ordained on paper more important than the actual borders people in the area acknowledge? You can't refuse the border and then cry foul when the other side crosses it. Either you're ignoring this point when I write it or you're just trying to avoid it. You similarly can't demand Israel make real and tangible concessions based on this locally unrecognized 'legality' when the other side is refusing even to TALK. Talk is cheaper than action and it's idiotic to demand action when the other side is refusing even words. You've got such a twisted and childish view on things here I'm face palming at almost every sentence you write.

Pretty clearly yes. This goes for Jew haters and Muslim haters alike.

You're misquoting and taking them out of context as well as posting completely non-existant texts. You're trying to use it as evidence of their 'immorality'. Only an idiot would take the texts of 2 thousand years ago and pretend that it's an accurate representation of group of people today.

Has it occurred to you that the readings and teachings of 2000 years ago are likely reinterpreted and/or ignored? I don't beat my spouse with a thumb-thick stick, which is what the Bible says I'm allowed to do if she is misbehaving. For you to be here quoting mistranslated/non-existent and or poorly interpreted verses from forever ago as proof somehow that Jews are dangerous/scary people shows just how plainly stupid, ignorant and hateful you really are. I'm not Jewish but in a year of posting on this forums I have not ONCE been as offended as I am reading the vapid and hateful garbage you're posting here.

Your concept of the whole area is so twisted it's not even funny. You're talking about annexation of lands as illegal but first, the territory was taken in a conflict of self-defence, there is no sovereign authority to revert the territory to, and nobody is forcing the Jews to move there nor are they forcing the Arab people there out. The legal 'borders' that we speak of were never recognized by the Arabs in the area and they continue to refuse to recognize them. It's stupid BEYOND my understanding for the Arabs to cry foul over Israeli settlers building homes on the other side of the 'border' that the Arabs refused to recognize in the first place. As far as the 'table' is concerned you're similarly delusioned. You've somehow decided on behalf of the whole area that massive unilateral concessions from the Israeli side are somehow going to end the violence when the other side is CLEARLY stating that it will NOT. In any realistic, intelligent and rational world, a desire to at least TALK is the FOUNDATION of a peace process/negotiation. By refusing to even TALK about peace the other side is making it EXPLICITLY clear that they do not have any intention or desire for peace and thus they are unwilling to act on and commit to peace. Talk is easier than action and if the mere thought of peaceful dialogue revolts the other side, only an idiot would suggest they're ready for it. The absolute BOTTOM LINE on the situation is that Israelis are living in the area and nobody has the ability to remove them. They're not willing to move. If they wanted to they could vastly expand their territory. If Israel's enemies want peace they're going to have to at least accept this very stark reality and show a willingness to talk. Myata you can fuss and cry all you want about the make-believe 'borders' that a bunch of bureaucrats in Europe ordained decades ago and that nobody in the area recognized. The reality, however, is that this is just something convenient Hamas and people like yourself use to justify a commitment of violence made decades ago against Israel. IF IF IF Israel's enemies were to recognize Israel's right to exist if, say, they withdrew from the West Bank and if they were to commit to peace, maybe THEN this would be a worthwhile argument. The notion hasn't even come up, however. It's childish, stupid, and incredibly biased to suggest that Israel should remove hundreds of thousands of Israelis from settlements they freely chose to move to simply on the basis that people like yourself are offended by the notion. Israel has nothing to expect to gain from doing so, unless its enemies were to ACTUALLY enter a meaningful dialogue of peace.

Haha. He's making you look pretty ignorant lictor.