Moonbox

You're basically saying that past liberal transgressions don't matter because the main offenders are gone now. Yet then you bring up Bernier. Umm....? The Cadman affair was balogna cooked up by the Liberal government. Cadman himself said he wasn't bribed. That's really all there should be to it. The fixed election date is also irrelevant, because Harper had a minority and Dion had indicated he was going to bring the government down at some point anyways. What you're saying is that Harper, knowing that his opponent did not intend to allow him to continue to the fixed election date, should wait for a time of Dion's choosing that would be best for the Liberals for the next election to be held. I think you MIGHT be a little biased if you think anyone reasonable would be expected to do that. He broke no law. Your supposed 'antics' and 'dirty tricks' are nothing but rhetoric and have no relevance to this discussion, as you really provided no explanation. Your declaration of cheating is baseless as well. So far all we have are allegations and the Liberals right now are flinging those in every direction. Until it's determined by third party authorities to be 'proven' that's all they are. What the Liberals, and people like you, fail to do at every turn, is reason out your opinions and actions. You're quite willing to bleat like sheep to your shephard's (the Liberal party and its leaders) tune, but asked to support anything you're saying and most of the time we get little more than angry key-board pounding saying, "I THINK the conservative are crooked" and "Harper is George Bush in disguise."

Personally I don't think he cares either way. I think he was trying to send a message with his suit as in, "You can't just say whatever you want without consequence." Yes, it's politics, but the Liberals should know better than to accuse someone of criminal activity with no evidence. The federal Liberals for the last couple of years have shown (at least in my opinion) to be the biggest bumblers in recent memory. Their leader is incompetent and disliked, the whole party knows it, and the icing on the cake is that in an economic downturn they come up with a carbon tax plan that WILL hurt them in this election.

Quick Greenthumb! Put your tinfoil hat back on! The evil conservatives (and Darth Vader) have satellites watching you right now!!!

Not enough to really make a difference. Our military budget needed increases unless we wanted our soldiers driving Honda Civics rather than APCs.

Does anyone remember in the 1970's how we were supposedly headed towards a new Ice Age? Remember all the scientists who were backing that theory up? I don't have an opinion on whether or not global warming is happening and whether or not it's caused by man. What I do know, however, is that both sides have come up with nothing but highly disputable evidence. Anyone who says, "Global Warming is happening and there can be no doubt about it." is full of shit. Anyone who says the opposite is also full of shit. We don't know yet and we have no proof yet.

I voted against it because I'd prefer not to further centralize Ontario policy on Toronto and the GTA. Anyone with a brain outside of the GTA voted against it, and thankfully nobody in the GTA understood it either.

It's the only good way to do federalism. Without the 'riding' system you end up with up with large urban areas dominating the political scene to the detriment of everwhere else. These other areas end up feeling completely sidelined with all of their issues being ignored while urban areas like the GTA get all of the funding and attention. It's terrible for federalism and places like the prairies would have nothing to do with a Canada under that system.

Personally I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect that they would be allowed. Where do you draw the line on when they should be allowed to participate? I think they've drawn it in the right place.

Again, it's the same old crap people have been trying to scare everyone with for years. Think it through. Canadians don't....want....anything to do with that sort of crap. We live in a democracy. If Harper were to mess with Iran, abortion laws, gay rights or anything of the sort he'd be left with a constituency calling for his head. He's able to see the issue through from point A to point B. If he WERE to try and pass that sort of legislation in majority, he and his party would never be re-elected. Providing his cabinet would go along with it (they wouldn't) and provided the Senate would allow it (they wouldn't) at the very worst he'd pass legislation that would be immediately repealed when his party is defeated at the next election. So what you're basically saying is that Harper is going to commit political suicide and his whole party is going to fall on their swords with him so that he can implement incredibly unpopular policy for maybe 3-4 years and have it all reversed thereafter? He'd accomplish nothing in the end. Please, next time you're going to come up with that sort of balogna, think it through. A---->B. Somehow you're getting the rest of the alphabet mixed in there on your way. Either that or you're just not thinking at all.

I'd have to go along with you on that. I'd bet money on it.

This whole thread is fascinating...in the sense that it's interesting to wait and see what sort of wacky theories/opinions people come up with.

I'm more inclined to notice it about yours. You tried to draw a comparison between Harper and Dief (who only had that they were conservatives in common really) based on the naming of an Icebreaker of all things. We were kindly provided with the rationale for the naming of the ship, even then you tried to make that into a partisan issue. Dancer's reply to you was spot on.

I don't think that's fair to say. Yes, much of the CPC's support comes from the same place as the reform, but much of it comes from the rest of Canada. The CPC is altogether different than the reform in that its policies appeal to all of Canada rather than just the west. As far as I'm concerned, it's as if the reform party never happened.

The Liberals may implode, but it won't be as bad as it was for the post-mulroney right. It will just be a bad couple of years maybe. I don't think they'll win this election, but I think there is enough people in Ontario to keep them alive and relevant in the years to come.

ah good to know. Never even thought of that.

No. I can almost guarantee Harper wouldn't support a mission against Iran. Why? Because he knows that Canadians (almost 100% of them) wouldn't support that either. Regardless of what you think, he's not an idiot. Bringing up an issue like that is just another fear mongering tactic to provoke a negative response. Harper hasn't done anything with gay or abortion rights has he? He says he doesn't really believe in them himself, but he's smart enough to know that the PM should not govern contrary to what Canadians at large want or feel. Try again?

What??? I mean really....WHAT??? Ontario would become Michigan? Toronto would become Detroit?? Why would that thought even occur to you in this thread? I can't even begin to grasp how we went from my quote saying the US is way more right wing than Canada to yours where you talked about the annexation of Ontario. Wow. Now as to Ontario Loyalist, you can compare Canadian parties to whoever you like. The rationale behind these comparisons, however, is weak at BEST. Comparing the Liberals and NDP to communists IS stupid, but I can do it easily by saying that the Liberals and the NDP are just tax and spend socialists who are anti-big business and want to turn the country into a welfare nation. That sort of assertion is JUST as fallacious, ill-informed and weakly supported as 99.9% of the comparisons made between Harper and Bush. The fact of the matter is that all of the parties in Canada are so far removed from either communism or the American right wing that these comparisons are pointless. All they are is stupid rhetoric invented to provoke emotional responses from an ignorant audience. The right says: "NDP and Liberal is like communism. You all know communism is bad. The NDP is therefore BAD." The left says, "CPC is like Republican. You all hate Bush. Harper is like Bush. You should hate Harper." The problem is that when you get right down to the issues and differences between Canadian politics and any of these stupid comparisons, they don't float any better than a boat full of holes.

I'll just take each post one at a time. As for Afghanistan, yes, it IS hard to leave once you've invested time and lives into it. If you invade another country, topple its government and hope to set up a democracy, you can't just leave halfway through the job. If you do leave before things are stable, the insurgency you have been fighting takes over and you end up with a government that's even more hostile and dangerous before. If that happens, then 100 Canadian soldiers, who likely believed they were fighting for a reason, will have died to make things worse in another country. Tell THAT to their families. Again, the Conservatives didn't send the troops there in the first place. The liberals did. The CPC is just looking at the situation from reasoned perspective rather than knee-jerk partisanship like the Liberals would. As for Mulroney deriving support from Quebec and the West: Umm...Okay? I thought the idea was to gather support in important areas so that you can win the election...Saying Harper is similar to Mulroney on that basis is like saying Dion is similar to Paul Martin because they focus on Ontario. Yes, politics are regional. What is your point as pertaining its relevance to this thread? Finally, yes, it was definetly tacky IMO to name that ship the Dief.

They may be angry, but the Income Trust tax structure as it was previously held couldn't really be justified. It was unfair and again, was basically just a loophole for investors to pay less taxes. It was abused by seniors and large corporations alike. Any reversal of the changes to Income Trust laws would be nothing less than a crooked pander to big business and seniors to the detriment of Canada. How do people even really try to justify Income Trusts as they stood? Really? I'd love to hear someone try because I've never actually seen/heard it before. I don't fault anyone for taking advantage of them, but I do fault any government that tried to justify it.

Actually I think we can rule out the NDP. Layton is an idiot. He's so full of hot air and rhetoric it's not even funny. Sure, he talks like your average Joe and makes promises out of his wazoo, but the vast majority of Canadians know he's 100% full of balogna. He can promise whatever he wants knowing he won't form a government...and he does know he won't. Anyways: Conservatives....153 Liberals...............100 Bloc Quebecois....25 NDP................... 30 Green...................0 Total.................308 I think the Bloc is going to slowly peter out and the NDP will take its place in Quebec. I don't predict a conservative majority but I wouldn't be surprised if your prediction is more accurate than mine. I know Dion's blowing it for the Liberals but I still think there are enough people in Ontario who vote Liberal no matter what to ensure they still have an okay showing.

Comparing Canada's CPC to the USA's Republican party is about as out of touch with reality as would be comparing Canada's NDP or Liberals with Chinese Communism. The US is so right wing that even the democrats would be 10x more conservative than Canada's Conservative party. With that being said, only an idiot (Jean Chretien/Pierre Trudea) would make special efforts to antagonize what has been our strongest ally, trading partner and friend for the last 100 years. When 70+% of Canada's exports go to the US, it might be wise to at least stay cordial with them. Trudeau/Chretien, however, found that they could score points with lowest common denominators in Canada by purposely souring relations with the US. What did this do for Canada? Nothing. It didn't impress the rest of the world. It didn't score Canada points anywhere else. All of it was cheap theatrics that impressed the less intelligent and made it harder to do business on our own Continent. Do I think Canada should support Iraq? No, but our Prime Minister should be looking out for Canada, not playing stupid games that get us nowhere and anger our friends.

The income trust crap had to happen. That sort of loophole was pretty crooked in my opinion. You can go on all you want about trust, but the alternatives you'd provide us are not any more trustworthy. How about the Liberals campaigning to the left and then governing from the right all the way through Chretien/Martin?

The Bloc is a separist party. They are irrelevant to this poll. Guys let off on the technicalities.

Too bad that they only account for 50% of Canada's population. The west is the new Quebec now. I live in Ontario and I'm THRILLED about that. The only reason that Ontario is Liberal is because of Toronto and its gigantic ethnic community. When you have a Liberal government that panders to reunifying unqualified immigrant families, it's unsurprising that the places where they almost exclusively settle vote entirely red. Sadly for the Liberals, focusing exclusively on Toronto and Quebec has and will continue to bite them. Quebec doesn't even like them anymore and Ontario outside of the GTA votes mostly conservative. It's music to my ears and I will be singing/skipping to the polls in October.

I think your comparison for Harper to Mulroney is baseless. I would also say that the only reason for your comparison is that they were both right wing and the opposite to whatever left or centre left party you vote for blindly. BTW the Liberals sent Canada to Afghanistan. Once there, it's hard to get out. So what you're really saying then is that the Liberals were sucking up to the USA right? Harper is rejecting new immigrants because they're not white? How about how he is going to be fast tracking foreign students and people with work visas into the country ahead of other immigrant applicants? Why spend money getting unqualified workers jobs when you can get the qualified ones here on a temporary basis to stay for good as permanent residents? I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air.