Goat Boy©

Not necessarily privatize, but contract it. In BC Translink contracts bus driver service to the Coast Mountain Bus Company, TC/CATSA contracts out screening jobs to various security companies. It's cheaper, you don't get these ridiculous government job expenses, budgets are smaller..........but most of all, their is accountability.

Applause. Should just tell them, put up or shut up. Settle it once and for all. If you don't like it......leave. They won't.

Write a contract; You are required to provide X services to Y areas for Z cash compensation. If you fail, we will bail you out, but you will be penalized. How many public services would go over budget in a scenario such as this? Would get rid of mushroom effect too, all the top level bureaucrats earning 6 figures to do essentially nothing.

Everybody get's paid too much. You think nurses in the states make more than $40/hr? Typical response, "yeah but they....." Wonder why we have partisan politics. It's everybody!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naziism#Religion Hitler did what lots of Religious folk do. Mixed a few together, and made some up to suit himself. Nazism is certainly not atheist though.

Islam is essentially at where Christianity was a few centuries ago. It will mature too. When was the last time you heard about Judaism killing people? Oldest one of the big 3, matured first. They're all still bigoted, intolerant, violent and written in blood, it's just a matter of how much of the text the believers choose to follow.

Faith & Religion are mutually exclusive.

You can apply this argument to the entire government. All of it.

Especially since private sector unions like airline ground handling give up the right to strike.

As far as I know they are well above.

Yeah. Junk mail, flyers & and political propaganda. Why can't the environmentalists go after that? I mean it goes straight from the mailbox to the recycling bin, why bother cutting down the tree in the first place?

LOL. It's my favorite argument from the extremists. Harper controls the party, all of the MP's are just pawns to do his bidding. My old MP, John Cummins held office for 12 of the last 15 years, voting against party wishes a good 75% of the time. Incredible isn't it? Politicians doing their job? I'm not a natural conservative supporter, but folks like that will get my vote. They are certainly better than the current liberals anyhow, and the anti-Harper campaign is always good for a laugh.

Jdobbin - LOL. Just LOL.

Fear mongering. It won't happen. I guess you like to ignore things like the '94 Reform convention when Harper stood out against government intervention on defining marriage? Oh and didn't he vote for the gun registry too? Anything the SCC says can be changed. They've made some seriously bone head moves.

He can't touch this. It's suicide. To say that their's a risk is fear mongering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Harper_attack_ads Pot meet kettle.

Good post. I would replace item 6 with, "Harper goes to church, and prays like the Dickens the liberals have some sense smacked back into them, and possilby come up with a leader that can brush his own teeth without an instruction manual."

You honestly believe this?

He was more than willing to use them to bring down the Martin government.

Can you say extremist slander? What are you, the Star Wars Emperor? Or wait, is that what your accusing Stephan Harper of? Anything is possible in January.

He would be a fool not to play the coalition card? Why, tell me, why would he be a fool to try and make a power play that 60-70% of the country doesn't want? What an NDP thing to do. The idea behind representative democracy is that the MP represents the elector's views. Why would he support this thing that the electors don't want, and is scaring the piss out of his sponsors. He would be a fool to invoke this.

Not they. He.

Pretty typical forum responses coming from him. It's clear that Canadian doctors wish to work elsewhere, and why wouldn't they? What does that say about our system? But never mind reality, just attack the post & poster. (Guyser)

She isn't expected to.

Something of a quagmire, there will be outrage regardless of what she does.

Why would she not allow the "coalition" to form a government? To do otherwise would most certainly be un-democratic. Ignatieff would be a fool to try though. She won't get asked.