Progressive Tory

How do we tell the college students from the drug dealers? Your point is excellent, and the liberal thinker in me wants to bring everyone here. I just feel a little more comfortable knowing that there are some safeguards in place. However, not even Terrorists need to find a way in. Look at Tim McVeigh.

Is Rich Little still alive? I haven't heard from him in ages. He was passing through Kingston years ago, and was stranded somewhere. A passing motorist helped him out not knowing who he was. Mr. Little got his name and address and a few days later a huge colour TV was delivered as a thank you note. That was quite a status symbol in those days, when most of us still had black & white. I thought that was quite nice.

That's OK for a premier to make comments like that, not the Prime Minister. However, in his defense, he wasn't PM then. Ignatieff's remark is that while he is a Liberal, there are times when partisanship has to be set aside. This is one of those times. National unity is also important. We need to find Canadian solutions to Canadian problems; and engage all provinces and territories. I would actually like to see a 30 day ceasefire in Parliament. For one month, all Parties agree not to attack each other, but focus on the business at hand. Do you think they could do it?

You do have a point, only I don't really think this has much to do with social Darwinism or the Divine Right of Kings. I used the glutton analogy more to describe the obscene nature of the act. Harper is dishing out money to his caucus on silver platters, while Canadians are losing their jobs, their homes and I just read that bankrupties are on the rise. How can he justify that to Canadians? But back to the base and animalisitic. It has been said that a man (sexist? Who, me?) will buy a big car to compensate for the size of his.... hmmm .... portfolio. Since the election, Harper has continually claimed that Canadians gave him a stronger mandate, and that rhetoric has been picked up by supporters and mainstream media. However, I've posted the numbers many times. He drove 850,000 votes from the Liberals last election, but kept none of those for himself. In fact, the Cons were also down by 170,000 from 2006. Harper is not a stupid man. He knows what those numbers mean and that only vote splitting gave him more seats. This crowd surrounding him, gives the illusion of a stronger mandate, and sends an 'in your face' to the Opposition. However, this country is in financial turmoil, so the message is having more of an effect on the Canadian people. I've read that complaint on message boards across the country. They don't care if it's more women or chimpanzees. They just don't like paying for such excess. Your economic and social Darwinism comes into play with party subsidies, though. While I don't for even a nano-second believe that he ever had any intention of going through with it; the posturing put him in an elitist position. Our Party can afford to lose 10 million dollars - your's can't. Then we read that although they garnered roughly 1/3 of the popular vote, the Conservatives racked up 400% of political contributions. Another 'in your face' to the Opposition, but a feeling to the public that this is a Party for the wealthy. One political commentator on election night (can't remember his name, though I should); suggested that the low voter turnout could work in favour of the Conservatives, because their supporters were mostly older and richer. Do the unemployed believe that old rich guys care what happens to them?

I read the whole thing (not just the Globe and Mail), and there were many concerns raised, and not just by Ignatieff. First off, it was the conflicting reports. Harper saying no more deficit spending, and Flaherty saying more could come. Which is it? The fact is that I don't think anyone knows for sure what's going to happen. However, with consistently more bad news, we can't be rigid with this at all. Another problem is Flaherty's figures have many people questioning their validity. Econonomists may have conflicting predictions, but most seem to agree that the numbers just don't add up. Flaherty needs to take the advice of the constipated accountant and work it out with a pencil.

We'll take all our comedians back. Then who'll have the last laugh?

Exactly. I like who we are.

You know what? My microwave told me today that the Commies are behind the whole damn thing. LOL. Just kidding. I don't like the idea of a North American dollar. The U.S. dollar is backed by trillions of dollars in debt. We've got natural resources up the wazoo. And what is Mexico contributing? I think we're getting the shaft. Obama is not as eager as Bush/Harper for this to happen, so time will tell. Keep listening to your toaster though. Sometimes our appliances make a lot of sense, though I only let my dog choose my lottery numbers or tell me who to kill.

If Harper was serious about ending the subsidy, the Conservative Party execs would have had him lynched. They already had the money spent. He was bluffing.

I don't think he said that exactly, but your comment did make me chuckle. In a good way. I do remember Harper telling MacLeans' Magazine that he was for 'Alberta First and Canada a Distant second', so at least we were kinda' like a close second here.

That ridiculous cabinet is a bone of contention with me as well. It's like watching a glutton at a buffet with the faces of street urchins pressed to the glass hoping for just a bite. With the economic crisis and people losing their jobs, watching so many mugs trying to get into the camera shot is obscene. An extra $75,000.00 per year plus secretaries, limos, drivers.... I thought he wanted to reduce government spending. Drop off a dozen at least. They have no real function other than reading press releases, anyway, and we just can't afford them. And don't get me started on ethanol.

It's illegal for teens to buy alcohol, but they can buy cocktail shakers. In Ontario you have to be 19 to buy cigarettes but you can buy lighters and ashtrays.

Tommy Chong (Cheech and Chong) got nine months in prison for selling bongs over the internet. Not drugs, just bongs. Apparently it cost 12 million dollars to track him, arrest him, and keep him incarcerated.

And followed with a pack of cigs as a chaser. Cough, cough. This reminds me of a joke. A man was asked if he smoked after sex. He responded: "I don't know, I never looked."

I'm with you. I sign every petition I can find to encourage our government to take their heads out of the sand when it comes to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine do more damage. I don't use it either, but my motto is 'smoke 'em if you've got 'em'. There's a very good documentary called 'The Union', centred on BC's marijuana trade. It covers prohibiton of the drug, and helps to dispel many of the myths associated with pot. It's a must see. If we legalized this and taxed it, it would be a great boon to economy; not to mention the savings from law enforcement who could focus on other like things ... like harder drugs.

Our system is not perfect, but overall I think we're in better shape than many other countries. I also beleive that while our Health Care system may have some problems, it's nice to know that I can go to the doctor's without worrying how I'm going to pay for it. One thing that will help us this time around, is that interest rates are so low. Last recession many people lost their homes because they got caught in mortgage interest rates of as much as 24%. The highest we paid was 15%, but only for a year. We're still in for a rough ride, though.

Exactly. What I can't wrap my head around is that Stephen Harper dropping the lawsuit meant that the Liberals caved, who I suppose would much rather he continue trying to sue them. The tape he was using against them did not help his cause and his own lawyer quit. Yet he's the victor. Ignatieff has been praised in the polls for getting on with it. Canadians don't need more drama, they need action. Ignatieff was spot on with budget compromise: poll "Support for Ignatieff's decision cut across all political parties, with 85 per cent of Liberals, 75 per cent of Bloc supporters, 68 per cent of New Democrats and even 64 per cent of Conservatives saying it was a good idea." Jack Layton needs to look at this carefully, because his own people are in agreement with Iggy. What Harper needs to look at is: Conservative supporters upset with Tory budget "Core supporters of Canada's Conservative party are riled up about the budget handed down by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and some believe he has strayed from his principles, says a former party strategist. Tom Flanagan, a professor and former Conservative campaign manager, said Sunday that these supporters are angry that the prime minister authorized a budget that will see his country plunge into an $85 billion deficit over the next five years." During his election campaign he said that he would never go into a deficit and would never be forced into a deficit.

No matter how you look at it, 129,000 jobs lost in one month is signicant; and more expected. Two local plants just announced that they'd be adding to the woes. 500 in one place and 200 in another. When Harper told us not to worry, he either saw this coming and wasn't about to let us know during an election campaign; or as an economist makes a great shoe salesman. Days ago he said that he wasn't going to let these latest figures take his party offtrack. When were they on track?

The PC/Alliance merger was in 2003. Stephen Harper was head of the new party. Jack Layton was named leader of the NDP the same year. I voted for Kim Campbell and liked Audrey McLaughlin. 2004 election was Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton.

In 2004 (I hated the thought of Paul Martin as PM) and 2006 (Paul Martin had not changed my opinion any). In 2008 I voted strategically, so voted Liberal. I might have also voted NDP a few years ago when Brian Mulroney turned out to be a dud. (The year he won just 2 seats). I think Ed Broadbent may have been leader then. I never voted for Chretien.

Exactly. And what did Harper mean by 'financial considerations?' I guess we'll never know.

The law suit was against the Liberals. Only Harper could drop it. When we are being sued, we don't have the opportunity to simply say, I don't want to do this anymore, unless there's an admission of guilt. Harper's entire case was the suggestion that the tape had been doctored. His own expert said that it wasn't. With no evidence for a defamation suit, he prudently dropped it. The Liberals could have counter sued, but for what? There are more pressing matters. I just wonder about the insurance company who would have been stuck with the million dollar payout. Isn't this insurance fraud?

I am not backing Michael Ignatieff just because he has a Harvard PhD. I am not backing him just because he taught at Ivy League Schools. I am not backing him just because he's an award winning journalist. I am not backing him just because he's an award winning author. I'm backing him because of his life experience and his ability to see Canada's role in the world. He's well travelled but not as a tourist with guide books, but a journalist in war torn countries, looking for the story behind the stories. He speaks of being on a bus with Soviet Jews heading to Israel, terrified and asking him what they should expect. He was able to answer them and reassure them as a man who had been to Israel. In Croatia he ventured to regions off the beaten path, armed with a UN pass, a flak jacket and cans of gasoline because of the fuel embargo. He couldn't wear the flak jacket because the gasoline had tipped over and spilled onto it. He knew if he was shot at, he would burst into flames. And that's just chapter one, of one book. He is not looking to become PM as an opportunist. He'd probably make more money doing what he was doing. I think he sees it as a way of putting all of his education, academic training and life experience into a job where they could be best utilized. He's respected everywhere. It's time Canada gave him a little respect.

Have I been promoted?

I agree. I'm sure that when he is PM he will have a cabinet that includes many women, not because they are women, but because they are best able to fill the position. There will be many considerations. However, if anyone is suggesting that he is discriminating or excluding based on gender, they couldn't be more wrong. He has nothing to prove on that issue. Besides reading his book Blood and Belonging, I have also been reading some of his lectures, initially written for a radio program entitled Rights Revolution, with the help of the Banff Centre for the Arts. He has a very clear understanding of what rights are and what they are not. He supports inclusion, not tokenism and his government will hopefully not be based on conciliatory appointments to try and convince Canadians that he is something he's not.