Progressive Tory

I submitted this one on December 4: Why Supporters of the Coaliton Should Not Try to Blow up Parliament. These are my top ten reasons why supporters of the Coaltion should not try to pull a Guy Fox and attempt to blow up Parliament: 10. While the economic crisis still looms, remember. Dion or Layton cannot be blamed for the devastating events that will be sure to follow in the coming months. 9. Canadians will not have to be subjected to another snooze fest election campaign that put so many people to sleep, they forgot to vote. 8. The colour of Jack Layton's ties will no longer be the subject of a one hour Special Report. 7. Harper's pitbulls will be put on a leash or I'm going to have them neutered. (In fact I'm going to neuter them myself...with a dull knife...and no anesthetic. I'll just need a very large magnifying glass) 6. The past few days my brain has been subjected to so many funny images, without the use of stimulants. With cries of a 'coup' I envisioned Dion, Layton and Duceppe hiding in the hills trying to figure out what end of the cannon the ball goes in. 'Rebel leaders' - the same three with headbands and oozies. 'Bad boys' brought images of Dion and Layton in black leather, careening down the highway on a 'hog' with Duceppe in the sidecar. Naturally Harper was the highway patrol in a thong standing all but naked, trying to get his pen to write, as the speeding trio are heading right for him. (this one did give me nightmares, not for the impending accident, but Harper in a thong). You can't buy entertainment like that. 5. 'Separatists and Socialists'. Now c'mon. That was funny. I think I'm going to write a song. 4. Harper now knows that he will have to play nice, or we'll take our ball and go home. 3. Before the next election there is a really good chance that Stephen Harper will not be running as anything other than an MP, if he runs at all. Despite the bravado, he let his party down and has brought them to the brink of collapse. If he couldn't get them a majority last time, after his successful assault on Mr. Dion, he never will. 2. We learned the name of our Governor General, though I think I forgot already. 1. We got to hear the word prologue more than we ever did before or WILL EVER WANT TO AGAIN!

He doesn't have to. He forces the elf proletariat to make them under extreme working conditions. He needs to be stopped or it won't be global warming that'll threaten the North Pole; but a Revolution. They've got enough dolls and toy trains to put up a pretty good fight. Ever been hit in the head with a toy train?

Ha ha ha ha ha. I love Arlo Guthrie.

"18 months of TV/airwave ads. The Tories are the masters of PR and spin. Not like the Grits eh who don't bother getting support from their grassroots eh. The Grit cronies pick who they want, grassroots be damned!" You just accused me of spin. I'm getting dizzy. However, it's pretty clear that you don't understand, so I can't help you anymore. Sorry. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

Further to trying not to take myself too seriously, I once made the comment that Comedians must be having a field day with cries of 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'. Though I know they are serious and can be hurtful, I still challenged myself to find some humour. This is one of my reports on the Coalition for our little group, dated December 9, 2008. I've only removed my name: Late Breaking News - The Scandal of the Millenium As the drama in Ottawa has lost momentum, the northern correspondent for Canadian Press has revealed a shocking story that is sure to rock the Democratic world. SANTA CLAUS IS A SOCIALIST! Insiders reveal that Mr. Claus has been giving stuff away. Is this to avoid selling it to stimulate the economy and provide much needed tax dollars? Only Santa knows and he's not talking. However, the elf proletariat had plenty to say. According to one source: "We have been forced to work 364 days a year for centuries, with just one paid holiday every 365th (366th during a leap year). We toil around the clock making nothing but toys, so one fat cat can fly around the world in a day and take all the credit. There are rumours that the reindeer may form a coalition with the elves to oust Santa from power. Fear that the economic crisis will limit the amount of carrots being left them on Christmas eve, they've entered into negotiations with the workers that will guarantee Donner and Blitzen an active role in the new government. "we tried to work with Santa" Donner exclaimed, "but he's too set in his ways to listen to our demands. We are the ones who have to pull the sleigh all the time and feel that he should take his turn." Word is that the toy soldiers are on standby, and will wind into action at the first sign of trouble. Please look for upcoming articles from this roving reporter, including: The Tooth Fairy: Is she really a fairy and what does she do with all those teeth? Follow our hidden cameras as we expose the horrible truth that this vixen is really a terrorist who steals children's chompers while they sleep. We will show you where the counterfeit quarters are made that she leaves under the pillows and the processing plant where tooth enamel is ground for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. and: The Easter Bunny is really a Separatist Our spies buried deep in the rabbit hole have overheard his plans to divide the country while we're all in a chocolate stupor.

I agree. Canadians are definitely warming up to Ignatieff. I have been a card carrying, sign waving, lip smacking supporter of the Coalition since day one, but only as a 'We're watching you" to Harper, to make him act like the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Leader of the Conservative party. I'm changing my view though and now feel that we need Ignatieff to take the reins sooner than later. What's interesting though in reading Adrienne Clarson's book and the Harper/Duceppe/Layton Coaliton in 2004 that threatened to topple the Martin gov't at the throne speech. Martin asked for an election, she said no and sent him back, he tweaked the throne speech and it passed. However, the spirit of non-confidence remained for the rest of Paul Martin's term. But what is interesting are Harper's comments: Oct. 7, 2004: "Harper said the negotiated agreement shows that the Liberals understand they have to consult and compromise with the other parties. "I see it as an indication the government got the message of the first few weeks of Parliament which is: this is a minority Parliament. They can't govern as if they have a majority," he said. "They do have to consult. They do have to modify their agenda, particularly when they see widespread consensus among the other parties." Smart man, that Stephen Harper. Too bad he didn't take his own advice. Maybe 4 years later he wouldn't be in this mess.

"But getting back to Ignatieff, he seems to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants and then gives himself wiggle room to interpret it however he wants." It's called politics and a good politician never gives the media or his opponents enough rope...or at least they shouldn't. I won't get into the semantics of 'broad base' but I know what he meant and I'm not that bright, so the average Canadian will be able to figure it out. But back to Tax Cuts: Why Tax Cuts Just Don't Work "Wealth creation via tax breaks for investors, each claimed, would generate more jobs and more income for more people....But there are good reasons why we should be skeptical of such claims. If results of the past 20 years provide any evidence, it is clear that wealth doesn't "trickle down," and that "free" markets do nothing to redistribute income or help people out of poverty. Just the opposite, in fact." Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said... If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves...." And if you're planning on giving me alternate theories, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is the U.S. economy. Government Study: Tax Cuts Don't Work - "Contrary to the claim that the tax cuts will have huge impacts on the economy, the Treasury study finds that even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy. Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy." And again why Iggy can't give numbers - without knowing what the numbers are: Flaherty’s Fiscal Statement: Credibility Lost and Opportunity Squandered - "No respected economist – on Bay Street or off - places any credibility in Flaherty’s numbers. Patricia Croft, chief economist at RBC Asset management calls them a “mirage” and “smoke and mirrors.” TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond commented that you had to turn them upside down to get a better picture.... The Finance Minister doesn’t even believe his own fiscal statement, telling CBC Radio that he thinks it is probable that the federal government will go into deficit, just two hours after he forecasted five more years of surpluses." Kind of flake, don't you think?

OK. Before I answer I need you to stop...give your head a shake...and listen to what I am saying. Uppp bub bub...I said stop and listen. 1. Not a Bloc led Coalition. However, if you want to deal in truths, it could be said that it will be a Bloc led government either way. The Bloc only supports the Coalition on confidence motions. This means on everything else both sides NEED THE BLOC! That won't change. Harper had better start stocking up on flowers and candy because he's going to have to woo Duceppe like he never has before. 2. How long will it last? Did you read the Coalition document? A year and a half guaranteed. Only a confidence motion can remove them from power and all signed an agreement not to force an election on a confidence vote for 18 Months. 3. A grit Party with no money - Contributions have been on the rise since Iggy took over, and he says that he is prepared for an election - "much better off than people think" 4. Tory war machine - Will have to be mothballed for 18 Months. However, they'll need to use their overflowing cashbox for a leadership convention, because I don't see Harper's pride allowing him to sit on the other side of the room again. He will resign.

"Now, if you think that 95% means "targetted" then I suppose Ignatieff has enough wiggle room to say anything he wants. Ignatieff can target a tax cut at 95% of the population." When this dispute first began it was over 'middle class'. I used the comparisons for that only. Again: 'Workers' 'Less than 50,000.00 a year.' Obama may be planning tax cuts for 95% of Americans, but that has nothing to do with Ignatieff's 'targetted tax cuts' which he says are for the 'most vulnerable Canadians' and 'lower to middle income'. He speaks very clearly for an elitist academic. I never went to Harvard but figured it out right away. You may want a tax cut that the country will wear for decades, I don't. Duceppe hit the nail on the head. If you lose your job you don't pay taxes. How is lowering nothing going to help?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. The best government in the world right now? Thanks for the chuckle. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. the Harper gov't. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again." But I'm nobody's fool: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/549456 http://mikewatkins.ca/2008/10/08/harper-go...ng-deficit-now/ http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/07/15/summer-...nd-out-scandal/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al_gam_mostview http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:gJ4R9V...t=clnk&cd=6

Oh for Heaven's sake. They are already supported with taxpayer's money in the form of tax credits for donations. They are already supported with taxpayer's money in the form of rebates for local election expenses. A buck ninety-five gives the grassroots a chance to help their chosen party by getting out to vote, ensuring that their vote always counts for something. It's called democracy. But as to your closing question. I don't know what you were thinking either.

Indeed it would be glorious considering that recent polls show that Canadians oppose tax cuts, preferring infastructure spending. The time couldn't be better. He'd be wise to hold onto the 143 seats he has now and not risk losing them in another election. Quebec gone. Carbon tax gone. Dion gone. Do you really think he'd want to run an election campaign on lower taxes when Canadians are saying NO to lower taxes that provide no hope for eliminating the deficit once the recession is over. They can say NO at the polls too. Of course, that's assuming the GG will allow another election which would mean at least another 6 weeks of inaction on the economy. The Coalition already has a budget inked and thanks to Harper's speech that you can hear in my signature, she knows she has other options.

I like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Also enjoy Mercer, 22 Minutes and Air Farce (I'll miss it). Their parodies often have little truth but enough illusion of the truth, to be understood and laughed at. Literally speaking, the GG is the voice of the Queen - the Queen saved Harper's neck. It was understood and laughed at. We can't take ourselves so seriously.

Hardly hot air. His statements are direct, concise and to the point. We all understand the term 'modest'. He isn't going to give anything away but clearly states that 40 billion dollars is not modest. Again clearly states that broad based tax cuts will only extend the deficit. Harper needs to look at what Canadians are saying. No to tax cuts - yes to infastructure spending. It makes sense. If we're going to borrow on our children's future, we must make sure that our children will at least get to reap the rewards. Roads, bridges, etc. Recent Nanos poll shows that Candians are still pretty luke warm to Harper's handling of the economy. He'd better start listening to the Canadian people. http://www.nupge.ca/files/images/pdf/20090...Tabulations.pdf http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/01/13/the-cas...-city-spending/ http://www.publicvalues.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00257 Sure Ignatieff could huff and puff and wave his hands around, but he didn't get to teach at schools like Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, by being stupid. He chooses his words carefully. This budget is the Conservative's responsibility, and if they can't get it done, then they need to step down. He's not taking the bait. If a 40 billion dollar deficit with broad based tax cuts is presented, it will be voted down.

Where did you get a lie from what I said? He is doing his usual province wide visits. He knows Quebec voters want the Coaltion so is going to continue to endorse it. However, he can't make it look like he has lost power, by agreeing to support all confidence motions. He stays true to the Coalition without allowing Ignatieff too much leverage. He already has him beat by 10 points. Mr. Duceppe is not an idiot, in fact he is a very intelligent man. He knows what he's doing.

But you see if you read the actual statements made by Ignatieff, he is very clever. The National Post tried to 'spin' his position on tax cuts as being a flip-flop; but his position has never changed. He always said 'Targetted tax Cuts' "helping the 'Most Vulnerable' Like Obama, when he refers to middle class he means as stated 'Lower to Middle' incomes'. Obama refers to middle class as 'workers' earning 'Less that 50,000.00 a year'. They are indeed the most vulnerable, because they are the most at risk of losing their jobs, and those job losses in turn affect others at both ends of the scale. Harper supporters will try to say that he is being forced to go into a deficit, and he is currently predicting that it will be 40 billion. However, we were already in a deficit, and to borrow from 'We Are One'. This is what he said. This is what Michael Ignatieff said: "the Liberals would support a "modest" temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what "modest" means." Well played but not what Harper thinks he's being 'forced into': "Ignatieff has warned against the perils of some of the stimulative measures expected in next Tuesday's budget, including broad-based tax cuts and a $40-billion deficit -- a figure projected by officials close to the prime minister." He is neither forcing nor supporting such a massive deficit, and rightfully states that broad base tax cuts will only extend the deficit when the recession is over. Brilliant man. He wins either way. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I honestly believe that those who are passionately opposed to the Coalition are the Coalitions's best campaigners. They just don't get it. I mean they use silly terms like 'The three amigos' - which I thought meant three friends. I hear 'Bloc led Coalition'; 'Three Blind Mice' - no idea what that one means. Bottom line - 2008 - NDP/Liberal Coaltion supported by the Bloc on confidence motions only. This actually takes power away from the Bloc who can suggest but not dictate in regards to things like budgets. What is Duceppe going to tell Quebecers as he makes his cross-province trek? 'I caved'. 63% of people in Quebec want the Coalition, so it would be political suicide for him to try to discredit it. He just has to assert himself so that he doesn't lose his core support. Remember, the latest poll has Ignatieff at 39% and Duceppe at 29% in the province (The Conservative have dropped to 17%). I liked Ignatieff's remarks: "Ignatieff has said the Liberals would support a "modest" temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what "modest" means..... Ignatieff has warned against the perils of some of the stimulative measures expected in next Tuesday's budget, including broad-based tax cuts and a $40-billion deficit -- a figure projected by officials close to the prime minister." This will please Red Tories. And Duceppe: "Duceppe, meanwhile, also cast doubt on the idea of wide-ranging tax cuts. "He's talking about tax cuts like it's a magic recipe," he said of Harper. "We have seen the application of this magic recipe in the last few years with the results looking like an enormous deficit." The Bloc leader said the government must create -- and preserve -- jobs to help the poorest Canadians. "When you don't pay taxes it's hard to pay less (taxes)." These men are playing this very smart.

I don't even know where to begin. I did look in the mirror and am a little bland, I suppose. Other than that, I severly question....well...just about everything you said. 1. I did not ever vote for Chretien. I like him much better now as a statesman. 2. My family was Roman Catholic and Liberal. Trudeau was in power when I came of voting age so supported him initially because of family tradition. 3. Became enthralled with a local female candidate, Flora MacDonald so voted Conservative for for her tenure (16 years, I believe). Also volunteered manning phones, etc. She was amazing. My parents not pleased but supportive. 4. Remained a Tory until they were disbanded. As a Red Tory, the new Party had nothing for me. Voted NDP as next best option. Voted Liberal in 2008, as per strategic voting. My parents are both deceased so I vote with my head, not partisanship or blind faith. 5. Iggy took over - I officially joined the Liberal Party and sent them $ 100.00 from part of a small lottery winfall. First time I ever officially belonged to any political party. 6. Can't remember offhand what other names you called me, but can't believe that there is anyone left on this board who doesn't know about the 2004 Coalition, engineered by Stephen Harper; that clearly included Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. Don't remember a Coalition option on the 2004 ballot either, but if it was good enough for Stephen Harper, it's good enough for me. So I'm not sure how a born-again Liberal at the age of 55, is a hypocrite. In fact I thank Stephen Harper for my re-birth. Now I must go off and say my prayers. 'Dear Iggy. Please forgive Argus as he knows not what he does. And please Iggy, I know you don't like the idea of a Coalition, but if the GG asks you, don't say no. And please Iggy, could you tell me where I left the remote.'

"They told me I had no right to a lawyer, because I was not an American citizen.... This interrogation continued until midnight. I was very, very worried, and asked for a lawyer again and again. They just ignored me. Then they put me in chains, on my wrists and ankles... They asked me to sign a form. They would not let me read it, but I just signed it...' http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/1...e_continues.php http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Indeed he is playing to the crowd. Don't know a single politician who doesn't. That's why they make speeches. Ignatieff is playing his cards very close to the chest, being careful not to engage in combat, where the Tories excel. He is in a very good position right now, but does not have the advantage of Harper and Flaherty, because he, like many Canadians, have no clue what our actual financial picture is. I've read the book "The Joy of Cooking: A guide to Hiding a Deficit" by Jim Flaherty. He dedicates it to Mike Harris, the man who taught him everything he knows. Besides, as Leader of the Opposition, it's not his job to predict deficits. He can only agree or disagree with the current sitting government. I know a party on life support needs good spin doctor, but he's not taking the bait. A brilliant man. If they want to know about deficits ask Stephen Harper. ''I will never allow a deficit...I will not be forced into a deficit.... We will have a 12 billion dollar deficit...we could have a 30 billion dollar deficit.... we may be heading for a depresssion.' Pick any answer. They're all nonsense.

It's called political satire. I rather doubt semantics are a problem. Pooping Puffins are much more regal and better able to invoke national pride. I like Maddow. She's very funny.

The Liberals left them with a 13 billion dollar surplus which they blew DURING GOOD TIMES. They racked up an additonal 20 billion dollars in debt DURING GOOD TIMES. They are also already in at least a 2 1/2 billion dollar deficit based on Flaherty's Nov. economic statement (though experts say it's actually much higher. Just trying to get Harper to make himself clear) RACKED UP DURING GOOD TIMES. How could I possibly trust them to handle our economy DURING BAD TIMES????!!!!!!! You know, I respect the fact that Harper is a self-proclaimed Evangelist, but question why as a man who is supposed to be for good and honour, would bring so many crooks into his government. This is classic Mike Harris. Flaherty learned from the best.

There are holes in both stories. I think what Molly is saying, or at least what I believe is that when there is reasonable doubt, we need to find definitive proof or at least raise less doubt, while still respecting a person basic human rights. Not only the right to a fair trial, but the right not to be beaten into submission. A torture chamber does not make a good wittness.

I find this whole thing a little mind boggling; everyone looking for a spin. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Why would he, and how could he set a dollar amount of an acceptable deficit. "I take a view of the ensemble of this budget. Does it protect the vulnerable? Does it save jobs today? Does it create jobs tomorrow? Those are three things I’m looking for. “I’ve also made it clear that I’m very concerned about the size of the federal deficit that’s projected because I do not want to burden your children and mine with repayment," Ignatieff said. I'd feel much better if we could get Flaherty and Harper to be honest with us about the state of the books. October 7, 2008 - "Canada PM says will not run deficit if re-elected: Canada's minority Conservative government would rule out running a deficit if it is re-elected, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday. "Our position in this election is we're not going to run deficits," Harper told reporters after the Conservative Party platform was released. "I think it would dangerous to sort of fly off in that direction now." October 8, 2008 - "Facing accusations he is running a deficit already, Conservative leader Stephen Harper denies the charge "No. That's absolutely not the case". Yet to date this year the Harper government has racked up more than $20 billion in new public debt, an amount far larger than during any similar time frame or period during the last 8 years. What is Stephen Harper hiding?" We know from Flaherty's brief economic update that the only way we have a surplus at all is with the projected sale of assets. November 20, 2008 (before update) - "The report by Kevin Page, the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, concludes that the federal Conservatives are likely to run budget deficits "in the near term," possibly beginning this year, and that the fault lies as much with Flaherty as it does with the weak economy. The report projects a budget deficit of $3.9 billion in 2009-10. But it adds that, if the economic downturn proves worse than expected, next year's federal deficit could hit $14 billion" This is before the projected stimulus package. Dec. 18, 2008 - "Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government will rack up a deficit of up to $30 billion during the next fiscal year in order to jolt the country's struggling economy back to life. The spending is a stunning policy shift for Harper, who has railed against deficits in the past, and would mark the country's first deficit since 1996" This after telling Peter Mainsbridge that a. "He won't allow a deficit" and b. "I won't be pressured into allowing a deficit." I realize that this doesn't mean that Harper is being wishy-washy. An out and out liar best fits the description. The Liberals, like many economists, are very concerned about the true position of our books, and sometimes I really want the Coalition to take power so that we can see them. This is vital. How can we possibly trust a man who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Our economy is sound... I won't run a deficit... I won't consider bailouts... I won't tax Income Trusts ... let me make myself clear' I wish he would.

Why does everything have to a 'Left' or 'Right' thing with you? Your implication is that anyone who votes Conservative does not believe in basic human rights. I know many in that Party who would dispute that. My friend is an avid Harper supporter, runs our local food bank and firmly believes in Arar and opposes Guantanamo. Nothing left or right here.