Progressive Tory

So far as the whole honesty thing, the 'In and Out Scandal' amoung others, has shown that this new Conservative Party can play with the best of them. Bringing on board so many members of the corrupt Mike Harris Government was not a smart thing to do, because the Evangelical wing of the party is being painted with the same brush. Do you have any thoughts as to who the RR would support as leader? I saw a website suggesting John Baird, but I don't see that happening. It's not his being gay that would be a problem, but his strong support of equal marriage. He's also kind of a buffoon, so would be easy to parody and his experience in Ontario was abysmal. I can't think of anyone else who would make a good leader, that would be able to appeal to all Conservatives. I like Rhona Ambrose but I don't think she's a leader. Any thoughts?

Yes, but would you wait two years for that car and not expect some form of immediate compensation? A lot can happen in two years and at least a partial penalty would send the message that you're serious about their fulfilling their contractual obligations. Right now we just look gullible.

I think the Conservative party is in serious trouble. Their roots are still Reform/Alliance and those MPs who entered politics to promote a social conservative agenda, must be getting very frustrated. They've waited three years now for Harper to deliver. How much longer can they sit on their hands waiting for the elusive majority? This recent crisis has shown their leader's vulnerability. He has been credited with uniting the Right and the Left, but if the Coalition remains strong, or enter the next election united in some form of co-operation; the Conservatives will not win. Canadians just don't like Stephen Harper. That is a fact, not my own bias. How many times can he re-invent himself? I may not agree with the Religous Right, but their candidates were elected; not in spite of their views, but because of them. In a democracy, they have every right to be there, and the views of their constituents have to be their priority. Personally, I don't believe that religion and politics should mix, but it is what it is. However, once again their voices have been silenced, and not by the opposition. How do they justify this to their supporters who were promised social change? A while back, I saw a notice in our local paper that there was a meeting planned for all those interested in bringing back the old Reform Party. I don't know if they had any luck, but there are obviously many people disappointed with the results of the present government, and again not just the opposition. Stephen Harper must be replaced, but with whom? My own personal choice would be Jim Prentice, but I don't think his views mesh with the RR. He would however, hold more appeal to mainstream Canadians.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Harper+stiff+...4050/story.html "In the face of dissension within the party, Stephen Harper's Conservative government is reiterating its commitment to not reopen the debate on abortion." Guess that's that.

You hit the nail on the head Capricorn. Corporations should only get tax breaks if they hire Canadians and do not send work overseas. We need Canadian jobs to pay Canadian income taxes and buy goods that generate GST revenue.

Just let the average Canadian try to get out of fitness club or cellphone contract. They don't care if your legs fall off and you can't go to the gym. You pay in full plus interest.

I'd like an answer to that as well. There are married couples and families on welfare. In fact, in Ontario, single people receive only the very basic benefit. Not even enough to get you off the streets. Do poor people have no family values?

You're right, or at least demand a portion. Otherwise, what's to prevent them from trying to screw us again?

Yes. I think someone else said that if you could afford to buy big ticket items, you probably don't need a tax break. However, car sales are down drastically, and big ticket items are now small ticket items. I see on the Conservative website they are now accusing Mr. Ignatieff of wanting to raise the GST. I don't know whether he said it or not, but who cares? It should be a non-issue. Raise the GST and lower the income tax. That's more prudent, because we can't buy anything if you take all our money.

But Confucius says: "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." We need to share the wealth, then everyone's happy. Did I just say that? Maybe I am a Socialist.

Just a while back there was one political party that went public with some pretty severe name calling. They accused an entire province of being 'Separatists' and un-Canadian and the 2,516,935 Canadians who voted NDP were 'Socialists' and 'undemocratic'. I have an email from one of their MPs who called Gilles Duceppe 'a Citizen of France.' Hmmm. However, despite the fact that I voted Conservative most of my life, but am a Red Tory, I've been called a 'Leftie' so many times I'm thinking of taking up baseball. I'm voting for Michael Ignatieff because he is not a 'socialist' but is more in the centre, which is where I currently stand. Also, I found out that CPC is actually the official acronym for the Communist Party of Canada. The new Reform/Alliance/Conservatives simply use CP. I made that mistake a lot until someone corrected me so I looked it up.

The cut to the GST did absolutely nothing. I need to repeat that. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the average Canadian. I don't know a single person who chose to buy something because they would save 2% It was a gimick and it's now backfiring on a government that spends like Sarah Palin on crack. When you reduce your income you must reduce your spending. It's that's simple.

I agree. I'm in a lot of ever lasting pain. I'd be willing to assume the woes of the rich for awhile. My portfolio is protected by poverty.

When it comes to the Conservatives and how they conduct business, I'm no longer shocked by anything. They used to be fiscally responsible but the new face of the party is anything but. Hypocrites.

"Back to the topic, I support the end of women murdering their children." I don't even know how to respond to that. I want to ask "are you insane?" Though I'm sure you're not, just misguided. Abortion is a complex issue but for a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy is not as easy a decision as pro-lifers think. Often, it is the father who pressures her because he doesn't want the responsibility. Sometimes a young girl whose parents are firm believers in NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE, is afraid to face their wrath. Maybe they're not ready. Whatever the reason, ultimately it is HER body, HER choice. The church's only role in this is education. If you claim to live with 'traditional family values' (whatever they are), then make sure that while you denounce abortion you also let your children know that if they hmmm..accidentally have sex before marriage that you will be there and not judge. Don't take away your daughters' right to choose by making abortion her ONLY option. But for the record. MPs on the abortion issue: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/list-antich...-mps-nov08.html The article: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...871276-sun.html

"God loves us all equally all right but will only reward those that live as He has prescribed." So how to you feel about war given the whole 'Thou Shalt not Kill' thing? Are all soldiers going to hell?

Religion has no place in politics. I heard a great quote, can't remember where but it was directed at a Republican. "Sir, you put you hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible". The Religous Right is wrong, wrong, wrong. They cherry pick the bible to fit their beliefs and expect everyone else to go along.

From the Vancouver Sun under the headline: "Taxes cost Canadians more than homes do Ottawa collected 3.3 per cent more in income taxes than in 2006" http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/activit...5145/story.html "Despite the tax-cut boasts of governments, Canadian families paid six per cent more on average in personal income taxes last year, which remained the single largest expense for families, even ahead of keeping a roof over their heads." My husband's salary was about the same but our rebate was almost $ 600.00 less. We certainly didn't save $ 600.00 in GST. What happened?

What about the Cadman affair? Bribing a dying man with a life insurance policy. That's pretty scandalous.

We're not asking the rich to bail us out. However, they are rich because of the Capitalist System or by inheriting from someone else who got rich because of the Capitalist System. If there is no spending power Capitalism is in trouble which threatens future wealth. I believe the initial thread was about hoarding. If the benafactors of the system simply hold on to what they've got, how long before thay have to start dipping into it? Why not instead spend a little to keep the system going and ensure future wealth? The poor sure can't do it. Just a thought.

I recently saw Art Laffer on Bill Maher and he claimed that he never said that lowering taxes would stimulate the economy. Huh? Who am I to argue? That is certainly what fans of the Laffer Curve thought. If the link works it's an interview with ecomomists Peter Schiff and Arthur Laffer, and the infamous bet. http://angloaustria.blogspot.com/2008/12/p...hur-laffer.html The fact is that Global economics have become a very complex issue so no single theory can dictate. We need a little John Keynes because borrowing for infastructure to create jobs is a good thing. We also need to protect good union jobs, but have to be careful about bailouts, making sure that they benefit the workers and not the execs. The cut to the GST was nothing more than a gimick. Art Laffer did say that the only way tax cuts work is if government spending is reduced. However, this governemnt has spent more money than any other, and now we're in trouble. Stephen Harper calls himself an economist and follower of Arthur Laffer/Ronald Regan; but while he graduated from University with an economic degree; he has never actually WORKED as an economist. Other than an entry level position at Esso and running the neo-Conservative National Citizens' Coalition; he has no real experience in the private sector. However, what concerns me the most was Flaherty's economic update which showed a roughly 800 million dollar surplus (down from the 13 billion they inherited). But when you read down the list this surplus included the sale of 12 billion dollars in Canadian assets (in a buyer's market). Does this mean we already have an 11 billion dollar deficit? Sorry if I don't trust Flaherty but this kind of creative bookkeeping was typical of the Mike Harris gov't.

Oh, Mr. Canada....we need to talk. "I enjoy how the left uses Christianity when it suits them but bashes it when it doesn't. You don't get to use my religion as a shield sorry. You made that decision when you became an secular socialist atheist. What else do you have?" This is exactly why we need to separate Church and State. Doctrine has no place in politics when the population is so diverse. I can never have a conversation with anyone from the extreme Right without eventually being referred to as a Godless Socialist, or something similar. What the heck? Who is really using their religion as a shield? The thread was about a Tory Aide attempting to prohibit the attendance of a school Hanukah celebration by the Liberal leader. It shouldn't really matter whether it was a Jewish, Muslim, Christian, etc. event. You can't use intimidation for political gain. "Well you're obviously conceding that Jesus Christ was a real person who was alive at a point in history. Good for you, seriously. More socialists need to come to this realization." Few so-called socialists would argue this point. There is a lot of historical proof that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was put to death for his beliefs. There is none however, that he was the son of God. Only Faith in that belief validates the claim. You have that Faith shared by billions. I support it when your religion inspires you to do good, but you lose that support when it encourages hatred or arrogance, because it means that you've completely missed the point. I was raised Catholic but the new Religous Right movement has caused me to question my faith. You might say I'm in transition. You do have one thing right though, Mr. Canada. "How fun would it be if everyone agreed all the time? No new ideas would come about." Just stick to the topic because narrow minded attitudes do nothing to sell your religion.

"I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory." Stephen Harper was so eager to please George Bush that he allowed our troops to enter into combat without weighing the consequences. He and he alone 'accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil'. Canadians were blind sided and only realized what he had done when the casualities increased. The initial invasion was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and we thought we were going after Bin Laden. We don't have the soldiers, equipment or experience to anhilate any army. Like any country that has been invaded, the Resistance is strong and just as patriotic as the French Resistance who helped drive out the Nazis. We have to accept that. Most Canadians have no idea what the hell we're doing there. We can't set a realistic date for withdrawal, but have to resume our Peacekeeper role and let the US and Afghan Governments negotiate peace; or get out. The only winners are the War Profiteers and drug dealers.

"The Con's only raised their profile in Ontario because the Liberal leader was so completely inept that the Red Tories had nowhere else to go." You're absolutely right. I'm a Red Tory and while I'm always hopeful that the new Conservative Party will swing that way, it's still far too right to be an option. I'm voting Liberal because Ignatieff is closer to the centre than the left. I also like that he is extremely intelligent. The Conservatives are trying to spin that to make him seem out of touch with the average Canadian. However, this country is in crisis. Environmental, Democratic and Economic. I want my Prime Minister to be smarter than me. It's not time for hokey. George Bush was hokey and look at the mess he made of things. Mr. Obama and Mr. Ignatieff can meet on the same level. I'm very proud of that.

I agree with the comment that whenever anyone criticizes Harper, it immediately becomes Liberal bias. Stephen Harper is currently under attack by many within his own Party, and the calls for his resignation are becoming louder all the time. The past election was his best chance at winning a Minority. He'd reduced Mr. Dion's credibility, instilled fear over the boogey-man Carbon Tax and presented himself as a strong leader, but his only real accomplishment was to encourage voters to stay home. He can't get the job done and until the Conservatives replace him with someone like Jim Prentice, their dreams of running the country will remain just that.