Fortunata

Harper is very good at throwing out bones. The people think there is meat on that bone but under close scrutiny, no meat ... just optics. You really can fool some people all of the time.

Two thumbs up!

No, obviously you don't get it. My grandmother had heart problems. Within a day she was transported to an Edmonton hospital with specialists and she was treated immediately. My aunt was diagnosed with cancer. She also received treatment right away and is now considered cured. We can and do look after ourselves. I have heard of as many Americans dying in waiting rooms as I have of Canadians dying in wait. You have taken the anomalies and made them out to be the everyday occurrences. Not very honest. But you know this. I have private insurance because I can have it through work at a minimal cost. I have used it once in Italy because I was in Italy at the time of my injury. It's not for queue jumping.

Yes.

An uninformed voter or a "just because" voter can tilt the outcome of an election that may be run on very serious issues. If they have no understanding of those issues, why should they be the potential deciders? People don't vote because they don't see where the differences are between parties, between leaders. People don't vote because they are disgusted by political opportunism. People don't vote because they don't feel their vote will count. Lots of reasons.

Are Americans limited to using facilities just in the US? Why should we be limited to using only Canadian facilities? I have private insurance; I can go to any medical facility anywhere in the world I travel. I could travel just for medical if I wanted - US, France, Italy, Greece. I have a hard time understanding your problem with anyone else having free choices??

The uninformed voter is what is a threat to democracy, not the non-voter. There are many reasons why people don't vote and, I think, laziness is the least of them.

Then, what's your problem - you think your system needs no improvement and we think ours serves our needs but could use tweaking. Are you just disgruntled because we don't see your system working for us?

Too bad for Conservatives that Harper burned that bridge isn't it?

No, it's seen as unCanadian to only want every man for himself. There are quite a number of people here in favour of a parallel system. As far as your system goes, I couldn't care less what you do. Seeing some merits in others' systems, however, seems to be unAmerican to you? Or admitting there might be merits?

No, the opinion that it should be every man for himself is frowned upon as unCanadian. Universality is the sacred cow; how to improve it is the debate. But you knew that didn't you?

Harper shouldn't be taking domestic politics to international forums, as the CPC has more than in just this instance. And if he weren't so quick to hop on the attack wagon at every given opportunity he might not look the fool now. Nice that this has come back to bite him.

I disagree that we do what we have to do - I don't think we even do that anymore. People want to believe that so more won't have to be done. The military needs long term support to rebuild regardless of recessions or politicians.

This government seems to do a lot on a case by case basis, for example - they decide which Canadian they will help in a foreign country. Yet they want blanket decisions on Court cases, not leaving Judges discretion to determine what punishment fits on a case by case basis. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency with these guys.

According to Global National, the experts are saying the way to deal with this deficit is to put the GST back up. What will win with Harper - taking care of the country's best interests (raising the GST) or his political best interests (not raising the GST)?

Exactly right. There should be a committee with an equal number of representatives from each party (not including the Bloc). There then could be a determination of what kind of expertise is lacking in the Senate and appointments made on that basis. The PM could not veto or ignore the Committee's pick and the GG would appoint strictly based on the Committee's choices. You think there is political cynicism and apathy now? It would just be so much worse if Senators were elected. A US Senator said in an interview once that as a Senator she spent one third of her time with Senate duties and two thirds fund raising and working toward the next re-election. Is that really want we want? Do we really need more partisan-ness in government? Keep it simple, keep it honest and keep it non-partisan.

I've asked this question a lot since the coming of Harper, "how low can they go?" It seems there is just no bottom for these guys. And paid for by the kindly generous taxpayers of Canada because we have no better place to put our money.

Harper wasn't very well liked on a national scale when he became leader of the CPC. He's done fairly well. He'd do better if he actually was likeable. That's where Ignatieff may have the edge.

Look, they spent almost ONE BILLION dollars on consultants, for which the services performed are undeclared. But in the update they wanted to cut a comparatively paltry $27 million to exterminate opposition, make sure that women couldn't takes steps to get equal pay and for the public service union couldn't strike (were they going to?). These were games. All games. Instead of putting the the country's needs first they put their own partisan needs first. What did Harper think - he could never get a majority without eliminating his opposition? This is the biggest indicator that Harper is there for Harper and nothing else.

They had an economic update to present too but that didn't stop them from stirring the pot when instead they should have been adding the necessary ingredients. Harper likes games; it's what he's good at. Governing .... meh ... not so much.

A coalition is necessary as a constant reminder to Harper ... we have options if all you want to do is kick sand. That should keep him focused. But if Harper plays nice then it wouldn't be necessary for the House to be brought down to install the coalition.

The amount of money spent is mind boggling but you'll still hear from Conservatives that the Conservatives are the best keepers of the budget. This part of it is particularly interesting: Isn't this something like adscam? Money through an agency for other (or little to no) services rendered? There was little transparency in adscam; there is little transparency here.

Double the spending and what do you get? Conservatives. From a Toronto Star investigation: http://indpress.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/t...-first-2-yrs-2/

#1. Harper. He can't help himself. #2. Flaherty. Wouldn't we love to see the books. #3. Baird. I thought pit bulls were banned in Ontario.

Cannon says: "This, Mr. Speaker, is not a scenario that is easy to explain to our allies and our partners who are striving mightily to achieve economic prosperity through political stability." Whose fault exactly is that? I am still waiting for the CPC to take responsibility for our little crisis here. But no, it seems to be the fault of the Libs, NDP and Bloc because they didn't want to just lean over and take it any more. If Harper resigned (and took Flaherty with him) there is an opportunity to avert this mess. What's the chances of that happening? Harper would rather take Canada down than admit he was wrong and stepped down to make amends.