nicky10013

Uhhh...yeah it can. There's tremendous potential for grotwh in the GTA to those markets. People just don't fly emirates to the UAE, the fly all over Asia.

A question I ask every time you post.

Wow. Conservatives defending Air Canada and protectionism. You guys really do follow King Steve wherever he'll go. Tell me, why shouldn't Air Canada be subject to the market? No, there was a negotiated settlement to be had with the UAE government. However, the Conservatives didn't want one. They wanted to stage political theatre to drum up support because those dastardly Emirates government officials want to milk our boys in uniform for all they're worth, dontcha know! The real fact of the matter is that the government and the UAE have been negotiating for 5 years. LEt me type that again. 5 years. The government has budged on their position 0. That's not a negotiation. They negotiated in bad faith for 5 years and the UAE got pissed. Wouldn't we? I never implied such a thing. I said the fact that this situation (I outlined it above) has come to this, a $1000 visa fee which has been implemented and thus is no threat, is a sign of a major failure.

No, the Germans, French and Koreans are practicing protectionism. Something Stevie boy pretends to hate. He's just hopping on the protectionist band wagon. Is it any coincidence that this decision was made after the government spoke to the head of Air Canada? No, of course not. I'd also like to question how the opposition is stoking emotions? All they did was call the government out on how badly they've handled the situation. Some people may disagree on the scope of how bad this has been bungled, but no matter how bad or not bad you may think it is, a $1000 visa fee tacked onto Canadian citiznes says only one thing: major failure. No, the people stoking emotions here is the government. They've taken a failure and made it seem like a country is blackmailing us when we were too obstinant to deal with them anyhow. Can any conservative poster on here come back with anything that ISN'T essentially reducing the argument to "I know you are but what am I?" A little intelligence goes a long way.

Who says a platform isn't forthcoming? I never said there shouldn't be a platform. Of course voters need to know where the stand on any one issue. What I'm against is having a list of "principles." The bigger the list, the narrower your focus. Some think that's a good thing. Considering the breadth and scope of our nation and it's populous, I think governing within narrow ideological principles is a bad thing. EG. Census. As for elite, you may want to read a dictionary. When elite comes to MY mind, it's the people making into the 6 figures.

Yeah...they're crybabies. God forbid they expect something in return for the use of a vital military asset. To ignore the realities of world dipomacy and expect it for free, and then to whine about blackmail? Puh-lease, the only people that are crybabies are the Canadians who don't understand how the world actually works. Hilarious - Maclean's a previous supporter of Harper has said he should hire Rae as foreign minister due to the way he's handled himself in this spat. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/18/why-harper-should-hire-bob-rae/

Does it matter?

I'd say the biggest principle is that within the definitions of fiscally responsible and socially progressive, few ideas are stupid one. The current LPC is a pragmatic post-ideological party where it will take the best ideas of the day and try to implement them to the betterment of all Canadians. You confine yourelf to a list then you automatically limit where the ideas come from and why would you want to do that? There is no list and that's a good thing. Then again, I fear that's the entire point of this. How can you support a party with no list of their principles? Principles are more than words written on paper. Those can be broken as demonstrated by the list from the CPC. Why not have a general direction and just tailor the best possible platform to that direction? What's so wrong with that?

Does it matter? Why is it that the current government lacks the imagination to impose as strict standards in a way that suits the Canadian economy better?

It was small, but the economy was still expanding and with it revenues.

Nope, how could I? I'm not the one pretending a part of a post doesn't exist to make my point. Makes you wonder why he didn't stay in Canada? Maybe because Harvard and Oxford are the best schools in the world. Wouldn't you want to work at the best place in the world for your career? I mean, you're an immigrant, right? At least that's what you said on another thread. You should understand that more than most. Yet, you're mocking a man for going abroad for a better opportunity despite the fact you DID IT YOURSELF.

I don't think it is different but then again my party isn't the one using anti-Americanism at the moment. I never supported the Liberals doing it under Chretien, especially that windbag Carolyn Parish. I mean, it's one thing to not support what the US government does, but there's a way you deal with your partners even if you disagree. I still don't get it. It seems our entire environmental policy is being drafted in the US but Ignatieff can't be Prime Minister because he lived there for a while? At least he isn't selling out our policy process directly to the US. Saying anything else is absolutely ludicrous. It's the height of hypocrisy.

Do you even know what a recession is?

And yet we still weren't in recession.

A fiscally responsible socially progressive party. The parties espouse the same doctine on the economy but there's only one that's actually backed it up with real action. The main difference is in the social sphere where there are gigantic differences in terms of supporting and not supporting individual rights. Gay rights, abortion rights, drug use, crime, poverty. In every respect it's actually the Liberals that stand for the greater empowerment of individual freedom. But, those aren't on your list you found on the website so I guess this doesn't count. Nevermind the fact that the CPC has had 5 years in government and hasn't lived up to pretty much anything on that list.

Are you being intentionally stupid or are you just naturally a moron?

As for the attack ads, on all sides they don't work. I heard a volley of folks say about how the last round defined Ignatieff so well but the polls haven't changed much since the last election. Ironically the thing that has swung opinion polls the most over wasn't any attack ad, it was the second prorogation of parliament. Harper went from high 30s to low to mid 30s and not much else changed. At most, attack ads during a writ causes people to stay home because they're disillusioned about the process. The only goal is that more of the other side stays home but there are no guarantees. They also come with the distinct possibility that your own base will resent the negativity and swing their votes. There are no good examples of attack ads winning elections but there are good examples of attack ads losing elections. Kim Campbell's ad attacking Chretien's bell's palsy was a major turning point. Soldiers in the streets from Martin and co. even though it never actually aired, was a gigantic turning point as well.

If only McGill was actually that good. In every international ranking for the past 5 years U of T has outranked McGill. Usually in or just out of the top 20 universities in the world. McGill has been in the 30s or 40s. Harvard of course, always #1. Oxford? #2. Oh yeah, he taught at both schools. So why is that such a handicap? It seems like we have a group within the CPC filled with either anti-intellectualism or just jealousy that they weren't smart enough to get into such a good school. I'd say both.

No it wasn't. I remember to this day Flaherty announcing a small deficit of a billion dollars befoer the recession ripped everything apart. Just because the recession was happening in the US doesn't mean that it had here. It also doesn't mean that they weren't burning through cash. In the January 27th, 2008 budget, Flaherty said Canada had run a small deficit of 1.1 billion over the year 2007. Considering the recession didn't start here until Q2 of 2008...

Bingo.

I think this is garbage. Canada has some great universities but Harvard is Harvard. We should be encouraging tomorrow's generation to pursue their goals to the best of their abilities wherever they may be as that's the only way they're going to be able to compete in the global market place. Instead, we have a Prime Minister essentially telling kids that no matter what your opportunities, leaving the country despite the benefits to your career means you're less of a Canadian. It's despicable. We should be encouraging our citizens to succeed in the global community. Ignatieff did that. In his place, we have a government that sees easy political points in trying to use anti-Americanism to their benefit. Funny, considering Harper's biggest legacy as opposition party was condemning the Liberals anti-Americanism. The speech where he said we should be in Iraq and wishing the coalition well in their mission to overthrow Saddam was a highlight.

The demands of the opposition aren't abhorrent. It hasn't been the opposition that has been continually scolded for not playing well with others.

So where are your facts?

Yeah, but the key point is there's still growth. The amount of money coming into federal coffers still would've gone up. The money didn't drastically tail off.

Don't be silly. Of course it will be. It's up to the Conservatives whether or not they want to play nice and make a deal to keep parliament alive.