nicky10013

Yeah, the only person who seems to think this is you.

Yeah this is close to the stupidest thing I've ever read. I'm a Liberal and the guy should get what's coming to him. A lot of the conservatives on here (not all), though, have a hard time denouncing all the electoral fraud and contempt of parliament going on, though. It seems you're projecting your side onto us.

What do you expect from people who don't even live in Toronto.

So what is it really like for normal people? Do tell.

Heh. Let's get started. But just to remind people of your many many failures: No, it was the opposition that forced the spending. Now, this has been used with a great deal of glee in the Conservative community. "Golly Gee, it wasn't our fault those socialists and seperatists forced us to spend all that money!" Yet, $40 million has been spent to promote Canada's Economic Action plan - not what you get with it, just advertising the fact that it's working. So, since the opposition forced it, should they not recieve credit for how well Canada is doing economically? So was Harper and look how that turned out. Where are those transfers right now? Though thinking that one can't read certain facts and come to a different conclusion from said article isn't physically lazy as you're accusing Gwiz of being, it is mentally lazy. Fake lakes, glow sticks - take your pick. Furthermore, the term "avoidable" is absolutely ridiculous. Of course the costs weren't "avoidable." The leaders were always going to need security. The question to ask here is whether those unavoidable costs were reasonable. I say no. You'll disagree, but read below and perhaps you'll change your mind. I'm sure given the circumstances of the G20 and the horrible way in which is planned probably is the reason why she deemed the expenses weren't so out of whack. One of my professors was Canada's ambassador to NATO and knows a few things about summits. In 2008 he was saying the G8 had become useless and the G20 would takeover and Harper should change the summit to a G20 but had to do it right then as summits of those size take upwards of 2 years to plan. The government decided 6 months out that Toronto would be the host of a G20. When the City of Toronto and the Toronto police recommended the CNE grounds because it was far easier to secure, far easier to direct traffic, far easier to police in terms of protestors, what did Harper say? Hah, screw you, we're going downtown anyway. Whether the costs under the circumstances were justified or not, if it was a properly planned summit given the proper time and the experts at the municipal levels were taken seriously, I seriously doubt it would've cost as much as it did. The cost of other summits bear this out. Every other summit has been substantially less than the Toronto G20. There's no way to get around that. No, just that we could've done it for much cheaper as I described above. You're fairly ignorant as well. The Arrow was replaced with BOMARC. BOMARC wasn't some ballistic missile defence system, they were nuclear missiles meant to eliminate bomber squadrons with nuclear warheads. So why was it we couldn't build the planes? Furthermore, the reason why we're buying F-35s is for the same reason we were developing the Arrow. Considering how you're doing I wouldn't be putting him down if I were you. My parents always taught me there's no point in talking to a brick wall. I don't blame him.

And that reality is?

It's pretty funny that you actually never hear this from Liberals.

If Ignatieff wins seats, he stays. Further, for there to be a last, there had to be a first.

That wasn't the question. The question was that even though they thought they could get around the law "legally," did they break the spirit of the law that was meant to protect against unfair monetary advantage? Just because to certain people it may have been illegal doesn't mean it wasn't an unethical act. I'd argue that going against the spirit of the law is just as unethical as breaking the law itself (either way, this is foolish, a court has ruled it was illegal). So are you saying you think that breaking the spirit of the law isn't unethical?

Hahahahah Ivory Tower...so you have a problem with people who are smarter than you. That much is clear. I personally don't. I went to university but know people far smarter than I could ever be. I have no problem deferring to their wisdom. Why are you so insecure that you need to belittle people's accomplishments? Because you have so few of your own?

Considering he blatantly said Igantieff had nothing to do with my response despite the title of the thread, the criticism is warranted whether you like it or not.

Yeah well if you're response is any indicator of the average NDP voter you're too illiterate to read the ballot and will probably check off a Liberal name anyhow. The last part of your post doesn't make any sense.

Did you ever think that not showing up is an opinion in and of itself? Of course you didn't.

The title of the thread does you illiterate hack.

Did you ever think maybe the top 20 are Liberals because they hold back members to let votes pass while not actually supporting the bill? Between the Bloc and the NDP recklessly denying support to any piece of legislation and the CPC recklessly making everything a confidence motion, someone has to keep parliament afloat. So you're essentially bad mouthing the Liberals for being the adults in the room. It truly depresses me what this country has sunk to.

Ah, so that behaviour is allowed, but the leader of the opposition tourning and talking to Canadians - which is why he's usually not in parliament (Open Mike Tours) is of course nothing but an awful idea. I mean, talking to constituents? Who does that ass Ignatieff think he is?

I was talking about the provincial polls. McGuinty is ahead by double digits. Sure Ford still has a lot of support but turning out "Ford nation" to unseat 416 Liberals will most likely be little more than a pipe dream.

I wonder how badly western involvement would undermine the revolution, though. I mean, a no-fly zone seems like a no-brainer but in that part of the world there is an awful lot of Anti-Westerners who know a thing or two about propaganda. American involvement destroyed the democratic element of the Iranian revolution.

I doubt it. The recession in the EU is only marginally worse than it is here and only in certain countries. People who would leave the worse off countries would mostly do so because public benefits are going to be stripped. They also have the freedom to live and work in any other EU state. So, if you see the economic performance and public benefits of a country like Germany as compared to Canada - not even taking in account the comparative costs of moving and the bureaucratic paperwork that they would have to jump through to get to Canada but not to Germany - absolutely no competition.

The last one had the Liberals with a 15 point lead in the City.

Do you consider it to be unethical?

It's not a smear. People from many different groups and succeed. People from many different groups come here and fail. Italian and Irish immigrants had horrible times integrating into the economy when they were the largest groups coming here. The notion that gigantic groups as he's suggesting do even marginally better than others I find to be rather ridiculous. Furthermore, whatever happened to the individual responsibility Conservatives here espouse? If certain immigrants resort to crime, isn't that the fault of the individual rather than the entire group that immigrates? Oh right, it only matters when they aren't white.

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants." Hooray for Racism!

In politics why should you need a legal opinion to do something? There's ethical and then there's unethical. Using money in a certain way that you can spend more than is allowed under the law (which no one disputes), even if found "legal" (which as we've seen, it wasn't) is still highly unethical. So you're saying that you support these unethical practices?

If we're talking about the old PCs I would probably agree with that. The guys running the new CPC are all reform and pretty much hate every institution Canada was founded on. That's why they have no problem flouting our election laws, suspending parliament etc. etc. etc. because they simply don't believe in the legitimacy of our institutions. They want to turn us into some copy of the way the US is governed. Though, lately the desperation to keep themselves in power has also helped the way they've "governed" our country. I was reading in the Globe and Mail the other day an article by Jeffrey Simpson about "previous quotes and beliefs." That Harper is attacking Ignatieff on things he said 10-20 years ago regarding Canada. He commented that the Liberals could do the exact same thing. He listed pretty much all the big ones and all of them were pretty poisonous in terms of the loathing of Canada as it is. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/what-if-stephen-harpers-previous-views-were-used-against-him/article1930774/