takeanumber

I'll agree with DAC on this. What the SCC is doing is pure new anti-liberalism.

The new helicopters alone will cost in excess of 5 billion dollars. The money he promised was for increasing the size of the armed forces. It doesn't take much intellect to know that if somebody tells you that they're going to do something, but doesn't actually cost it out, that it isn't going to get done. See: Mulroney, 1988. See: Chretien, Most of the RedBook, 1993. See: Any Alberta election since 1993. See: Ontario Election, 2003. See: Any Nova Scotian election since 1985. See: Any McKena election. If they say that they have a 'commitment', or a 'promise' or an 'intent', it doesn't amount to anything, and they know it, because they never actually costed it out, and thus, they're free to set new priorities in lieu of the election priorities two budget down the road. You can say, "But Harper is different", but I've come to ignore the hype comming out of that corner. That's what they said about Day.

Canada has the most to fear from a Conservative cabinet. If Harper had been the PM during the runnup to the Iraq war, in spite of his snarky back-tracking and historical revisionism, we'd be there. He wanted to go, physically, "shoulder to shoulder", not 'morally' as he's trying to peddle. See, Harper really is just as bad as the Liberals. Man, given what Harper et al has been saying (he really hasn't moderated after all, there goes hope), the status quo is starting to look downright bearable, if you hold your nose and drink a lot of pepto.

The equipment is NOT costed. He said as much when pressed last week. To buy the things he wants to buy, 1.6 Bill isn't going to do it. He said 1.6 Bill wasn't enough to do it. Therefore, the equipment is NOT costed.

It's terrific that the Prime Minister is going. It's a disgrace that Harper et al can't make it.

It's not costed, Stoker. And if it's not costed, Harper won't buy it. Selective memory or what?

Harper has no intention in buying any of that equipment. If he did, it would have been all costed out, and guess what, it's not costed out. Which means that it's not a priority. Which means that it won't happen. Which means it's just a promise to appeal to a specific demographic. Which means it's more of the same rot, same crap, same load of total BS spewing out of his mouth just like every other politician.

Told you so. (They couldn't keep their hidden agenda hidden for very long.)

I said the freedom to deny the holocaust. I didn't say that he has actually denied it. Now who's trying to to create a BIG LIE?

The EU, could in theory, slap anti-Bush orange juice tariffs. Then, the US, could in theory, slap tariffs on a European product that is important to the Canadian economy, but so much their own, hmmmm I'm struggling to think of a product that Europe makes that's useful or vital.... Frying pans. Or, it might be easier for other trading blocks to target Canadian exports and the US would go along with it, if it benefited themselves. (Ie, If you allow us to screw over Canadian lumber, then we'll open up our markets to your OJ.)

What makes Harper think the US is interested in such a union? Anything that dimishes the US ability to throw up protectionist barriers whenever it suits their best interest, is against US interest. Does Harper really believe that the US is in anyway altruistic?

Yeh, Martin majored in Fibbing. I understand he got an A in bullsh1t and an A- in the course on looking sincere.

Keep talking Argus, you're only embarassing yourself. We have one version of history with respect to the Holocaust in Canada. You know, Austria is your type of country! Now I don't say that to be mean or to suggest that if you don't like the fact that we have one version of history WRT the Holocaust, you can get the hell out. I mean to suggest that if you don't like the fact that we have only a single version of history, and want to push your version of Holocaust denial, you should consider Austria, because they got a party over there, called the Freedom Party, and that's what they're all about. The Freedom to deny the Holocaust. They're doing quite well, and I'm sure they'd love a white immigrant for a change. I got a friend who works at the embassy there. I can hook you up if you want. Plus, it has an aging population, so there arn't as many Echo-ists, and best of all, for you, their immigration policy is deliberately set up against muslims. So it'd be great for you! I fully admit that my position is new-Anti-Liberal. I've made peace with it. I believe with freedom of speech comes responsibility, and you know, to spout hatred, especially in the form of Holocaust denial. Wrong. See: Wente, Globe and Mail, June 3, 2004. I suppose to Argus, urban women are the 'fringe set'. Pro-Choice conservatives show signs of libertarianism. The Extreme Right Wing/Misogynist wing of the Conservative party, current COR supporters, and 'Dayists" are of the 'government outta my face except to impose our concept of morality on everybody else' types, which is definetly not libertarian. I'd find the experience of being forced to visit some 'impartial' (which it wouldn't be) person for third party councilling is insulting. Why? Because a woman has the freedom to decide what to do with her body. If she wants an abortion, and opts not to have 'counciling', then that's her right. The main core of the Reform party is dissaffected tories, which includes the COR people (Most are in fact middle aged to senior citizens...old Tories in the tradition of Leonard Jones. Many of the COR tenants resonate through the Reform Alliance Conservatives to this day. Regards, Takeanumber.

If Martin had called the election before the Alliance got done eating the PC's, and before the West got their seats, he would have aggrevated western alienation and suffered some minor blowback in Ontario. Trudeau would have done it. Chretien probably would have done it. He's not the worse.

He's from the same economic school of thought that I'm from, so on the economic side of things, I agree with him most of the time. (Although, I'm realistic about the political realities that he's confronted with.) Socially though, he won't admit to the virtues of social mobility, and he seems content to get government out of the lives of some people, but wants government in the face of people whom are not his traditional allies.

Economic 1.50 (A hair off from centre to the Right) Authoritarian/Social Libertarian -7.13 (Social Libertarian) I thought I was more economically right wing, given my support for the market. Whatever.

Conservatives are just as bad as Liberals when it comes to the corporate welfare. Did you hear the squeals from So.Ontario about the end of corporate pork? My prediction if Harper wins majority: Cut pork for Bombardie. Leave pork for So.Ontario. As for going offshore, there are ways to go after the people who do so. The NDP is the only party that's talking about going after these filthy tax evaders, and that's pretty sad. The Liberals would talk about it, if wasn't for Martin doing it himself. The Conservatives would talk about it too, if it isn't for the fact that the party in general believes that the Rich should be able to evade taxes because the taxes they already pay are too high. (And taxes will always be 'too high' for them.)

Well, just as a footnote, it turns out that the Conservative remarks about Abortion are having a impact in Ontario. The entire 'third party' thing isn't playing well with many women. It seems that many are of the opinion that they already know what is best for their bodies, and don't need a third party to tell them. I think that maybe that some of the extreme right wing side of the Conservative misogynist colours are showing through. (BTW, Argus: COR stands for Confederacy of Regions, an anti-Francophone party that won seats in New Brunswick during the 1990's. They were the main core of the Reform party, and later the Alliance. They are still a force in the Conservative party. Again, just because you don't understand a term, it doesn't mean that you can instantly denegrade somebody using it.)

I think the ministers are just showing up for a free meal. I hear the Mozza Balls at the Harper events are just fantastic!

Superior points BlackDog. I'll defend old anti-liberal's right to free speech. I've been torn over how far you can go in restricting hate speech without risking that legislation be turned against the people that it's intended to protect. (See Borovoy: "The New Anti-Liberals"). It's quite the double edged sword. I confessed that I have new anti-liberal tendencies because I feel as though holocaust denial, and denial of Van der Lufte's contributions should in fact be illegal even in universities. (I'm fully confessing this new anti-liberal tendency.) There are those who genuinely believe that an institution between a man and a woman is sacred. There are those who really hate homosexuals, some of them homosexuals themselves, ashamed of the fact that now they're married, with kids, and never managed to find the courage to admit to themselves, little though to world, who they really were. I think we need to be careful in differentiating our targets. Nothing is more explosive than family policy (an area in which I've done research), and it's important that we're careful with the former group so as not to unintentially lump them in with the latter group. As to the solution of upholding marriage as an institution, I suggest three measures: 1. Make divorce illegal, or limit the offending party to 1 marriage. (If a woman is beating her husband, or vice versa, the offending party is restricted to that one marriage and the other is not.) 2. Quintuple the fines for Johns in using prostitutes/escorts. Introduce a measure of public humiliation, publishing pictures in the newspaper would be a terrific measure. 3. Increase the fines and penalties for adultery, including public measures for humiliation. Again, the publishing of pictures...and perhaps forcing the offender to buy a 'closed captioning provided by" spot on TV. "Closed Captioning sponsored by: Ronald Ramsey, who cheated on his wife for (x period of years), (y number of times). Make sure you get a good picture of the offending person. Seriously, let's make marriage mean something again. That said, I personally don't see a problem with same-sex marriage. I think actually getting MORE people to commit for longer than 5 years makes for HEALTHIER families.

Superior points Sully. To expand upon the Armed Forces points: there are severe problems with culture in the armed forces. We have over 100 generals in this country, which I think is just insane. Recruitment. We can't get the people in. Also, the traditional recruits from 1975-1995 were by and large, white folk from the high unemployment regions. There's nothing wrong with this fact. I grew up with exactly one Aboriginal officer on base. It was discraceful how he was treated. It's no wonder why there arn't more aboriginals in the armed forces. Moreover, getting other minorities into the armed forces is a challenge for similar reasons. I mean, unless you grew up on a base, I don't think you can really appreciate what it's like, nor the types of barriers that a visible minority would face. (And IT IS important to racial minorities into the armed forces, given all the places we're sending them these days.) It's not just the crappy pay that serves as a barrier. It's the general treatment by officers. It's the general treatment of minorities by officers and soldiers. It's the general image of the armed forces. Just throwing money at the Armed Forces isn't going to solve the problem. There are fundamental, cultural problems in the Armed Forces that really need to be reformed. Higher wages arn't going to cut it. (BTW: When the Liberals gave soldiers a raise back in 1997, it was clawed back instantly by increasing the rent on their PMQ's, which had been going steadily up and up. Soldiers do NOT, and HAVE NEVER (since 1980 at least) gotten free food and free shelter. In conclusion, Conservatives might talk big on defence -- new helicopters are very welcome, but there are bigger issues. The Federal Liberals are just vile when it comes to the Armed Forces. The NDP are just idiots on the topic of defence...all this talk of 'redifining roles' etc..., just screw off. What does some upper-class NDP Toronto elite know about the armed forces?

Partisans tend to overhype their expectations of how their party will do. (Blais et al., Anatomy of a Liberal Victory, 2001) (See: 2000 "Stockwell Day" fiasco in Ontario, Calgary Herald Coverage.) (See: 1993 Federal Election) (See: 2003 NB Election) It's neat to see though.

I don't trust any of them to keep their words. No matter how much Layton behaves moderate, or Harper moderate, or Martin sorry (or mad as hell), I don't trust any of them. The outbursts representing 'personal opinion' eminating from the COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party should be of concern to Canadians. Why? Because their party doesn't have a policy yet, hasn't had a policy convention, so what is Harper talking about when he says members of his wing arn't speaking for the party policy. The victorious COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party is going to monopolize the policy creation convention in the fall. So yeh, it's a concern.

It spells a new election in under 6 months if there's a Conservative minority. Their most natural ally is of course the BQ, which, for longevity purposes, can't be seen to be too cozy with the Federalist Conservatives. Plus, you have this massive flank of the Conservative party that are already pretty much anti-French / anti-Quebec at most, and pro-Equality at the very least. If Harper starts decentralizing massive parts of the federal government to all the provinces, it might not be seen purely as 'decentralization', worse: it might be seen as 'selling out'. The BQ tends to be very much to the left, the Conservatives to the right. It could degenerate into a case-by-case basis in which the Conservatives try to find a wedge issue that they figure they can get 51 percent of the seats on. Of course, maybe that would be the price Liberals pay...sit in opposition as the Conservatives play footsie with the Bloc, wait out public anger at Martin, and then pounce after 6 months. Interesting times.

Superior point. Insurance is a great way to spread risk, while ensuring equality, and even to rationalize the cost by introducing a few markets. If there's a way to introduce markets on the supply side, whithout price discriminating amongst the demand side, and thereby insuring equality of care, then I'm all for it. The problem with the logic "I should be able to get better care than you because I'm willing and able to pay for it, AND, I don't want to pay taxes into the public sector because I'M already paying for my care" smacks of inequality and selfishness. So sure, let's rationalize the supply side. Leave the Demand side (where our greatest values lie) alone.