Bryan

I agree. Let's just completely cut all social programs in their entirety, because people abuse them. No EI of any kind, no social assistance, no healthcare, no workers comp, no CPP, none of this. There is just too much of a chance that somebody might collect that didn't pay into it as much as I did, so nobody should get anything. That is what you meant to say, right?

I was listening to the Podcast version of Politics w. Don Newman. Apparently, this plan has already been announced more than once by the Liberals, going back as far as the 1997 Red Book.

What is the ideology? "Stand for nothing. Fall for anything." ?!? Don't forget that the collaspe of the PCs was two things at once: a huge voter shift to the Liberals and a mass defection to a brand new party. There is no reason that a new centrist party could not be created to fill that gap in the same grassroots manner that Reform started. Certainly, the Liberals will not be reduced to 2 seats or anything like that, so they will still effectlively exist, even if broke. A new party could be formed in time for the next election, after which the Liberals could then disband if they chose to/had to. Then again, ifs are just that. I'm well aware that the Liberals are in rough shape internally right now, but I'm not convinced that they are in as bad condition as Dobbin is trying so hard to convince us of.

I love how the left loves to rail about how the CPC spends too much , yet in the very next breath says that they will solve all of our ills by increasing spending by billions of dollars!!

How entertaining would it be to see an NDP opposition? I know I'd watch CPAC every day! Hmmmm... CPC with perhaps one seat short of a majority, an NDP opposition, and the Liberals dead and gone? Damn that would be fun to watch!!!!

They don't mention the tooth fairy either.

It doesn't even come close to making me think about voting for him, but the catastrophic drug plan is the first sensible thing I've heard Dion say since he was elected Liberal leader. It would be nice if he could manage to get that plan implemented as leader of the opposition.

Blind loyalty to political parties is a fool's game.

Why? My taxes have gone down in the last two years, and I have more money in my pocket. Why would I have any problem with encouraging entrepreneurship? You know, entrepreneurs, the people who start the businesses that T4'd employees get their jobs from?

I like it. Hopefully it's just a baby step towards allowing everyone to opt out of other national programs if they choose.

I'm not voting strategically, as the candidate I like most in my rising is the front runner anyway. I have done it in the past though. In one recent mayoral race, the guy I liked best was running fourth, and the guy I liked least was in first, so I voted for the second place guy that I didn't have much of an opinion on either way. I'd say it worked, because he won.

A little bit of all of the above. The two main things for me are: I do not believe that he is even half as intelligent as he and his supporters think he is. The way he comes across is that he's blissfully unaware of the consequences of his words and actions. Perhaps that is just his inability to communicate in english, but whatever the reason, he comes across as being dumb. I don't believe a word he says when it comes to revenue neutral tax shifting. There is simply no credibility in that claim from any political leader, and the very fact that he's attempting to use it diminishes his credibility overall.

If the situation changes substantially, then so does the policy. That would not be a broken promise if the context under which the original commitment was made did not exist anymore.

Here's the whole interview: http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/theagenda/audi...yeGDP022207.mp3 She makes the statement at just past the 38 minute mark. How is that out of context? She clearly directly answers the question of why there is so little political will for a carbon tax. She very clearly says it's because politicians think Canadians are stupid, and she fundamentally agrees with that assessment. There is no way to spin it as saying anything else. I'm not saying she's wrong even, most people ARE stupid, in any country. But if I was the leader of a political party I sure as heck would not SAY it on TV.

That's certainly been my perception. I think that's a common belief that has a lot to with why the Mb Liberals fail to get any traction, even when the federal Liberals are in majority.

The Atlantic Accord as it was originally offered was never taken off the table. What changed was the new equalization deal that was arranged in 2007 actually a offered more balanced deal to all the provinces. Specifically because he has a previous promise to the Atlantic provinces, Harper gave them the opportunity to choose to either take the original deal or to opt into the new one instead. So what was the broken promise then?

And she won't anyway.

Perhaps not, but what about someone who is stealing cars, a serial arsonist, or committing violent crimes? The public should have the right to know who is doing these things, regardless of their age.

Does Ralph Nader know this?

I don't see the connection at all. Harper would be considered quite far left by US standards. Far from selling us out, if anything, he's stood up for Canada's interests more than the previous government(s) did.

Do you really believe this, or just wish it were so?

That defense is getting old. A plain expression of the facts of your M.O. does not constitute an attack. You've had a couple of lucid posts as of late, but frequently your posts are little more than a passive-aggressive attempt to antagonize people for the express purpose of seeing them get upset so that you can pretend to claim the high ground.

For the people who think she'll make any difference in the election, debate or not: What seat(s) do you think she can win?

Aren't most of the really fuel efficient cars either imports, or foreign manufacturers building here (the ones that are NOT closing plants)?

LOL!! This deserves it's own thread, with a direct link to the Youtube clip! That debate is going to be a train wreck of epic proportions.