kimmy

None of which explains the reality that Quebec is plastered in Bloc signage and only Bloc signage. The Libs and Bloc have similar federal funding in Quebec. The Bloc are spending a bunch on signage and are far more visible, the Liberals are not spenfding and are not visible. Have the Liberals given up in Quebec?. What he is saying is that the Liberals have to divide up their money between 308 (?) ridings and the BQ only have to divide up their money between 75 ridings. The Liberals might have more money to spend in total, but their money has to be spent in four times as many ridings. So far, here in Edmonton, none of the parties have many signs up so far. I think the real campaign is just about to begin, now that the holidays are over they will get down to work for real. -k

What horrible hate compels you to see the destruction of our country? The Conservative/Bloc elements are free in this land to have their own opinion and to work for their goals. But why do you do this? Canada is a wonderful land. Our people are leading the way for the world in the 21st century... we are so lucky and have so much to share... and yet we have people like you. Do you have no vision?... Is all you can imagine death and disassembly? I don't think you would be so cavalier in expressing your anti-Canadianism if this were a non-cyber situation. Imagine you saying these things in a bar in Halifax, or a church social in Charlottetown or at a Canada Day party in Victoria. You coward, you shameless hater of the country I love. What the hell is all of this about?! People who want to see the Liberals dethroned are out to destroy the country? Ludicrous. I am sure that in the final days of the campaign, if things seem desperate for PMPM, he will say the same. Wrap himself in the flag and hope for the best. "VOTE FOR ME! I LOVE CANADA!" "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THE COUNTRY I LOVE!!" It's as August fears. To some English Canadians, Canada is the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party is Canada. How sad. -k

Kinsella is a "Chretienite" who got dumped by the Martin regime. In reference to the last election, he wrote in his blog that he and other Chretien loyalists offered to put aside their differences and work with the Martin loyalists for the good of the Liberal Party; they were told to go get stuffed. I don't owe these people anything anymore, Kinsella said. And his bitterness towards the Martin camp has probably only intensified since then, thanks to the Gomery inquiry and the scrutiny that was applied to some of Kinsella's closest colleagues. While I often enjoy Kinsella's writing, I always remind myself of the lens through which he views all things Martin. In this instance, I sense not just his usual bitterness and contempt for Martin and his crew, but also something new: wishful thinking. As much as I personally would like Kinsella to be right about this, I think he's writing from his heart, not from his head or his gut. I think he wants to see Martin and his associates trashed in the election so that Kinsella and his former (and future) colleagues can take the party back. Kinsella views Team Martin through that lens, of personal betrayal and contempt. Canadians at large don't have nearly the same level of cynicism towards PMPM that Kinsella has. And so with all due respect to Kinsella and his instincts (and his surprisingly hip musical tastes!) I think he's maybe jumping the gun on this. The background Kinsella has that make everything Team Martin says and does ring hollow is not something that's shared by Joe and Jane Voter. While Joe and Jane Voter might feel growing skepticism towards Martin, I don't think Joe and Jane dislike PMPM in the direct and personal sense that Kinsella does, and I think their votes are probably still up for grabs. -k

Hardly. The deficiencies in the system have been noted by liberals in Alberta, conservatives in Ontario, federalists in Quebec, and NDP voters from coast to coast. The first-past-the-poll system has the effect of exaggerating small differences and making them seem huge. Only 44% of Ontarions voted Liberal, but the get 75% of the seats in Ontario, and leave the rest of the country with the mistaken impression that "those dummies in Ontario always vote Liberal no matter what." More than half of them didn't, but that's not reflected in the electoral map. Almost half of voters in Alberta chose somebody other than a CPC candidate last election, yet 26 of 28 MPs are CPC. Does that seem right? Half of Quebecers voted for a federalist candidate, but only 21 of 75 MPs are federalists. Does that seem right? The best thing that can be said of this past election is that at least the inequities worked both ways... in prior elections that turd Chretien won solid majorities with under 40% of the vote. A minority government at least seems like a fair outcome, even though the process created that result sheerly by accident. It's *not* fine. -k

I don't know what that means. -kimmy {is it some sort of obscure drug reference?}

We did? You were adamant that it was regressive in November, adamant that it's progressive in December, and I saw no explanation for this change of heart other than it suited your arguments. Cricket? Lawn-bowling? Falconry? Fox-and-hound chases? Where is this notion that organized sport is financially out of reach for poor families coming from? While hockey and figure skating, for instance, are pricey propositions there are many possibilities that are not expensive. I have participated in soccer, basketball, volleyball, softball, and track and field, some of them at a very competitive level, and none required particularly expensive equipment or unreasonable registration fees.I think the tax credit would probably be of use to all but the poorest families. And, I think the intention should be recognized. I don't believe the idea is intended as a cure to all of society's ills, just to provide some encouragement to a healthier lifestyle. -k

Do we now define "the rich" as anybody who doesn't use the foodbank?I'm certainly not rich; my income is below the average Canadian's income. I manage my money and stick to a budget and I know that the amount of money a GST cut will save me is, while not large, is also not trivial. Who knows, perhaps enough to buy some cans of tuna for the foodbank. Or maybe buy myself some beer and popcorn. However, if your point is that people who don't pay any tax don't benefit from a tax-cut, then I suppose you're correct. I doubt that; your contempt for Harper long predates this election. As we have seen with your GST flip-flop, your view of Harper seems to define your view of the issues, not vice-versa. -k

If it ever happens that ethnic enclaves in Canada start proclaiming their jurisdiction, I'm going to be their with my own torch and gas can to start burning shit. Absolutely unacceptable. Not in this country. Never. -k

Well, it seemed like more of the usual "don't listen to him, he's scary! scary, people!" ranting that we've become quite used to. But if you insist, ok. The Conservative position-- equal rights for gay couples under the term "civil union" while retaining the name "marriage" for traditional marriages-- is hardly the stuff of wild-eyed extremists. It's a compromise that polls found was acceptible to Canadians. It was PMPM's own position up until it became politically expedient to say otherwise. What's bad about taking less money from people? I don't understand your objection. "A bit too long" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating someone's right to security of person. If the government can't make these "bit too long" waiting lists "a bit shorter", then it is violating the Charter. Given that Paul Martin defines his #1 job as "Defending the Charter! ™ " dismissing the waiting times as "a bit too long" is something that not even he can get away with. Are private clinics inherently evil? They're already a part of our healthcare network. They've increased steadily under the Liberals' reign, and not just in Alberta. How does it help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who work outside the home? It's fair to both, unlike the Liberals' plan. The Liberal strategy only helps families where both parents work. They're essentially subsidizing one lifestyle choice at the expense of the other; is that really fair?Critics of the Conservative proposal point out that $100/month isn't enough to pay for daycare. Fair enough. But why must the taxpayer subsidize the entire cost? It seems to me that families with two incomes can pick up a share of the cost themselves. A quick check of a couple of professional daycare facilities gave me a figure somewhere around $650 a month; rather than beer or popcorn, Harper's plan would cover 15% of that. There are cheaper options; one of my cousins-- a "stay at home mom"-- cares for a number of friends' children during the day at a much more modest cost; $1200 a year would cover the entire cost for her clients. And then there is the question of wait times. Quebec's daycare system is supposedly so wonderful that there are enough spaces for only a fraction of the people that want to make use of it. (how fair and inclusive is THAT?) No plan to ban handguns? That's a big fat red herring. As both Harper and Layton have pointed out in wake of the Boxing Day shootings, handguns are already so strictly regulated as to be virtually banned. Both leaders contend that stronger enforcement of existing laws and control of border crossings-- areas that were decimated during the Liberals' reign. CBC-- leaders react to Boxing Day violenceLayton sensibly dismisses Martin's handgun ban for what it is: electioneering. How socially conservative could Harper's stance on handguns be when Jack Layton, of all people, is on the same page? The rich will not benefit disproportionately from the cut to the GST. The GST is a great tax, and I'm not actually thrilled that Harper is cutting it at all. What is great about the GST is (aside from its transparency) is the across the board fairness. It does not disproportionately punish any group, and the reduction will not disproportionately benefit any group either. -k

Pocketrocket, you do your math the same as your fearless leader, Harper. The savings in your example would be $3.00 and not $30.00 but that's okay. Harper isn't very good with a calculator either. Actually, I didn't use a calculator as it is not hard to figure out that 3% of $1,000.00 is $30.00. -k

Of course. Welcome to 15 years ago (or probably longer; 15 years ago is how long ago it was that I found myself sitting in the principal's office having "that's different" explained to me.) People are offended that Mike Klander implies Harper trots out Rahim Jaffer to show "hey, some of my best friends are ethnic", but make no mention of the same Klander column implying Rona Ambrose is some sort of ornament. Of course it's a double standard. I'm sure Olivia Chow will survive this; meaner things have been said of Stronach based on nothing more than her hair colour. -k

I like the photo of the disguised ad-exec slipping PMPM a festively-wrapped envelop full of cash. -k

Those same community groups that banded together in Toronto last month to tell Paul Martin: "Please take our guns away so that we stop shooting each other!" -k

Of course it's of minor importance. As has been pointed out here, the story isn't the comment itself as much as the way the worm has turned, and the press handling of the story. -k

But New York's rate of firearms carnage has always been 20 times higher than Toronto's, if not far more. Crediting the gun registry for making the difference seems a little silly, don't you think? I guess there are two schools of thought here. One looks at the statistics, finds no appreciable change in gun violence since the registry, and concludes that it's probably not having much effect on rates of gun violence. The other looks at the statistics, finds no appreciable change in gun violence, and concludes that it's a good thing we got the gun registry when we did because otherwise shootings would be through the roof by now! Who knows. Who really knows. Well, Paul Martin announced last month that Toronto gun violence has become a national crisis, and announced plans for a "ban on handguns." Reading between the lines, I think one can conclude he's recognized that the gun registry just isn't cutting it. -k

But just think-- if we didn't have the gun registry, we'd probably have people running around shooting people in busy Toronto shopping malls on Boxing Day. -k

I reject the notion that Canadians' dislike of Harper is inspired by his haircut, his waxy complexion, or his forced-looking smile. Afterall, this is the country that elected Jean Chretien to 3 straight majorities; a country that would give such resounding endorsement to a fugly, palsy-stricken goon with a speach impediment is obviously not influenced by such superficial considerations. -k

It's quite amusing, isn't it? The party that had Joe Volpe stampeding around branding people Klu Klux Klansmen over the "Librano$" joke, seems to have suddenly developed a sense of humor. -k

Well, at least this should be edifying for those wondering why Stephen Harper didn't shake Duceppe's hand before the leadership debate. Conservatives' reaction: http://conservative.ca/EN/1091/36596 Edmonton Sun article: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Election/2...23/1366395.html -k

My family are atheists, but we have always celebrated Christmas, not in a "big baby Jesus" sense, but in a "goodwill to all" sense. We love all the non-religious, warm-fuzzy secular traditions that have become associated with the season. Santa, a tree, egg-nog, presents, booze, supporting charities, visiting with family, American football, that sort of thing. I love all of it. To everyone, except perhaps W.C. Fields, I wish all the best, in whatever meaning the day holds for you. -kimmy

You know what this means, don't you? SCARY RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE TAKING OVER THE LIBERAL PARTY I will let Normandchateau carry the ball from here. -k

Calling someone a liar or engaging in other foolish or inane personal attacks doesn't change the fact that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. "Status of bill C-250: The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding clause" allows religiously motivated hate speech." Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm What's especially telling about Harper's opposition to adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation is that he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se but only the addition of sexual orientation to that legislation. You're quite bluntly wrong. Neither you, nor "religioustolerance.org" (whoever they are) can offer one scrap of evidence to support the claim that Bill C-250 had anything to do with "gay bashing" or "making it a crime to kill gays just because they're gay." The scope of Bill C-250 is limited to broadening the definition of "hate propaganda". -k

Was the speech itself newsworthy? The CP made that decision on their own and I'm sure they used proper professional standards in coming to that decision and I don't see any problem with the decision to run the story. But, as the article says, finding out the back-story of how the media got the article makes for an interesting look at how the campaign "war-rooms" work. Why did the "war room" use a middle-man to get this story to the press? If a Liberal spokesman gives this to the media directly, does it still become a news story, or does CP view it through a more jaundiced eye? For what it's worth, I'm sure that the Conservative and NDP campaigns try to do the same... and if they aren't doing it, they should have somebody doing it. -k

Sure, I've got no problem with that logic. I'm just fascinated to hear how eureka could be so adamant that the GST is regressive 2 months ago, yet feel completely opposite today. He seems to have had some sort of life-changing epiphany. I'm hoping he'll share it. Should be fascinating. -k

Speaking of looking either dishonest or foolish, Norman, you've been repeatedly been corrected on what C-250 actually contains. Yet you continue to write this fiction about what C-250 contains. Are you a compulsive liar, or just afflicted with some sort of comprehension handicap? -k