Evening Star

I definitely agree about the tax cuts and prisons. Why were we not hearing this when the GST and corporate taxes were cut?: (And, yeah, you're probably right that it's silly to give the CPC credit for simply following through with an arrangement set up by the previous government.)

It was their idea but I have to give to Bryan that the LPC didn't really have to deal with the implementation of it, which the CPC has.

If this was all the government did, JT would not have lost his temper this way.

All that says concerning funding is "Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments" (italics mine). It doesn't seem like these rights must include financial support. (Did you mean to link to a SC decision as well?)

No. Not in anything close to the same way.

Again, huh? It's called "Question Period". The Opposition is supposed to ask questions. The government is supposed to answer them. If the Opposition prepares questions ahead of time to read during QP, they're doing their job. However, if the government prepares stock responses that don't actually answer the questions (especially if they were prepared before the govt even heard the questions), they're not really playing fair in the same way. You see the difference?

Ha, I was just about to ask what was so truly great about Harper, even trying to put ideology aside. I kind of assumed that most of his supporters saw him as a competent administrator who was the best available option so I'm a little astounded to see so many votes for him in this poll. What are the historic achievements that put him ahead of every other prime minister since 1867? I can see why someone who leans right might pick St Laurent, Borden, MacDonald (of course), Chretien for that matter. Even Mulroney seems more accomplished to me.

Post #20 suggests that it would be constitutional to stop funding Catholic schools with tax money. Politically risky perhaps.

Actually, the GST was introduced in 1991 under Mulroney, two years before the Liberal government was elected. Chretien did promise to scrap it, which he reneged on. (I personally think it's good that he didn't scrap it and tend to think that Harper shouldn't have reduced it.)

What if only one denomination gets to have their tax dollars targeted to a separate school board geared towards their own faith community, while members of every other faith and the faithless have to support a common secular school board? Is that fair?

IOW, "a proof is a proof"?

I'm not a sceptic about AGW itself.

I wasn't suggesting that it was done deliberately, or even that it was necessarily unfair. I was just actually curious whether 1990 was a recession year for the other signatories as well, since I didn't know.

Definitely, but then, I also attribute many of Pearson's successes to Trudeau (or Tommy Douglas). It's complicated. (xpost to your edits!) Edit: That relates to what I was saying though. It seems much harder to attribute Trudeau's successes to Turner or Chretien.

Ha, on domestic policy, I'd easily pick LBJ as the greatest postwar US president and maybe even a competitor with FDR.

In my experience, everyone who is left of centre (further left than Michael Ignatieff, say) picks either LBP or PET. (Perhaps I'll be proven wrong on this board.) And I struggle to choose between them. Here's where things get tricky: LBP's highs were higher and PET's lows were lower. So why is there a question? There is a question because more than any other PM about whom I know enough to comment on, PET was really obviously driven by his own ambitious, independent vision. While e.g. I think student loans would have been introduced sooner or later by any government (or for a later example, I think free trade would have been implemented by any PC), I really believe that official bilingualism and multiculturalism, the abolition of the death penalty, the Charter were all driven by PET himself, that they might not have emerged with another leader. The War Measures Act tips it though. I'm voting Pearson.

It's not hard at all. I made an argument with very little difficulty.

Uh, yeah, it is. If it weren't for this stupid system, every taxpayer would be supporting the public schools. Again, why do only Catholics get to make this choice? A voucher system or a damn-fool John Tory system where everyone can send their tax dollars to support the religious school of their stupid choice (which is pretty similar to a voucher system in the end) would at least be more fair. The most sensible system still seems to be to have a single publicly funded secular school system with private funding for any other schools. Seems pretty standard in many other jurisdictions.

I didn't think anyone believed this? First time I'm hearing the claim anyway. I'm guessing that even Chretien himself would pick Pearson or Trudeau (possibly King).

Agree with cc here. I actually like this JC moment.

Were those other countries experiencing the same recession that the US and Canada experienced in 1990?

See, here's where I think it is realistic for the government to take real action on the environment. When we have rules on the books, they should be enforced. Thought they were tough on crime?

I'm all for global wealth redistribution, actually, but, yes, I agree that 1990 might not have been a fair base year to use.

Topaz, don't you think it's a little unfair that only Catholics get to choose to have their tax dollars directed towards schools that cater to their own religious beliefs? Why shouldn't they have to contribute to the same public system that adherents of every other faith and non-believers have to?

Yeah, I share that concern about the outsourcing and the 'credit' system.