justcrowing

Oh but the Liberals do have a policy and that is to bilk you of your tax dollars into their pockets and coffers.

People here range from one political end of the spectrum to another and naturally will have different views on different policies but to tell someone "to bite me" is pretty low. I agree with many on the forum but I won't put them down in such a way even in the guise of humour. I respect anyone here who have their views even if they have completely different from my own and I hope the reverse is true as well. Sorry you misunderstand the meaning of "bite me" - it is not a put down only an invite for a differing opinion. Oh well, win some, lose some. Also, I have no disrespect for another's point of view and you are invited to dispute the system of the two countries I mentioned or to agree.

A small country like New Zealand has both private and public medicare. Private hospitals compete for business and have specials - kinda like department store sales. Kiwi's are permitted to purchase insurance for private treatment if they need something urgently done and do not wish to wait in the public system. The country's economy is good, they have a good lifestyle, their dollar has risen to just a shade below ours and I have yet to hear a Kiwi complain other than about low wages. They also have some of the best Universities, low tuitions and students study there from all over the world. They have reduced the size of government, are high on the list as being the least corrupt, enjoy low taxes and a country that is not over-populated. Australia too has a two tier system and they love it. There is no lack of good doctors in the public system either. I have a lot of family there [one is a doctor] and we often compare notes. Problem with Canadians is that they are a culture of entitlement. As Martin said on the News last night - he does not want Canadians to fend for themselves - in other words "cradle to grave welfare". Is this the Canada you want? So now bite me!

Nawh, it's only because the Liberals are full of scandals - neverending ones!! Kinda like having ongoing dessert.

This is how politics and business mix in Canada. I think Conrad Black accurately said that it is impossible to do business on a "large" scale in Canada without having friends in government. Questionable grounds I must say. It's tough to say theres a real link, I couldn't go calling this a scandal, at least not politically. However, the fact that Valeri underpaid a sick old man and then resold his property for twice the price is a very sad reflection on tha man's character. Here is the link to the Hamilton Spectator regrding Valeri - http://w3t.org/?u=hyx

Sheesh, he can copy Svend and cry a little, plead stress and all is forgiven. Heck Svend can even re-enter politics and was forgiven & probably get elected. So should a conservative be treated any differently? Small potatoes compared to Liberal dishonesty. Harper did the right thing, quickly and swiftly, something Martin and Layton should learn.

I suspect Layton knew it was a private hospital. No matter what city one lives in, we all know which are public and which ones are not in the city we live in. Cry me a river, Jacko!!

The Liberals crap over the Americans and look who does the air cover for Canada!! Priceless! http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/subscribe/index.html U.S. to provide Canadian air cover Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets Chris Wattie, National Post Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned. Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February. But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world. "It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all the[[ir equipment there and keep them there for six months."

The following pretty much sums it up by Mr. Gamaro .... Well, well. It turns out that Martin didn’t expect to keep this promise either, since his plan has been all along, to REMOVE the Not-Withstanding Clause from our constitution, thus relinquishing Parliamentary power to the non-elected judges, who shortly before, were mere ambulance chasers! So much for leadership! Can you believe the arrogance of this man? Is there no limit to what he’s prepared to do, to impose on unsuspecting Canadians the LIEberal secret agenda? I mean, let’s not be naïve or should I say stupid? Is life in Canada better since the LIEberals took power in 1993? * Are you paying lower taxes than before 1993? * Do you have more disposable income than before 1993? * Is there less crime in the streets of our cities, than before 1993? * Are criminals given more just sentences now, than before 1993? * Is your family life better than it was before 1993? Can you give your family better quality time than you did then, or are you forced to work harder than before to make ends meet? * Has your income increased since 1993, at the same pace as the income of the Members of Parliament? * In 1993, you could decide what your children would be taught to a great extent, as you should have the right to as a parent. Today, the state decides what your child will be taught, whether you like it or not, and the words Jesus Christ might not be pronounced in our public schools. * Are you one of the 1.5 million people who don’t have a family doctor? * Did you have to wait over one year to get a hip replacement, like I had to do, in 1993? * Did we import as many criminals in 1993, at the expense of the security of Canadians as we do now? Remember, CSIS told us that there are 50 "dormant" cells of terrorists in Canada (no doubt, receiving assistance from our generous welfare programs). * Did you pay as much for gasoline in 1993, as you do now? * Do you have as much freedom of speech now, as you did in 1993? Remember Bishop Henry and countless others, who are, have been and will be frivolously persecuted by small interest groups, not only with the consent of the government, but even financed by it! Today, a "hate crime" law stops you from rejecting a lifestyle which may be contrary to your beliefs, under penalty of fines and jail term. Imagine! Just for expressing an opinion! Are we the Old Soviet Union or Canada? If the LIEberals hadn’t been in power since 1993, the over $1 billion wouldn’t have disappeared from the HRDC. It would still be in the government’s coffers. The gun control fiasco, wouldn’t have occurred, therefore we would have $2 billion more in the kitty. The AdScam wouldn’t have taken place although we don’t know the exact figure, at least $350 million would still be in the kitty. People suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, so who knows what the final figure could be. This is only a small sample, but do you realize how much good $3.35 billion could have done for Canadians? How many MRI machines, new doctors, joint replacements, could have been paid for with that money? In view of that, why would anyone in his/her right mind vote for the LIEberals? Speaking of right minds, I’ve been saying this since the Bloc was formed. Why are a bunch of traitors to Canada allowed to sit in Parliament? Why are they permitted to hold the balance of power in Canada, when their only raison d’être, is to destroy our country? To finalize this note, as I have said before, this election is not about your party or my party, nor about which platform suits you better. This election is about a party in power which has been blatantly caught with their fingers in the till and to this day, no one is in jail yet. Elect the LIEberals, and they will sweep it under their proverbial rug and keep on doing it. Elect the NDP and they will ruin Canada twice as fast as the LIEberals have done it, vote for a one issue party or a marginal party and you’ll be hurting Canada, for it will be one less vote for the CPC. On January 23rd, Stand up for Canada, vote Conservative! Joseph Gamero is a freelance contributor to newspapers, magazines and websites.

I was phoned last night to participate in a poll - you bet I said voting CONSERVATIVE!!

I just love the negative effect Harper has on Canada, namely gaining in the polls with full momentum. Go Harper, Go!! Time to send the Liberals to pasture to pay for their sins of theft.

It would appear that we think we were not involved in the war in Iraq but facts below say otherwise ... hmmm!! http://www.socialist.ca/Journal/m2004/01-CanadaWarIraq.html Canada was the third largest military presence in the war on Iraq in 1991. And the Canadian government at no point challenged the UN sanctions on Iraq. Nor did Chrétien oppose the logic of slaughtering a poor nation with weapons of mass destruction on the pretext that there were unused weapons of mass destruction in Iraqi. The argument carried by Chrétien was that Canada was committed to a multilateral war as a principle of its governance. This is actually nonsense. Canada participated willingly in the war on the former Yugoslavia without UN backing, going instead through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The rhetoric was a feature of the limits to Chrétien’s ability to steer Canadian state foreign policy. His support in his own party was so weak that he had only managed to stay at the helm on condition that he announce his resignation for February of 2004, and in the event left the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) even earlier, in December of 2003. Chrétien wanted to be known as a Liberal with some kind of legacy when he retired from government, and the rhetoric of principled multilateralism was a feature of this. We now also know that Chrétien was using his last months in the PMO as a staging ground for a job interview with the United Nations. [2] The Canadian ruling class was deeply split over whether or not to formally join the coalition of the killing. Chrétien’s wobbling and appeal to vacuous principle were expressions of this division. But there is no doubt that in the absence of the anti-war movement’s pressure on the Canadian government, the position pressing to all out war would have won the day. Documents made public in November of 2003 by the National Post, obtained under access to information legislation, indicate that plans to send 600-800 Canadian soldiers to Iraq were well in place and suddenly changed only in mid-February, the time of the largest anti-war mobilization in Canadian, and international, history. [3] The anti-war movement was key in staying the hand of Canadian imperialism during the preparations for war on Iraq. This is a crucial lesson for the anti-war movement. ............................ Canada continued to play a military role in the war. On March 25, 2003, US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, publicly chastised Canada’s non-participation, but was compelled to note the irony of what this "lack" of support looks like. He stated: "Ironically, the Canadians indirectly provide more support for us in Iraq than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us. It’s kind of an odd situation."[13] After the US, Britain, and Australia, Canada was the next largest military participant in the war on Iraq. Canada provided airspace, 25 military planners to work with the US Central Command, 31 "exchange troops", and other troops as part of the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. Canada also led a multinational task force in the Persian Gulf. One thousand three hundred Canadian troops on three military frigates were stationed in Iraq throughout the war, accompanying US war ships to Kuwait. And the Canadian government has sold billions of dollars worth of weapons and military equipment to the US.

Tony Blair is Labour government [socialist} = to Canadian NDP. Taken from Wikipedia. Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed or supplant capitalism, and would later develop further into communism, as the necessity for the socialist structure would wither away. Marxism and communism are both branches of socialism.

Is it any wonder we lose track of all the scandals - new ones keep popping up daily and I expect it to continue. Of course they felt confident to milk the taxpayers who closed their eyes and kept re-electing them which said it was okay to screw us. Unfortunately, those of us who did not support the Liberals got screwed too - time for change.

No, all I did was wait for results after the Gomery report. The few sacrificial lambs were slaughtered. But those who actually used the taxpayers' money to buy support are still hidden and protected. The same Gomery report that exhonerated Prime Minister Martin? The same Gomery report that praised Ralph Goodale? Yep. The very same Gomery Commission appointed by Martn. Interestingly, I recall reading somewhere that Gomery is a Liberal - could that explain why no one has been or will be punished?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html The Source of Trudeau's philosophy In brief, Trudeau's philosophy and the foundation of his political actions was based on his great admiration and personal exposure to leftist individuals and movements. Fr. de Valk writes "at the London school of economics in the academic year 1947-48, Trudeau met Harold Laski, the intellectual Don of British labor socialism, whom Trudeau described as a 'most stimulating and powerful influence'. Laski convinced him that Democratic socialism could answer the needs of society. Trudeau visited Moscow a few times and reported favorably on Stalin's totalitarianism in the magazine Cite Libre. He frequently expressed enthusiasm for Mao Tse Tung and China's Communist regime, never referring to the mind-boggling number of lives that were snuffed out by that regime. He greatly admired Cuba's marxist despot Fidel Castro and publicly hugged his friend Castro during a trip to Cuba in 1976. Trudeau's shout of "Vive Castro!" at a large public event during the trip was broadcast around the world. Link Byfield, in a September 30, 2000 Globe and Mail column, stated Trudeau "was once overheard by reporters remarking to Fidel Castro how much quicker and easier it would be to run things the Cuban way". The Power and Size of the State Mushroomed Under Trudeau It is no wonder then that the size and power of government bureaucracy and spending ballooned under Pierre Trudeau. Canada's economic and political order (or rather disorder), which for socialists is intimately connected to the social and moral order, has also never been the same since Pierre Trudeau. Byfield states "he put us into a multi-generational national debt." "The net federal debt was $17 billion when he came in and $128 billion when he left. There was no federal deficit when he took control and a $25 billion dollar annual deficit by the time of his departure". Inflation zoomed, interest rates skyrocketed and the dollar began its long descent. The Charter of Wrongs Link Byfield states, "Parliament annoyed him, so he bulldozed his Charter of Rights into the Constitution (1982) and surrendered statutory supremacy to the court". There was no significant public pressure whatever for a Charter of Rights. This did not come from the will of the people. It was sprung on Canadians by the will of Pierre Elliott Trudeau although, as was his usual strategy, he convinced many Canadians to make the Charter their own, even though they still don't understand it. His famous quote explains this manipulation - "In terms of political tactics, the only real question democratic socialists must answer is: just how much reform can the majority of the people be brought to desire at the present time". After all, who could be against cleverly labelled "rights and freedoms." Most Canadians have still not caught on that there was something odd about Trudeau, an admirer of Marxist regimes and contemptious of Parliament and anyone who seriously challenged his policies, insisting that there must be Charter of individual rights and freedoms in the Constitution. Our well-proven Common Law tradition already guaranteed us fundamental rights and the flexibility to safely adjust legal rights and obligations as circumstances changed. Canada did not need the Charter.

It might well be that. Knowing someone who worked in Ottawa in the Civil Service in a fairly high position said they are all under a "gag order" so their only way to speak out would be leak information. Cute!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> And what do you have against Westerners? Do they have warts on their noses, pocks on their faces or are they polka dotted? Ooops, I forgot, westerners are rednecks. A boo is a natural reaction and as others pointed out, representation was hardly fair or equal. TheTorontonian deserved a boo.... "boo, boo, boo!! And you wonder why Westerners get upset. Wake up!! not avaoiding it, maybe there were more people from Ontario who support the National teams?? what difference does it make, they didn't boo the guy from Guelph or where ever, just Toronto. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now, now, sounds like you are jamming out of your pickle. So why do you think that is does not make a difference?

Quote: Honest Politician: Having thousands of unlicensed individuals opening daycares up everywhere doesn't bother you. How about when the first pedophile opens their own daycare? We will all be crying for licenses and guidelines, and background checks. But it will be too late for some poor kid. The conservative plan lends itself to this most unfortunate scenario. And pedophiles have not been hired by licensed daycare? Or children have not been abused in licensed daycare? Where have you been - remember the big bust in Saskatchewan & there are others that do not come to mind right now?

Yeah, because the CPC plan is nickle and dime. It's not nickle and dime - it's about choice and independence something socialists do not understand. Oh brother. This would eb as ludicrous as me saying the CPC's plan promotes promiscuity because its based on the number of children, which would encourage single parents to have as many kids as possible. No comparison but hey, maybe you are on to something. If Canadians had more babies then we would not have to import more people. Nawh, it's easier to import people And not blow their money on beer and popcorn, right? Hey Martin said that and you said it, not me. If people cannot make good choices then they must live with the consequences so if they wish to spend the money on beer and popcorn so be it but then they should not complain that the amount of money given is not enough. No. The Conservative plan gives money. And the Liberals give money, lots of it in creating a beaurocracy which will fail like the gun registry which started out with $1 million and escalated to the ceiling into more millions and guns are out on the street and crime is with us but that is another topic. Because not all choices are equal. But Canadians chant equality so why not when it comes to childcare? Under the Conservatives, everyone is treated equally and have freedom of choice rather than dictatorship. Then they ain't socialists, are they? Oh but they are and vote NDP and are strong union types & admit they are socialists. You bet, they have their gimme hands out all the time and any socialist I have met is no different - it is always "what's in it for me" and not what is best for everyone. We do not discuss politics in order to remain friends, but I observe and it is soooo evident. [/color=red] Who doesn't like free money? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, everyone likes free money so if one group gets it, then to be fair to others who wish to have a choice even if they do wish to spend it on beer & popcorn, they too should get it but not ask for more. To not treat everyone equally is not the Canadian way or is it when special interest groups want it all their way?

Way to go Kimmy - very good points.

Apples and oranges. I'd like to see a plan that gives parents who rely on daycare the assurance that there will be spaces available in facilities with qualified, trained and regulated staff. people using childcare options other than daycare won't be helped by this, of course, but neither will they get much from Harpers plan. I'd say single moms are probably the one's most in need of such a program, so yeah, I can see why they'd want it. Perhaps they need it most but no one forced them into becoming single parents. They chose that option and now want everyone to support them. Anecdote ain't data. I've heard plenty of horror stories of unregulated, unlicensed childcare facilities. Obviously then, these people did not do their homework first. So what you're saying is people don't know how to spend their own money. []No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that people need to spend within their budgets, learn to budget, and not try to keep up with the Joneses. I suppose we now need government to step into this area too. Not everyone has the same options. [] I agree, which is why Conservatives give options and choices. So basically, you're not oppossed to government handouts at all. You just want everyone to get a handout. That is not what I said. I am asking why is the government discriminating against those who wish to make choices and be funded outside of institutionalized funding? Remember it is all about equality or is it? No one answered it because it's a stupid ass question. It is a stupid ass question because you know I hit a truth. I have several NDP socialist friends and it is always "what's in it for me" but never what is best for everyone. They came right out and said they are only interested in what's in it for them and not everyone else. Gimme is how I see it. I still fail to see how the NDP plan or even the Liberal's plan have any impact on choice. If people want to choose to put their kids in the hands of neighbours, or private day cares, they still can. But there should be something out there for people to whom those options aren't available. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the Liberals wish to help regarding child care then it should include everyone and their choices and not a select group as they are currently advocating. Believe it or not, many parents do like the Conservative plan.

Elsie shoots from the hip & then watches the bodies fall - she should remain in retirement since she speaks for herself and not the party. Her mouth usually creates problems in a politically correct arena & politically correct she is not.

Pathetic Liberals - if they can win an election through fear mongering, then not only is Martin pathetic but so are the voters who buy into it. Liberals have had years to do what they are suddenly promising and we must remember, and it is not fear mongering, that they keep very few promises. Time for change.

Now if your child had been severly injured would her house insurance still have covered her and her unlicensed business afterwards? This is another issue the Conservative daycare policy will bring up eventually, as it slowly self-destructs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For one - she did not run an unlicensed business. She did this as a friend. She hung no signs, did not advertise - nada!! Have you never left a child with a friend? What if, what if - well an injury did not happen to our son nor her own children. The fact that we chose to give her payment does not mean she was running a business. I asked the question before - when is enough, actually enough and no one answered it? Why? Because for socialists it is never enough - socialists would, for self interests, bleed a working stiff who is just managing, completely because they believe everyone should fill their stretched out hands. Oh I forgot, the getting by working stiff is rich...