err

Hi... I rarely use Canada Post for courier... I also use Fedex and UPS.. However, the issue is more that NAFTA allows these kinds of "attacks" on our country... not good...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> One big difference is that neither Martin nor Layton try to depict themselves as "average families" who have to struggle... "middle class parents with childcare concerns"... "having to make difficult but loving choices"... (sorry, there wasn't a smiley that was puking or I would have used it...)

I didn't claim that they were underpaid.... I identified the fact that you portrayed them as being "bad guys" for going on strike, without identifying why they went.... Another example of CPC claims not backed up by any kind of fact...... I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth... Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....

Harper woos `working families' - Says he relates to middle class I guess we're supposed to get the impression that Harper's a "regular guy" with a "regular paycheque".... Most "middle class" Canadians wouldn't consider Harper's salary of $213,500 plus expenses a "middle class" salary.... And of course, with these economic times, $200K doesnt go very far... most Canadians can really identify with that ... can't they....

The benefits of Free Trade. Next, they'll be able to go after our medical system, as it provides "unfair competition" to private, "for profit" medical care. See Toronto Star Article: UPS trade complaint worries Canada Post workers

Your assumption that they daycare workers were wrong to go on strike is not supported by any argument.... How much were they making... were they underpayed ??? If so, then good for them. Unlike the CPC crowd, I think it's a good thing when people are paid what they're worth...

Martin's government already has it in law... It is the Harper rednecks that want to use the notwithstanding clause.... to repeal that right of Canadian homosexuals.... Harper brought it up on the first day of the election campaign..... He wrote about it in his letter to the Washington Times.... but he didn't spell out that he'd have to use the "notwithstanding" clause....

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it.... The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be paid for it? By their employers you mean? Because the government is just giving them their money back to help them raise their children. Parents who have the luxury of affording to stay home with their children shouldn't be paid to do it.. just because they don't need to or want to put their children in daycare.... The daycare monies should be put into daycare for those who need it....And when you think about it, the government is not really "giving them their own money back" in most cases as you would suggest. Usually the payment's component part will primarily be taken from "other people's money".... The majority of taxpayers do not have children under 6. Now that you bring it up, you might find yourself in a hypocritical situation. I do believe you voiced a negative opinion about giving your money to welfare people on other threads. If it is ok to give it to people with children, but not the subset of people on welfare who have children... you have a dilemna.... a hypocritical position.... Even without the welfare argument, you are taking money from richer people and giving it to poorer people......

Excellent Harper Speech Condensed Some lefty Canadians don't like the deal with the $5 Billion in software lumber taxes, but we'd like to smooth that over... So maybe we'll threaten to sell our lumber to China too if the problem continues for too many more years... I loved the part where Harper says "too bad you didn't find any WMD's".... It's a nice way of saying "Too bad you got caught with your pants down", but we agree with what you did... However, due to the fact that the majority of the public agree with Liberal values, we have to pretend we do to get elected, and will have to say that we can't send troops. I don't support Kyoto, but if Dick Cheyney has a better plan, we'll agree to that.... We plan to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" to take away rights from homos, who our party doesn't like either.... We have some minute differences with a very few American conservatives, but not many... because we're neo-cons too...... Don't worry... we'll bend over for you...

Just like Harper will do anything to get into power... Including trying to "out-Liberal" Paul Martin. Harper's gone directly against just about everything Brian Mulroney stood for....(except Free Trade and Manifest Destiny) like the GST, family allowance, spend, spend, spend, to get votes, rather than profess Conservative ideology.... And why, I had to ask myself is he professing Liberal values to old age pensioners, parents, etc.... Why, to get elected of course.... And then he can implement his social Conservative policies.....

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it.... The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"...

Paul Martin's plan is "daycare", and Harper's is "tax relief"... two completely different goals...I would profess that the government has the capability of providing more "daycare solutions" for more people than a small tax return for those with small children... a return that will not increase accesibility to daycare for as many people as the Liberal or NDP solutions will.... I would also suggest that it be targetted to those who need it the most. If you'll remember Brian Mulroney's "Wealty Banker's Wife" commercials, where, in order to justify his cancellation of the family allowance benefit, Mulroney presented commercials of the wealth woman deciding whether to buy chocolates or perfume with her monthly cheque... And based on the "outrage" of the "rich people freeloading", Mulroney cancelled the family allowance cheque that many poor families needed. This is a perfectly parallel situation where the CPC is championing the exact opposite postion from Mulroney's Progressive Conservative party. This contradiction itself raises many questions..... The way I see it, Harper's fiscal policy is closer to Liberal than Conservative..... which is what they'd need to get elected, so they could impement their social conservative policies.....

That's right... On the CPC website, all the parents love it... and same with all the parents who wrote into the National Post.... So it must be universally accepted....

But if inexpensive homecare comes with the price of a lost income necessary to pay for the home, then it is actually more expensive. August... I've changed hundreds of diapers for all of my children. You don't need a pre-med degree to do so. It is not difficult at all. However, the daycare issue is about daycare, not "giving parents choice", or "giving parents money"... In our society, in most families, both parents have to work to support a certain expected standard of living. For many families life is a real struggle, having to balance a desire to stay home with the children or go to some degrading job just to be able to afford milk and new socks and underwear for the kids. It is these families, who are most in need, that we should aspire to provide assistance. $25/week won't pay for one single day of daycare (in most of Canada). It might come as some relief to many, but it certainly will not afford daycare for any but those who can pretty much afford it already. ---- Isn't this what we're talking about.... publicly provided daycare as opposed to a 'tax break for those with children' Hey everybody, August is a "world traveller" so her opinion must be better than everybody else's....The USSR was bankrupted by playing the USA's cold war game. That's where their money went, rather than into their infrastructure.... That explains their failure more that all other reasons combined... $25/week to have kids... no thanks... I thought you used to fancy yourself as knowing something about economics.... but not real-world I guess ???It amazes me, some of the things that come out of your mouth.... "Rich people are better off with no kids".... Perhaps if your kids are financial "investments", your statement might have some merit on paper... but people don't usually have kids as investments.... there's other reasons that money can't buy....

We probably won't hear a clear answer from Harper until, God forbid, he should ever take office.... I think you'll see Martin's position promoting our public health care system through his recent announcements of funding and support contradict what he has done as finance minister for how many years.... plundering the health-care system to fund deficit reduction and tax breaks for Corp Canada. The NDP has, however, been consistent in its position, that our surpluses should go back to where they were plundered from, reducing wait times, etc... They have been consistent in this position for as long as I can remember. The CPC and its founding counterparts has promoted parallel health care system, the abolition of the Canada Health Act, and anybody who has followed politics for the past several years will see their present stance as electioneering... and should not trust what Harper now claims....

It is an option that involves the following: I will tax you and use the money to build a house. Now, you have the option of eithering living in the house I have built for you or using your after-tax money to build your own house that you prefer.That's a strange definition of "option". Come on August... you can do better than this sham of a pathetic analogy... Why don't you change the "house" in your analogy to a "service", which is what the proposed Childcare is.... let's say it's a "hospital", "grocery store", "hardware store", or something along that line..... Then the argument is clearly in favour of the government-run option....

I suspect you CPC types know what it really stands for... Child Porn... It almost rhymes with popcorn.... Maybe you should attack from this angle....

When they can't win an argument based on logic or facts, out comes the CPC's favourite accusation.... Child Porn.... It's probably just a coincidence that CPC's acronym could stand for something like Child Porn Crusaders.....

Are we to suppose that people on welfare are more likely to commit fraud than the population at large, and therefore, we should not give them money ???---- The funny thing here is that Harper is acting like a Liberal... and one has to ask why.... First, how is Harper a liberal.... Running around promising money like he's competing with Paul Martin.... against the principles of the CPC.... Why..... Because he knows he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected standing on his social conservative platform, or suggesting we buy aircraft carriers, or promoting hatred agains homosexuals.... So he's acting like a Liberal to try to get elected.... The real irony... He'll be a true Liberal and reneg on all his promises.... then he can get on with his social/moral agenda....

Did you forget the video "REEFER MADNESS"... scary stuff..... and it's all true, because the government of the United States made this video and they NEVER lie... PS. Look around you, and you'll see tons of evidence in your community, maybe even your own house, of the kinds of problems that alcohol brings with it.... Or perhaps you might want to go to your local "battered womens shelter" and ask if the abusive husbands have a bigger problem with alcohol or with pot.... You'll have trouble finding evidence of problems due to marijuana...

And you NEVER hear about the CPC promoting environmental consciousness.... The NDP have a viable plan, the Liberals talk a lot about it, and the CPC... just pick faults with everybody... Check out the thread Mike Harris did Nothing Wrong - Provincial Politics This seems to be a popular theme for Conservatives in the referenced thread. Is this another case of the pot calling the kettle black (and no, let's not diverge into the topic of pot/marijuana) Got that? Canadians are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They cannot be trusted to decide on their choice of childcare; they will "blow" it on beer, popcorn, or a new car. Again, check out the above referenced thread... I think the Liberals changed the old Conservative line from "Beer and Drugs" to "beer an popcorn".... Handing out a 20% of the cost of daycare to all parents seems rather foolish. Many of these parents don't need the financial assistance, so why not direct the funds to how they can be best applied to help those most in need. Where are the people most in need going to get the other $6000 or so additional to send their kids to daycare... If this money isn't enough to make a difference in a parent's ability to pay for daycare, then what's the point.... They'll have to spend it on something else.... And so the money won't really be for daycare, will it ????Montgomery, you're probably too young to remember Brian Mulroney's ploy to get rid of the "family allowance" cheque.... He put commercials on the television showing the wealth woman deciding whether to buy perfume or chocolates with the cheque.... And so that the general public didn't get "ripped off" giving tax money to rich people, he cancelled the family allowance cheque for everybody... including the people who needed it.... Why shouln't this Conservative philosopy apply to the CPC party ????

Well I'll apologize for using such derogatory terms for describing the kinds of people that your precious CPC party wants to discriminate against... on moral grounds of course.... I though I'd use the words that you'd identify with, as you discuss such people amongst your CPC-type selves....

I suppose the merits of the converse of this argument should be discussed. If marijuana reduces your inhibitions and increases your desire to have sex, while at the same time, reduces the likelihood of impregnation... wow... a win-win situation...

Jack Layton has not flip-flopped at all on health care. He stated that private health care has always been here, and that he doesn't intend to ban it.... just STARVE it of public funding. On the legalization of marijuana, Layton has softened his stance to decriminalization from legalization.... Funny how only one of the four candidates is so square on this issue ..... And Jack Layton is the leader of the NDP, not Buzz Hargrove... However, since you bring up Buzz Hargrove's position, I'm surprised one of you CPC's didn't want to post this letter that went to the National Post.......

It's the old "Accuse them of supporting child porn" if you're losing an argument strategy... It's commonly used by Harper and other CPC supporters.By the way, Argus probably never watched "Up in Smoke", or he'd be going on about growing tails.... and oh my God... leading to trans-gender problems....