geoffrey

Is this because Quebecois 'hate' Harper? If so, the polls reflect they must really 'hate' the Liberals!

Actually, in the part of the country I come from (outside of Ontario sorry), there is a huge Conservative base among younger voters. At the U of C I'd argue most students are CPC supporters (maybe this is the only exception, I mean Tom Flanagan is faculty here ), and I probably wouldn't be too far from the truth if not dead on. Still, there is more than the Left at universities I'm sure. Reading something in a book isn't understanding the situation at the time. Youth have never experienced first hand any alternative to the Liberals. Once they see that alternatives exist, and if these alternatives prove to improve their lives, I'm sure they'd have less hesitation to vote for them. Most of the younger Liberals and NDP supporters I talk to really are against Harper and not for their parties (well maybe not the NDP supporters, but the Liberals definately work that way). Once they see Harper isn't the devil incarnate I'm sure they will motivated to vote for that party. I'm sure the NDP would gain support to if an alternative party were accepted. I just figure its hard to support something that you never have experienced. And remember, I'd also say less than 5% of voters in the youth category have read up on Mulroney, and I'd say about 25% at the most know even who he is. All they know is the Liberals, and thats why they'd be most likely to vote for them.

Definately not on the bandwagon, I've been a Conservative member since the conception of the party, a PC member before that. Maybe if you looked at the rest of what I had to say on this issue (in this thread) I raise very valid points.

A weaker dollar in purchasing power, not on the international markets. Our dollar will continue to increase until the US stabilizes.

Only because CanWest papers have higher readership in conservative areas. They are just selling to their audience. Theres not alot of bias on CanWest TV or in papers situated in more liberal areas.

Aspers are Liberals, get your story straight. The National Post was only really conservative under Mr. Black. And there is nothing wrong with a Liberal media outlet, in fact, I welcome it. Not funded by taxpayers though. Publicly funded TV is dangerous, no matter how long the arms length its operatthd at is. I shouldn't have to pay for Liberal TV just because its not commericially viable.

I'm going to need to build my own missile defense system once Harper gets in. With all those Americans marching through our streets, ya never know if any of those crazy Texans will shoot at your house.

What bringeth out the feminazi in you? terrible sarcastic humour. It was a play on the stereotype of Conservatives being old-fashioned and "family-oriented". Anyone want to buy my horse and buggy? It's in great condition, I'm personally thinking of upgrading to a Bennett buggy myself, but we'll see how the finances are. Must not overspend. The wife is also looking for a chair, when she's at home all day she occasionally wants to sit. I think this could be acceptable. I'm willing to trade my buggy for a chair if its in good condition and upholstered nicely.

Increased GST would be bad for business. Things cost more, people spend less. The value of a dollar domestically would decrease because more per capita spending power would be available with no income tax. The rich would haven all their money here tax free. This just couldn't work. I'd love to see the experiment, but make sure to notify me so I can move elsewhere first. No GST and lower income taxes I support though.

Actually the first forms that those stuck in the stone age (the non-efilers) got said 16%... now they are getting 15% forms rushed to them (the CBC ran this story). I thought all bills were quashed at the fall of parliment?

Paul Martin, 16 January 2006Toronto Star Is Martin advocating that the Liberals and the NDP unite into a single party? Unite the left!

It's not law, but if the Liberals are re-elected, the law will presumably pass and then it will be effective from 1 January 2006. (Keep in mind that ordinary taxpayers will not be liable until 30 April 2007.) I think the point here is credibility. Politicians face a difficult task in being believed. This Liberal gambit was a way to show that they were serious about the tax reduction. OTOH, it's a good political ploy too. Actually August, CRA is printing new forms with the 15% to send out. This 15% cut is apparently retroactive to January 2005. So when all these people find out they owe an extra couple hundred bucks, they'll hate the Tories? Thats trouble. I don't really understand how the Revenue Canada folks could change this without parliment though, really troubling. From the CRA website @ http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g/5000-g-01-05e.html:

It wasn't passed by the Senate... does it need to be?

This substantial portion you speak of, are you saying their unfit to survive because of born ability? If so I hope you've got some valid studies to back this up. Never though I'd see the day where I defend eureka... I think eureka is saying that some people are born without the capability to live without assistance. This is obviously true.

Nothing wrong with stuttering or anything like that. Just when it starts when he makes big campaign statements, and I've never noticed it before.

I think you made a four sentence post with each of the conservative daily talking points in it. Congratulations. Three sentences... and I've yet to hear any of those as talking points.

The ways and means motion on the reduction of income taxes was only adopted on first reading by the house and apparently did not get senate approval or royal assent. Does that mean it is not law? Why was the tax rate already reduced then? From: http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus.../status1-e.html Never got past that... does it need to for it to become law?

I understand that Canada is decentralized more so than most other countries, but don't you agree we need to be in order to make sure the views of each region are fairly represented? We are a huge country, and in each area we have very different interests and opinions. Or are you contending that a stronger Federal government would work to make these regions more alike and ending the problem that way by removing any disparity between provinces?

Ummm, lets not go there, immigrant strippers get fast tracked thru the system and then join one of Jack's unions. Uh...ok... I actually would jsut read the websites and the posts on the forum (objectively). We are mostly all very polarized one way or another and I can honestly tell you I can't give you a completely fair run down. I'd assume that not many people here could.

Nah I've got to disagree with you here. I'm sure the RCMP leadership is tired of it, and most police officers in this country are upset with the lack of progress on policing issues, and the lack concern the Federal government has had for their issues. However, the ethics of police officers I feel are much higher than using their power to influence an outcome in a democratic election. I have complete faith in our RCMP to operate with the interests of upholding the law as their first priority, and not to engage in any political influence.

Well it doesn't seem like we'll ever find agreement on decentralisation. I really do see your point, but I'm just not buying it. Here's a fair question, what would you put back into the control of the Federal government that is a provincial responsibility now?

Even I couldn't listen to Warren if he had the meaning of life in one of his shows.

I almost would agree. Doesn't make much sense to just send it out to party members though? Also, it doesn't look like there would be anywhere to put that kinda thing on that messy website. If it was there I probably wouldn't even see it. I wasn't one to receive it either. I'm just passing on the good old letter.

Hang on, I'll call up a campaign office and tell them I'll bring 5 voters to their party if they tell me. I'm sure they'll bite on that huge chunk of bait.

Wow. If there was any lies I would be upset. But this is accurate. Jack Layton supports legalizing drugs (marijuana). Jack Layton supports no further tax cuts. Jack Layton wanted to increase gas taxes. Jack Layton supports the death tax. The NDP has never denied any of this. Good spin in their answer, but they don't even deny it there. Its all criticism of current policy. Nice try.