Election 2008

[jdobbin]

And yet it was the Liberals that balanced the budget, and eliminated the national deficit. We're the only G8 country not to have a deficit.

If you're referring to his english, I can understand him perfectly fine, as do a lot of Canadians (not the ignorant ones). If you're referring to his ideas, he's been introducing them slowly, showing what the Liberals stand for. And Mr. Dion, believe it or not, has started acting like a leader, and has listened to his caucus, as a good leader does (instead of run his caucus like a dictatorship).

Many on the right try to downplay the elimination of the deficit under the Liberals.

As for the criticism that the Liberals have no policies, I don't recall Harper unrolling the majority of his policies until the election call. The one policy I do remember him making is that Canada would be there with the Americans in Iraq if he was PM.

[noahbody]

Many on the right try to downplay the elimination of the deficit under the Liberals.

Yes and many on the left downplay the role of free trade and the GST, right?

As for the criticism that the Liberals have no policies, I don't recall Harper unrolling the majority of his policies until the election call. The one policy I do remember him making is that Canada would be there with the Americans in Iraq if he was PM.

If you're referring to 2004, the Conservative Party just had a policy convention a few months before the election.

Harpers position on Iraq was that it wasn't feasible. Funny you don't remember that. Putting soldiers on our streets was never a Harper policy either.

[Michael Bluth]

And yet it was the Liberals that balanced the budget, and eliminated the national deficit.

Basic lesson in grammar. 'And' involves the description of two discrete events, people, etc.... By definition balancing the budget eliminates the deficit. Something the Liberals wouldn't have been able to do without the actions of Mulroney et al.

If you're referring to his english, I can understand him perfectly fine, as do a lot of Canadians (not the ignorant ones).

You're new here so quick note on the personal insults. Because I don't agree with you is no reason to insult me.

If you can honestly understand Mr. Dion 'perfectly fine', think how you would feel if he wasn't the leader of a party you support.

And Mr. Dion, believe it or not, has started acting like a leader, and has listened to his caucus, as a good leader does (instead of run his caucus like a dictatorship).

Being pushed around by your caucus is not a good thing. We would have already had an election if Steph were a strong leader.

He isn't and let his caucus decide for him on the election call.

All of the successful PMs of the last 30 years ran their caucus 'like a dictatorship'. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all controlled their caucuses. Regardless of anything else they were all strong leaders. Steph is not a strong leader.

[jdobbin]

Yes and many on the left downplay the role of free trade and the GST, right?

If you're referring to 2004, the Conservative Party just had a policy convention a few months before the election.

Harpers position on Iraq was that it wasn't feasible. Funny you don't remember that. Putting soldiers on our streets was never a Harper policy either.

Who exactly downplayed the GST as not helping to reduce the deficit? As for free trade, it was the Liberal government that got NAFTA in place.

Each party has a policy convention. I am talking about an election platform which is separate from the policies in a convention since election promises are generally costed out. Also, many convention policies never see the light of day as election promises. The Liberals had a triple E Senate policy back in the 1980s but after the constitutional battles never introduced it as an election platform.

Harper never said it wasn't feasible. Where is the the citation for that?

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

As for free trade, it was the Liberal government that got NAFTA in place.

After campaigning against it in the election.

[Shakeyhands]

Basic lesson in grammar. 'And' involves the description of two discrete events, people, etc....

You're new here so quick note on the personal insults. Because I don't agree with you is no reason to insult me.

Hilarious.

kitchenerlrt : Welcome to the board. Please try not to throw the ignorant label out, Some automatically think you are talking about them. We try to keep this board civil and there are a few, apparently, paranoid people on here.

Michael, stop being so sensitive man. Not every comment is about you. Nice touch with the grammer lesson by the way, great way to welcome a new member.

I've said before that when Steph starts rolling out policy more Canadians will accept that its the party and their policies that are chosen, not necessarily the leader.. we'll see I guess, either way its win win for the Liberals.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Shakeyhands

[Michael Bluth]

Michael, stop being so sensitive man. Not every comment is about you. Nice touch with the grammer lesson by the way, great way to welcome a new member.

Shakey it's not a matter of paranoia. Just plain, old common sense and the ability to read. Everytime you jump in to a situation like this you prove my point. That comment was about me.

I take your silence on Steph's weak English is quietly agreeing with me. I thank you for that.

I do thank you for being up front with our newest Liberal cheerleader.

I've said before that when Steph starts rolling out policy more Canadians will accept that its the party and their policies that are chosen, not necessarily the leader.. we'll see I guess, either way its win win for the Liberals.

What policies are those?

Steph is a weak leader. Canadian's won't hold their nose and vote for him for that reason. Besides, the first couple missteps on the campaign trail and the Liberal infighting should begin. It will be fun to watch.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[kitchenerlrt]

Yes and many on the left downplay the role of free trade and the GST, right?

If you're referring to 2004, the Conservative Party just had a policy convention a few months before the election.

Regarding free trade, I don't think it has been very favourable to us during Harper's term because instead of not having to pay tariffs to send down our softwood lumber, he paid them, just to end the dispute. Martin actually fought for our industry, and didn't give in to the U.S' pressure.

You're new here so quick note on the personal insults. Because I don't agree with you is no reason to insult me.

If you can honestly understand Mr. Dion 'perfectly fine', think how you would feel if he wasn't the leader of a party you support.

Being pushed around by your caucus is not a good thing. We would have already had an election if Steph were a strong leader.

He isn't and let his caucus decide for him on the election call.

All of the successful PMs of the last 30 years ran their caucus 'like a dictatorship'. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all controlled their caucuses. Regardless of anything else they were all strong leaders. Steph is not a strong leader.

Regarding the insult, it wasn't personal at all, it's just that I find many Conservatives don't even listen to him (Dion) because his english isn't as good as theirs. His english has dramatically improved in the past year.

If he wasn't the leader of the Liberals, I'd still be able to understand him, because his english isn't as poor as some people set out to say it is.

Dion isn't being pushed around by his caucus, but rather working as a team player, and making an informed decision by hearing everyone's decision. If the majority of the Liberals didn't want an election, why would he go and force one? It's not only about him, it's about the whole team.

You'll see his leadership when the campaign rolls around.

[Argus]

Money is passed to Tories in nice hotels.

The Tories have something the Liberals seem to lack - a membership which donates money. Tory money has always come in small amounts from a large group of ordinary people. Liberal money has always come in the form of large cheques from the well-off expecting favours - and getting them.

All of this is easily verified with Elections Canada.

[Argus]

It was implemented.

It was? Interesting. That certainly was a quick implementation! Can you, perhaps, give me details of this plan? Because I actually checked the Liberal Party website and there are no details. In fact, there are precious few details about anything there. Instead there's feel-good statements about how the Liberals would take care of everything - just no details on how they'd do it or what it would cost. None. Zero.

This leads me to believe that all the promises are so much hot air - just like they have been in all the previous elections.

Because if the Liberal Party actually gave a damn about child care it would have implemented a program sometime over the past decade and a half of promising one.

[Argus]

Many on the right try to downplay the elimination of the deficit under the Liberals.

Yes, for some reason we have difficulty giving them credit for eliminating the world-wide recession.

As for the criticism that the Liberals have no policies, I don't recall Harper unrolling the majority of his policies until the election call.

In fact, most of the new policies over the life of the previous Liberal government came from the Tories and Reform. The Liberal Party seems to be pretty much intellectually - as well as morally - bankrupt.

[jdobbin]

The Tories have something the Liberals seem to lack - a membership which donates money. Tory money has always come in small amounts from a large group of ordinary people. Liberal money has always come in the form of large cheques from the well-off expecting favours - and getting them.

All of this is easily verified with Elections Canada.

It hasn't always been small donors. The PC party used to get the big donations. It is the Reform/Alliance that started off small.

The Liberal fundraising has been a failure with the new regulations. It will be one of the things party faithful will look at when assessing Dion during a leadership review.

[jdobbin]

Yes, for some reason we have difficulty giving them credit for eliminating the world-wide recession.

In fact, most of the new policies over the life of the previous Liberal government came from the Tories and Reform. The Liberal Party seems to be pretty much intellectually - as well as morally - bankrupt.

Many say the world-wide recession was the result of right wing policies.

And now many of the Conservative policies comes from previous Liberal policies. Funny how that works. Probably why the Liberals are reluctant to unveil their platform until the election.

[jdobbin]

It was? Interesting. That certainly was a quick implementation! Can you, perhaps, give me details of this plan? Because I actually checked the Liberal Party website and there are no details. In fact, there are precious few details about anything there. Instead there's feel-good statements about how the Liberals would take care of everything - just no details on how they'd do it or what it would cost. None. Zero.

This leads me to believe that all the promises are so much hot air - just like they have been in all the previous elections.

Because if the Liberal Party actually gave a damn about child care it would have implemented a program sometime over the past decade and a half of promising one.

The first part of the daycare plan started in 2004. Did you look that far back?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0202?hub=Canada

The Conservative minority government said it will stop the child care payments to the provinces after one year, but will have to pass a new law to do so. However, it is unlikely the other parties will vote with them on the issue.

I agree that ten years of planning was too long but the plan was in place in early 2005 and continued until the first Tory year in office.

[Argus]

The first part of the daycare plan started in 2004. Did you look that far back?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0202?hub=Canada

I agree that ten years of planning was too long but the plan was in place in early 2005 and continued until the first Tory year in office.

I thought you were going to give me details. There were no details in that cite. None. Zero. From what I understand the Liberals basically threw money at the provinces and said "Here! Take it! Spend it on anything you want! Just let's please, please call it a national childcare program!"

And the provinces aid, "Uh, okay".

As I understand it there was not even any requirement that the provinces spend the money on child care.

Some program!

[Michael Bluth]

In fact, most of the new policies over the life of the previous Liberal government came from the Tories and Reform. The Liberal Party seems to be pretty much intellectually - as well as morally - bankrupt.

If you look at many of the Chretien accomplishments they were in fact right wing policies.

The about face on the GST. PC policy.

The about face on NAFTA. PC policy.

Deficit and expense cutting. Reform policy.

Clarity Act. Alliance policy.

The Liberals have been intellectually bankrupt for a quarter century. Trudeau ran out of ideas when he ran that final term and nobody has come up with any ideas since.

Explains why certain posters can post three times in a row and not really say anything.

[jdobbin]

I thought you were going to give me details. There were no details in that cite. None. Zero. From what I understand the Liberals basically threw money at the provinces and said "Here! Take it! Spend it on anything you want! Just let's please, please call it a national childcare program!"

And the provinces aid, "Uh, okay".

As I understand it there was not even any requirement that the provinces spend the money on child care.

Some program!

Actually it was the Tories who showed that daycare spaces were created by the Liberal program and their program was not doing the job. It was well discussed here in the forums.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...9ad3a3d&p=1

Still, the Harper government may try to save some face on the child-care issue by earmarking funds in the budget for tax credits and grants to businesses and other organizations that create new spaces. Provincial ministers said they have been heartened by what they saw as Solberg's willingness to apply "fresh eyes" to the Conservative child-care policy after he was named to the job in January.

They said they told him if Ottawa was unprepared to restore the "robust" funding promised by the Liberals, the least it could do was divide the $250 million among them.

They said the money will allow them to sustain the child-care systems they now have, and possibly allow some expansion in specific areas.

Solberg said his plan to create space was not doable.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09...4528399-cp.html

That said, Solberg cited new plans for 7,000 spaces in Ontario, 1,250 in Manitoba, 500 in Saskatchewan and 750 in New Brunswick.

"I would argue that a lot of that had to do with the fact that they got extra support from us," he said.

Liberal MP and child-care critic Ruby Dhalla scoffed at that idea.

"I think Minister Solberg is forgetting that any spaces created are thanks to money that was booked and committed under the Liberals. Not a single new space has been created under this government."

Critics say stressed-out parents in many parts of Canada face a tough choice - stay home, or place their kids in low-quality care.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

Harper never said it wasn't feasible. Where is the the citation for that?

Given our limited military capacity," the leader of the newly merged Conservative party mused, "and the extent to which our people are already over-commited across the world, I don't think that's feasible."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

This was the 2004 for reasons from Harper. It certainly wasn't what he was saying back in 2003.

Here are two broken promises in the same quote.

http://discuss.ctv.ca/forums/archive/index.php/t-2949.html

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Good work in showing yet another falsehood from liberal-minded posters.

These leads to a very interesting question.

Are these boards supposed to be about honest political debate or simply posting partisan rhetoric.

We have a determined poster who won't allow anything but partisan rhetoric. He ignores any information that doesn't fit his world views and his impotence and anger is growing daily.

Thankfully there are a number of posters here who take turns in pointing out the habitual misstatements.

[capricorn]

Good work in showing yet another falsehood from liberal-minded posters.

Ditto.

Thankfully there are a number of posters here who take turns in pointing out the habitual misstatements.

Anyone here who misrepresents the facts or spreads misinformation should be called on it. This is also part of a healthy debate.

[Michael Bluth]

Anyone here who misrepresents the facts or spreads misinformation should be called on it. This is also part of a healthy debate.

It would be nice if this were a rare thing.

Nobody is perfect and people do make mistakes. But if it is a pattern of deceiptful posts and antagonistic behaviour to other posts something needs to be done.

[jdobbin]

Anyone here who misrepresents the facts or spreads misinformation should be called on it. This is also part of a healthy debate.

Once the war started to go the way it did, Harper changed his tune from this:

This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.

The Wall Street Post article and the Fox interviews that Harper did as well left little doubt that if he were prime minister, Canada would be in Iraq. There wasn't any "feasible" talk in 2003.

Interview with the Montreal Gazette:

...we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win."

Montreal Gazette, April 2nd 2003

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

Nobody is perfect and people do make mistakes. But if it is a pattern of deceiptful posts and antagonistic behaviour to other posts something needs to be done.

I've been wrong before in the facts I presented albeit unintentionally. I hone up to it and carry on.

Merry Christmas MB.

[BubberMiley]

Basic lesson in grammar. 'And' involves the description of two discrete events, people, etc....

Actually, I think it's just a conjunction (like 'but' and 'or').