OddSox Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Is that next to where you keep the, "I won't tax income trusts."? Not even in the same cabinet, let alone the same shelf. You can't be serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Not even in the same cabinet, let alone the same shelf. You can't be serious. Really? People lost a lot of money based on the Tory decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Not even in the same cabinet, let alone the same shelf. You can't be serious. No, income trusts were worse. In the end, the Liberals kept it the same as it was before. In this case, it was a new tax and a lot of people lost a lot of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Not even in the same cabinet, let alone the same shelf. You can't be serious. Of course, I forgot. It's beside the "I won't appoint senators." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 No, income trusts were worse. In the end, the Liberals kept it the same as it was before. In this case, it was a new tax and a lot of people lost a lot of money. Could it be considered to be the right decision even though it wasn't popular?Might this be yet another case of the Conservatives having to do the dirty work and the Liberals reaping the benefits?The GST was a huge cash cow for the Libs,and on the whole,I think most people would admit that free trade has also been good for the country.Both initiatives which the Liberals fought tooth and nail against while they were in opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Of course, I forgot. It's beside the "I won't appoint senators." Any theories as to how the Senate came to be dominated by Liberals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Any theories as to how the Senate came to be dominated by Liberals? The Liberals never promised to do something with the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 The Liberals never promised to do something with the Senate. The Senate is dominated by Liberals because since they have historically been the party in power,AND THEY OVERWHELMINGLY PUT LIBERALS IN THERE! I actually favour the NDP's option regarding the Senate,abolish it if it is at all possible.Harper's plan is better than the status quo,which is what the Liberals favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Of course, I forgot. It's beside the "I won't appoint senators." Anyone remember Trudeau saying he wouldn't introduce wage and price controls?That was a whopper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Anyone remember Trudeau saying he wouldn't introduce wage and price controls?That was a whopper! Did Trudeau do anything positive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Did Trudeau do anything positive? The Constitution Act, 1982.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 The Constitution Act, 1982.... I disagree....where has it left us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 I disagree....where has it left us? With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I may have many issues with the Liberals that has never been one of them, I thank god someone had the balls to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I may have many issues with the Liberals that has never been one of them, I thank god someone had the balls to do it. It's like getting sucker punched 15 times in a row to avoid getting kicked where the sun don't shine. Surely their is a better way to accomplish this. Sure did leave a legacy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I disagree....where has it left us? As a country with one of the highest qualities of life and best reputation in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's like getting sucker punched 15 times in a row to avoid getting kicked where the sun don't shine. Surely their is a better way to accomplish this.Sure did leave a legacy... NO there wasn't it is why Tommy Douglas suggested it in 1950 before the Liberals stole the idea from him. It has to be in the Constitution for it to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) NO there wasn't it is why Tommy Douglas suggested it in 1950 before the Liberals stole the idea from him. It has to be in the Constitution for it to work. Ok, lets compare. You have a debilitating, but curable disease, and no cash to pay for it. You decide to sell your house worth $400 to raise funds. You can either: A- Sell your house for $30,000 to pay the medical bills, have an obvious improvement on quality of life, but no more resources from which to advance yourself. B- Sell your house for $300,000 to pay the medical bills, have the same improvement of quality of life, in addition to leftover resources. A- Constitution act of 1982. B- Seeking an alternative to that proposed by the herr cult leader. It has left the country with serious handicaps, and it didn't need to. Edited September 16, 2009 by Goat Boy© Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Ok, lets compare.A- Constitution act of 1982. It's funny how the NDP tries to take sole credit and whine that the Liberals stole the Charter of Rights when the Implied Bill of Rights existed in Canada long before. It was based on the BNA Act and was used back in the 1930s. Edited September 16, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's funny how the NDP tries to take sole credit and whine that the Liberals stole the Charter of Rights when the Implied Bill of Rights existed in Canada long before. Yah we had a bill rights before that too it was based on Tommy Douglas's Bill of rights for Saskatchewan which was the first Bill of rights in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ok, lets compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I may have many issues with the Liberals that has never been one of them, I thank god someone had the balls to do it. The rights and fredoms already existed under our consitution prior to 1982. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 No they didn't. They existed under the law, but they weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 No they didn't. They existed under the law, but they weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Yes they did the BNA act was the constitution and they existed as .a part of common law under that document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Common law (as in the statutes of our country) isn't the Constitution....and it was far easier to change anything to do with the Constitution before 1982. Yes, we had rights, but they weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Common law (as in the statutes of our country) isn't the Constitution....and it was far easier to change anything to do with the Constitution before 1982. Yes, we had rights, but they weren't enshrined in the Constitution. They never needed to be "enshrined". They existed, and the government couldn't just changed the common law precedents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.