It really, REALLY is about time that the proliferation of Conservative

[canadiantothecore]

Recent developments have convinced me that an informed debate on the recent economic history of our country would be of use.

While I found Mr. Harper's entirely scripted "youth outreach" Q and A period, in which he unjustifiably heaped massive amounts of praise on his government's fiscal/economic record, deeply troubling, his comments at the G-8, G-20 meetings have convinced me that it is necessary to challenge the conservative's stated economic "achievments". His statement that other countries must emulate Canada's frugal fiscal policy, and reduce their deficits and debts within the next half decade, must be scruitinized. After all, should we not demand that our political leadership shows the same fiscal policies at home that they so strongly advocate abroad.

While Jim Flaherty, and of course Stephen Harper, would have you believe that he saved our country from the economic downturn of 2008 and has been a fine manager of our nation's finances, the historical record shows that the economic/fiscal policies of our current government have thus far been nothing short of disastrous.

As you may all recall, Paul Martin was able to eliminate the historically high deficits of the Mulroney government(which have since been surpassed by Harper's deficits) between 1993 and 1997 through a mix of spending cuts and minimal tax increases. Between 1998 and 2005 our government ran consecutive budgetary surpluses, the longest string(totalling the greatest sum of money) in Canadian history. With this excess revenue we were able to pay down our national debt from 75% to 25% of our GDP, an achievment which to the best of my knowledge is unprecedented in the modern history of the world. This incredibly sound fiscal management allowed our government to commence, and sustain, an expeditionary force in Afghanistan without coming close to running a deficit!

When Harper won the 2006 federal election, he proceeded to cut corporate taxes(which I don't entirely disagree with - in moderation), reduce the GST from 7 to 5%(a move every economist in the country disagrees with), and massively inrease spending on the military amongst other things. The ultimate result of these fiscal reforms was the elimination of our budgetary surplus in its entirety by 2007. Thus when the economic downturn hit in 2008 we had exactly zero dollars available to freely spend on stimulus. Additionally, Harper's nonchalant response to the recession as "a passing thing" and gleefully as a "chance to buy stocks low", coupled with his and Flaherty's blatant lie that we would not run a deficit in 2008(we ran the biggest in Canada's history), should be seen as some of the most ignorant economic comments ever uttered by a canadian government.

It is also important to note that Stephen Harper, in opposition at the time, strongly jumped on the bank de-regulation bandwagon in 1999...he demanded that the majority of regulatory legislation on banks be rescinded by the federal government but Martin told him to go fuck himself. I don't think I need to tell you where we would currently be if he had gotten his way in 1999...

Harper now is proceeding(delayed by his disgraceful decision to prorogue parliament in Dec. 2009 which annulled his "critically important crime legislation") to pass a number of draconian anti-crime bills through parliament. The first of fifteen, c-25, is calculated to cost billions of dollars each year. The total annual cost of these "anti-crime" bills will undoubtedly cost the federal government tens of billions of dollars annually. I would have less problem with the government legislating the creation of a permanent structural fiscal deficit, if ALL THE LEGAL EXPERTS did not disagree with their assessment. The Government's Commission on Prisons, which was chaired by none other than the degreeless Stockwell Day and ten others that have no expertise in the area of prison systems, was the clueless body that drafted these proposed bills. Additionally, since crime rates are at an all time low, is it too much to ask for our government to get its fiscal house in order before proceeding with its incredibly costly crime agenda? Is it also too much to ask that it comes clean with the cost of these bills? (bill c-25 was to cost 90 million but according to the budget but Kevin Page(who calls the conservatives on their claims - and is always called a liar, always without justification, by Mr. Flaherty) will cost at least a billion dollars annually)

So the Harper Government is responsible for eliminating a massive budgetary surplus within its first year, responding to the economic downturn with shocking ignorance, and legislating the creation of a permanent structural deficit in the Canadian Government's fiscal policy via a number of ignorant crime bills that legal experts disagree with. Additionally, Flaherty's budgets will not come close to eliminating the federal deficit until 2015 - a conclusion that Mr. Page contests with evidence(and Mr. Flaherty dismisses with none). Our national debt will increase considerably over this period of time(the number ive heard is 180 billion dollars - correct me if I'm wrong) even with best case scenarios involving the crime bills. Yet Mr. Harper would have you believe that he saved the Canadian economy during the recession and that his government has an "exceptional" fiscal record. But...It seems to me that the only reasons that we are relatively well off fiscally at the moment is the previous government's denial of Harper's bank de-regulation requests coupled with their incredibly strong fiscal policy.

Is it not then ironic that Harper is championning his fiscal record, and pretending to counsel other national leaders on their's, on the world forum.

A final point...Harper's decision to hold the G20 conference in downtown TO is incredibly stupid. There is not one locale in the entire country that could have generated protests of the size that TO could. With that being said, the 1.2 billion dollar price tag on security is completely inexcusable. The 20,000 armed personnel deployed in downtown TO was almost twice the size of the US force used to occupy Afghanistan between 2001-2007. THAT'S RIGHT, TWICE THE SIZE OF A FORCE USED TO OCCUPY A HOSTILE MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRY(note that I do not think that the small force the US deployed in Afghanistan was sufficient for containing the isurgency)...a few burnt cop cars(that were suspiciously parked within easy access of the protestors) and a few thrown projectiles do not constitute an insurgency, and thus do not justify the placement of an army(that still could somehow fail to prevent the wanton destruction of shops for hours in downtown TO strange no?) in the downtown of our largest city. I will go on record as saying the job could have easily been done by 1/2-1/4 the men.

But maybe I have it all wrong and Harper is our economic/fiscal saviour...please let me know your thoughts.

[Jack Weber]

Mark (Holland) or Paul (Dewar) or whomever you are...

I like your take on things...

Edited July 20, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[Argus]

As you may all recall, Paul Martin was able to eliminate the historically high deficits of the Mulroney government(which have since been surpassed by Harper's deficits) between 1993 and 1997 through a mix of spending cuts and minimal tax increases.

In fact, these "historically high" deficits were initiated by Pierre Trudeau, who doubled federal program spending in his first term in office, then doubled it again in his second term in office, running up a huge budget deficit which, by the end of his term, and with the aid of high interest rates required between $30 and $40billion per year to service. Most of the additional billions added to the federal debt during Mulroney's years were because of this huge debt servicing cost.

And the principal reason why the annual deficits receded under the Chretien Liberals (do note Chretien was one of Trudeau's finance ministers) was the expanding and booming world economy putting Canadians back to work and flooding the federal coffers with taxes. Including from the GST the Liberals had fought so desperately against.

hen Harper won the 2006 federal election, he proceeded to cut corporate taxes(which I don't entirely disagree with - in moderation), reduce the GST from 7 to 5%(a move every economist in the country disagrees with), and massively inrease spending on the military amongst other things. The ultimate result of these fiscal reforms was the elimination of our budgetary surplus in its entirety by 2007.

Let's recall a few political realities of life. The major reason the Liberals were able to go through their budgetary surplus years without adding to spending was there was no political necessity to do so. The Liberals had made buying votes a key part of their electioneering for years, but with a badly divided opposition and absolutely no threat at the polls, they contented themselves with doing almost nothing along those lines.

Until the opposition united. Now with a threat on the horizon, the Liberals opened the taps wide. In recall reading, I believe in the Star, and analysis of Liberal spending promises just prior to Martin taking over. The analysis was that Chretien had basically initiated programs and promises that effectively spent the entirety of the budget surplus for years to come, tying Martin's hands just as he was about to take over. Notwithstanding that, Martin, as he approached an election, began making very expensive, grandiose promises which would have spent billions more, and, it was said at the time, take us into deficit.

Now I'll be the last to defend Harper's spending since he's been in office. It's been drearily familiar to someone who has watched the Liberals for decades. Basically he's doing what they do and trying to buy votes. His 8 billion per year additional money to Quebec in transfer payments was one of those expensive vote-buying promises.

But cutting taxes - as long a you can afford it - is a reasonable economic game plan to inspire higher economic output and thus gain back even more taxes, to grow the GDP as it were and in that manner, shrink the dept to gdp ratio. I'm not enough of an economist to say how that would have worked out had the Americans not screwed the world economy up with their shoddy banking system.

Thus when the economic downturn hit in 2008 we had exactly zero dollars available to freely spend on stimulus. Additionally, Harper's nonchalant response to the recession as "a passing thing" and gleefully as a "chance to buy stocks low",

It WAS a passing thing. And I've seen plenty of suggestions that the stimulus spending WAS unneeded, and unhelpful, and that, in fact, most of it hadn't even taken place before the recession began to recede. And btw, those of us who owned stocks saw them run up very nicely.

pass a number of draconian anti-crime bills through parliament. The first of fifteen, c-25, is calculated to cost billions of dollars each year.

None of them are draconian. Most are actually quite mild. If you disagree, point out which. And most of us who support getting tougher on criminals are willing to pay the additional cost. You think keeping criminals in prison for their terms is draconian? Expensive? Hey, how about we let them all out after serving just one tenth of their sentences instead! Think of all the money we'd save!

A final point...Harper's decision to hold the G20 conference in downtown TO is incredibly stupid. There is not one locale in the entire country that could have generated protests of the size that TO could.

The protests in Quebec were bigger and more violent. Vancouver would have had more still. Are we to suggest the federal government should not dare to hold international gatherings in our largest cities because of the antipathy of a few hundred raggedy assed anarchists?

A better job is to lock up the anarchists - even if that costs a few bucks.

And I remind you that neither Stephan Dion nor Michael Igatieff has shown any concern for spending reductions. In fact, the Liberals were on the verge of hysteria about the need for huge spending increases not that long ago. And within weeks of the stimulus bill Liberals were already stating it wasn't enough and demanding a second stimulus bill.

So while I find the Tories fiscal restraint - negligible at best. I've see nothing to indicate that people demanding such in their federal government are going to get any better from any visible alternative.

[waldo]

But maybe I have it all wrong and Harper is our economic/fiscal saviour...please let me know your thoughts.

you just can't be right... after all... Harper is an economist, don't ya know! And... his leprechaun finance guy has real (fire sale) magic!

[Moonlight Graham]

Mark (Holland) or Paul (Dewar) or whomever you are...

I like your take on things...

Did you really have to re-quote that whole thing lol?

[Jack Weber]

Did you really have to re-quote that whole thing lol?

No...

But I thought there may be a few answers in rapid succession...It does sound like something both of them have been saying recently,does'nt it?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Topaz]

Harper has aid he'll have the deficit gone by 2011 or 2013? How? Well, the increase in EI premiums will bring in 13 Bil., he'll probably sale off crown property, and hasn't GM paid back some of the loan? Its the same thing always. The politicans goof up and we the taxpayers have to bail them out and make THEM look good. We are going into times were the income tax won't be bring the same amount of revenue, because boomers are retiring and some at age 60 instead of 65. The Tories have made many many errors and some affect Canadians lives. If the Tories don't watch themselves they will have to join with the Wildrose, because after an election there won't be enough to form a party, like Mulroney's PCers.

[Jack Weber]

Harper has aid he'll have the deficit gone by 2011 or 2013? How? Well, the increase in EI premiums will bring in 13 Bil., he'll probably sale off crown property, and hasn't GM paid back some of the loan? Its the same thing always. The politicans goof up and we the taxpayers have to bail them out and make THEM look good. We are going into times were the income tax won't be bring the same amount of revenue, because boomers are retiring and some at age 60 instead of 65. The Tories have made many many errors and some affect Canadians lives. If the Tories don't watch themselves they will have to join with the Wildrose, because after an election there won't be enough to form a party, like Mulroney's PCers.

I would say that potential decimation might take place IF their actually was a viable opposition prepared to lead the country...

Sadly,there is'nt...

[Radsickle]

Recent developments have convinced me that an informed debate on the recent economic history of our country would be of use.

But maybe I have it all wrong and Harper is our economic/fiscal saviour...please let me know your thoughts.

No, Harper's trying to create the facade that it's his own fiscal management that Canada benefits from now. It's embarrassing to me that so many Canadians believe it. With the least bit of reflection, it should be obvious that Harper is a poor propagandist. Did anyone follow his lead to buy more stocks before the market crashed even further?

Paul Martin is the real economic saviour, having the foresight back then to deny Harper and the greedy bank execs the deregulation they lobbied for. Harper's claiming he's steering the ship now when really he's riding on Martin's coattails.

Harper can't get any votes in Canada's major cities... no wonder he treated Toronto like a battlefield.

This Summit's security expenses were merely a form of stimulus for the policing industry during a time of declining crime rates in Canada.

Harper's removal of 2 for 1 credit for time served is a stimulus for the prison industry during a time of declining crime rates in Canada.

Also, regarding last weekend, let's have a government that doesn't need to arrest 900 mostly innocent

people to make their summit expenses look justified. Most have been freed without charge since Monday but most Canadians will probably only notice the number of arrests, unfortunately.

And let's have a Toronto Chief of Police who, unlike Bill Blair, will not show a press conference

the chainsaw and crossbow among the alleged `weapons' confiscated during the summit.

Luckily, a reported noticed that they were taken from an innocent man's

trunk earlier in the week and Blair was just using them as props to make

the protestors look even worse.

Let's have police who don't strip search and threaten to gang-rape

female journalists they hold in detention.

Let's have police who don't deny detained citizens water for 22 hours

then offer them yellow-stained liquids in dixie cups...

Let's have a police force who adds the Black Bloq-heads to the list

of known terrorist organizations so they can proactively police them

before Summits instead of giving them a cop car to burn in downtown Toronto.

The Black Bloq were in Quebec City in April 2001 and they freely announced their

intentions to this Summit's Security long before last weekend.

(Gotta admit, letting them have that cop car with hardly any cops

around for a while was brilliant; It gave Harper some great images

to manipulate and probably quelled some of the other violence

the Bloq-Heads were planning. Most of em are simply teen losers attracted to anarchy.

They were probably thrilled and satisfied with just torching the car.)

A billion dollars could've been put towards a national child-care program...

The attendees of the G8, held in conservative lizard Tony Clement's Muskoka riding, must have thought Canada so tranquil...

...too bad the cities have the votes Tony.

[Keepitsimple]

Recent developments have convinced me that an informed debate on the recent economic history of our country would be of use.

We understand - you're a Liberal right to the very rotten core. We thank you for your historical contributions. Mr. Martin's accomplishments were marginal - not unlike the Conservatives Stimulus Plan. Martin "slew" the deficit on the backs of the provinces - devastating Education and Healthcare in Ontario and elsewhere - and made it necessary for the arrival of leaders like Mike Harris to clean things up. That's not to discredit Martin entirely as the "pain" had to be spread all over Canada but ultimately, most of the credit should go to the Premiers who had to fight through the deficits - deficits that resulted from vastly reduced transfer payments. A tribute is also owing to individual Canadians and companies who paid inflated Employment Insurance premiums that were funnelled into general revenues and used to pay down the deficit. The Stimulus Plan is part of a process that every country had to do and in fact, Harper only bought into it very, very reluctantly. Did it do any good? Well, the rest of the world seems to agree that we are the "best off" of just about everyone. If that's the case, maybe we would have been almost as well off without the Stimulus Plan - as Harper originally wanted to do until the opposition forced him to spend. But the opposition also wanted him to spend more and spend faster. Big deal - the guy spent money just like everyone wanted him to - our economic situation is now looking positive....but let's not give the Conservatives more credit than is due - just like Martin should not have been viewed as the "saviour" of the deficit.

Oh - and as an aside - "Legal experts" always seem to disagree with any legislation that can speed up trials or keep people in prison. The revolving door justice system is a cash cow for the legal profession. Talk about a conflict of interest - would you really be prepared to trust lawyers when discussing changes to sentencing and parole? Not surprisingly, the Liberal Party has always been dominated by lawyers......and while many "experts" say overall crime is going down, Joe Canada knows that violent crime has been on the rise - the days of Leave it to Beaver are gone.

PS: In an Ipsos Poll, Lawyers were ranked 21st as a "trustworthy profession" - tied with auto mechanics and just behind journalists. Politicians were even lower.....so imagine where a Lawyer who is a Politician would rank! And these are the people who are telling us that crime is not a problem?

Link: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=3333

Edited July 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[canadiantothecore]

None of them are draconian. Most are actually quite mild. If you disagree, point out which. And most of us who support getting tougher on criminals are willing to pay the additional cost. You think keeping criminals in prison for their terms is draconian? Expensive? Hey, how about we let them all out after serving just one tenth of their sentences instead! Think of all the money we'd save!

Mild crime bills eh? You would say escalating the war on drugs with a similar approach to that of the United States is "mild" legislation? S-10 proposes to do just that.

How can you honestly believe that the possession of 4 or more marijuana plants, or simply the possession of hash, are serious criminal offenses that should have a mandatory minimum jail time of 18 months?

A serious crime indeed...allowing Canadians to enjoy a harmless organic substance during their leisure time

How fucking stupid as a society have we become to believe that incarcerating these people is somehow a legitimate use of billions of dollars of taxation during a time of fiscal need?

That we have a government that is apparently all for the proliferation of firearms(gun-registry is a waste of money?) in our country while is in favour of the increasingly tight regulation of organic substances?

Ironically, this legislation will in fact stimulate criminal activity in Canada by eliminating a large chunk of the small-time "friendly" neighbourhood dealers. The gangs will be able to further extend their control over the distribution of weed which will make mass distribution of weed much more profitable. As a result more people will die in gang related violence in BC...

[canadiantothecore]

We understand - you're a Liberal right to the very rotten core.

If questioning the government when it deliberately lies to the Canadian people in order to attain their votes makes one both Liberal and rotten to the core...then I suppose I am both of those things.

Have you guys not heard the ignorant masses praising Mr. Flaherty for saving the Canadian economy?!? It is an incredibly erroneous view that the government has somehow managed to spread throughout Canada...

[charter.rights]

We understand - you're a Liberal right to the very rotten core.

If questioning the government when it deliberately lies to the Canadian people in order to attain their votes makes one both Liberal and rotten to the core...then I suppose I am both of those things.

Have you guys not heard the ignorant masses praising Mr. Flaherty for saving the Canadian economy?!? It is an incredibly erroneous view that the government has somehow managed to spread throughout Canada...

I was talking with a cabinet minister this week and he said that they are really worried that what is going on in Europe will burst their bubble. He hinted that their economic plan didn't do what they had hoped and so may be facing the next 5 years far worse then the last two.

Funny because in the next conversation he is extolling the benefits of trade with China suggesting that the trade imbalance of 20:1 a couple of years ago is now at 20:8. They are importing our lentils and beans and we are importing their crappy toys. Given that they only focus on dollar values to look at the trade parity, they conveniently forget that China's labour and cost of living is way beyond ours. If we were to make the comparisons based on "value" and quality of life" we would find the trade deficit to be more around 100:1 today. I tell you, the Conservatives haven't got a clue how to get out of the recession / pending depression. Just like Mulroney, Harper must believe that if you throw enough money at it you can cure anything.

[bloodyminded]

Oh - and as an aside - "Legal experts" always seem to disagree with any legislation that can speed up trials or keep people in prison. The revolving door justice system is a cash cow for the legal profession. Talk about a conflict of interest - would you really be prepared to trust lawyers when discussing changes to sentencing and parole? Not surprisingly, the Liberal Party has always been dominated by lawyers......and while many "experts" say overall crime is going down, Joe Canada knows that violent crime has been on the rise - the days of Leave it to Beaver are gone.

PS: In an Ipsos Poll, Lawyers were ranked 21st as a "trustworthy profession" - tied with auto mechanics and just behind journalists. Politicians were even lower.....so imagine where a Lawyer who is a Politician would rank! And these are the people who are telling us that crime is not a problem?

Link: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=3333

Prosecutors are also "legal experts," and are lawyers by definition.

[Keepitsimple]

We understand - you're a Liberal right to the very rotten core.

If questioning the government when it deliberately lies to the Canadian people in order to attain their votes makes one both Liberal and rotten to the core...then I suppose I am both of those things.

Have you guys not heard the ignorant masses praising Mr. Flaherty for saving the Canadian economy?!? It is an incredibly erroneous view that the government has somehow managed to spread throughout Canada...

As I said, these "ignorant masses" you refer to are the same people who still believe that Paul Martin slew the deficit all by himself. Like coaches in sport, governments can get too much credit (mostly self acclaimed) when things go well - and too much criticism when things go badly. And by the way, those "ignorant masses" are all Canadians.....and your labelling of them as ignorant just further demonstrates how the Liberal Party has pruned itself all the way back to its big-city elitist roots.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Pliny]

Recent developments have convinced me that an informed debate on the recent economic history of our country would be of use.

Yahoo! An Informed debate!

But maybe I have it all wrong .....

Well....yeah....I thought you were going to present an informed debate on recent economic history not a political propaganda piece.

[ToadBrother]

I was talking with a cabinet minister this week and he said that they are really worried that what is going on in Europe will burst their bubble. He hinted that their economic plan didn't do what they had hoped and so may be facing the next 5 years far worse then the last two.

Funny because in the next conversation he is extolling the benefits of trade with China suggesting that the trade imbalance of 20:1 a couple of years ago is now at 20:8. They are importing our lentils and beans and we are importing their crappy toys. Given that they only focus on dollar values to look at the trade parity, they conveniently forget that China's labour and cost of living is way beyond ours. If we were to make the comparisons based on "value" and quality of life" we would find the trade deficit to be more around 100:1 today. I tell you, the Conservatives haven't got a clue how to get out of the recession / pending depression. Just like Mulroney, Harper must believe that if you throw enough money at it you can cure anything.

I'm no fan of the Conservatives, but this is just idiotic. If we hit a double-dip recession because of the EU, there's not a goddamned thing we can do about it. The North American recovery would be stopped dead in its tracks and probably reversed if the feared meltdown happens, and you seem to hint that there is a solution. There isn't. It would not matter who formed the Government, this is very much something beyond our control. The scary part is that it's possible that it's not even in Europe's control, that it may not matter how much the big deficit countries across the pond try to tame their spending, that the fix is already in.

This is what I truly dislike about partisan thinking. One of the first things that happens is that people buy into the illusion that governments can somehow stop economic hurricanes, if somehow, the partisan's particular fiscal ideology was enacted. It don't work like that, my friend. If we do a second dip, then just hold on.

[charter.rights]

I'm no fan of the Conservatives, but this is just idiotic. If we hit a double-dip recession because of the EU, there's not a goddamned thing we can do about it. The North American recovery would be stopped dead in its tracks and probably reversed if the feared meltdown happens, and you seem to hint that there is a solution. There isn't. It would not matter who formed the Government, this is very much something beyond our control. The scary part is that it's possible that it's not even in Europe's control, that it may not matter how much the big deficit countries across the pond try to tame their spending, that the fix is already in.

This is what I truly dislike about partisan thinking. One of the first things that happens is that people buy into the illusion that governments can somehow stop economic hurricanes, if somehow, the partisan's particular fiscal ideology was enacted. It don't work like that, my friend. If we do a second dip, then just hold on.

Sure there is something they could do about it. Hit those corporations that caused the economic meltdown and those that profited (and continue to) from it with regulation and penalties.

According to this particular minister, the Conservatives think that importing and increased foreign trade will get us out of this. That is asinine. Giving our money away to foreign interests only helps the corporations that are still profiting while at the same time exporting more jobs out of Canada to keep those same corporations "viable".

I agree. I dislike your partisan thinking as well. Please stop it.

Edited July 2, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

BTW We have to insist our governments get out of the pockets of big corporations and take the power back. Corporations and organized crime are world powers that must be defeated and dethroned. Otherwise the west will be set up to become third world economies, all to support maximum profits.

[ToadBrother]

Sure there is something they could do about it. Hit those corporations that caused the economic meltdown and those that profited (and continue to) from it with regulation and penalties.

And what do we do about governments like Greece, Spain and even the UK, that spent far beyond any rational means? Corporations didn't do this all on their own.

According to this particular minister, the Conservatives think that importing and increased foreign trade will get us out of this. That is asinine. Giving our money away to foreign interests only helps the corporations that are still profiting while at the same time exporting more jobs out of Canada to keep those same corporations "viable".

Well, I don't know which minister said it, but certainly increasing foreign trade wouldn't hurt. But the bigger picture is that no policy would help much during another dip.

I agree. I dislike your partisan thinking as well. Please stop it.

What partisan thinking? Oh I get it, because I don't worship at the altar of Iggy, I must be some sort of pro-Tory type. Do you even read my posts?

[charter.rights]

What partisan thinking? Oh I get it, because I don't worship at the altar of Iggy, I must be some sort of pro-Tory type. Do you even read my posts?

I have read your posts and just because you make whipped cream criticisms of your holy party, doesn't make you non-partisan.

I don't worship Iggy or anyone either, and in fact hold no political or partisan leanings. So when you talk about things you don't like about partisan thinking, you must be talking about yourself, since you closely resemble that remark.

Edited July 2, 2010 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

I have read your posts and just because you make whipped cream criticisms of your holy party, doesn't make you non-partisan.

I don't have a party. I loathe Harper, I loathe my local Conservative MP and have vowed that I will never dream of voting Tory until such time as both are gone, and are replaced by better people. I, in fact, voted Liberal in the last election.

I'm thinking you're probably illiterate as well, as I spent six months shouting at the top of my lungs about Harper's abuses of his Executive powers.

I don't worship Iggy or anyone either, and in fact hold no political or partisan leanings. So when you talk about things you don't like about partisan thinking, you must be talking about yourself, since you closely resemble that remark.

You certainly are a partisan, because you clearly are incapable of imagining someone who isn't. I'm not married to any party, because none of the parties really represent my views. You see, you're infected by the partisan virus, and it's a mental illness all its own.

Edited July 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[charter.rights]

I don't have a party. I loathe Harper, I loathe my local Conservative MP and have vowed that I will never dream of voting Tory until such time as both are gone, and are replaced by better people. I, in fact, voted Liberal in the last election.

I'm thinking you're probably illiterate as well, as I spent six months shouting at the top of my lungs about Harper's abuses of his Executive powers.

You certainly are a partisan, because you clearly are incapable of imagining someone who isn't. I'm not married to any party, because none of the parties really represent my views. You see, you're infected by the partisan virus, and it's a mental illness all its own.

That's all you have, insults? Perhaps if you got another career, you might get a better vocabulary to work with. Being a crank for some local party candidate hasn't helped you much.

Give it a rest. You are close to nonsense.

[ToadBrother]

That's all you have, insults? Perhaps if you got another career, you might get a better vocabulary to work with. Being a crank for some local party candidate hasn't helped you much.

Give it a rest. You are close to nonsense.

Translation: I made a moronic accusation, and now, rather than backing off, I'm just going to accuse him of something else.

You called me a partisan. Anybody who has read my posts and has any level of comprehension must know that no matter how ornery I can get, I dislike pretty much all political parties.

[charter.rights]

Translation: I made a moronic accusation, and now, rather than backing off, I'm just going to accuse him of something else.

You called me a partisan. Anybody who has read my posts and has any level of comprehension must know that no matter how ornery I can get, I dislike pretty much all political parties.

Like I said a whipped cream criticism has no substance, and you are known for your miracle whip and cherry comments.

No. You called yourself partisan. I was merely confirming my agreement.