Can Harper beat the odds?

[Moonbox]

If we can get it down to that level of discussion then it's just haggling, really...

Haggling? I don't understand what you mean sorry.

Rule of law is what many, many immigrants to this country actively seek and what many residents take for granted.

We take it for granted because it's a common value that we virtually all share.

[eyeball]

security of citizens is or should be the #1 priority of any government.

No argument there - what security means however is where the arguing starts.

A great number of Canadians for example will argue that a lot of our military spending is not only unnecessary it's actually decreasing our security.

In light of the virtues being heaped on private sector investments vs public, especially in terms of deliverables, I suggest military spending not strictly devoted to the defense of our borders be funded privately, through war bonds for example.

[On Guard for Thee]

Is millions upon millions for the so called "economic action plan" to try and garner votes, "social spending" or "physical responsibility"? The leap forward you speak of took us out of surplus drove us into deficit we are still not out of.

[PIK]

We are out of it and what if the liberals NDP & bloc took over the country that last time, they would have spent a lot more then harper was forced to spend.

[Keepitsimple]

Is millions upon millions for the so called "economic action plan" to try and garner votes, "social spending" or "physical responsibility"? The leap forward you speak of took us out of surplus drove us into deficit we are still not out of.

So...what are you saying - that Harper spent too much on stimulus?.....or that he should have cut more from services and programs? What's your point - specifically - not just "emotionally".

[overthere]

No argument there - what security means however is where the arguing starts.

A great number of Canadians for example will argue that a lot of our military spending is not only unnecessary it's actually decreasing our security.

In light of the virtues being heaped on private sector investments vs public, especially in terms of deliverables, I suggest military spending not strictly devoted to the defense of our borders be funded privately, through war bonds for example.

A great number of Canadians are blissfully unaware of the massive free ride we have been enjoying for many decades from our well armed and friendly neighbour.

I don't know what you mean by 'what security means'. You can argue to your hearts content, but there are really only two variants : external and internal.

External means the ability to independently protect your own borders with your own forces. We fail miserably at this and have for at least 60 years. Our sole strategy is to enter into alliances that provide for joint defence with allies, mainly NATO. We have all our eggs in this basket. Australia, for example, also has alliances but has far more independent capability. They also spend more on national defence.

Internal security means police, courts and a respected and effective justice system. In spite of all the whining, these work well in Canada. It operates on the basis that if you break the law, you will be found and punished in a consistent way. The other and more important side that means so much to every citizen is that to a large degree we can each live with personal security and will not be persecuted by courts or police. It seems obvious that this is the very foundation of freedom, but you;d never know it by the amount of bitching from supposedly aware people that should know better.

[overthere]

We take it for granted because it's a common value that we virtually all share.

We take it for granted because we are fat, lazy and have forgotten what is costs to have that wonderful security of person.

Rule of law is not a 'common value', it is something that has to be bought and paid for constantly and in a common awareness of just how vital rule of law must be to each of us in this country. And you cannot contract all of it out.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm saying too much wasted on "stimulus" that didn't stimulate anything other than a blatant attempt to get votes. Meanwhile gutting veterans services if you want to go to something "emotional". Then there is the F 35 "bomb truck" fiasco. Shall I go on?

[guyser]

A great number of Canadians are blissfully unaware of the massive free ride we have been enjoying for many decades from our well armed and friendly neighbour.

Considering the US does nothing unless they gain from it, I would categorically say there isnt a free ride.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Unfortunately, I fear he can. Canadians have largely given up on federal politics and don't seem to care about robo-calls, scientific liberty, the Dufster, carbon emissions etc. etc. Jason Kenney has worked a minor miracle in the 905 among new Canadians and has broken the Liberal stranglehold in Ontario. Like JP in 95, I fear money and the ethnic vote will win it for the enemy. The anti-Harper vote is much bigger but is split and the primitive FPTP system favours Harper and his hardcore believers. And then there is the Trudeau factor. He just doesn't seem to accept that the main priority is to run a tight ship and avoid ANY departures from the script. Certainly, he cannot afford another year of dreadfully inappropriate impromptu remarks and cringeworthy 'jokes' as he will be eaten alive in the campaign.

[On Guard for Thee]

You got that right. Some people think everything revolves around the military complex but it's much more complex than that. The states keep us close because they need us. Who buys most of our "stuff" after all. I reckon you could make a case that it is actually the US getting the "free ride".

[drummindiver]

deleted..never meant to post

Edited January 2, 2015 by drummindiver

[Keepitsimple]

I'm saying too much wasted on "stimulus" that didn't stimulate anything other than a blatant attempt to get votes. Meanwhile gutting veterans services if you want to go to something "emotional". Then there is the F 35 "bomb truck" fiasco. Shall I go on?

OK I got it - too much on stimulus......but the Liberals wanted to spend it faster, if not more......and the NDP wanted to spend much more. The Auditor General report on stimulus spending was actually quite kind, saying that for such an aggressive program, the money was all reasonably accounted for. Somehow, you believe the other parties would have either spent less or done it better? Do you have anything to back that up? Did they say anything of substance that makes you believe this would have been the case.

I've mentioned more than once that if the Liberals had a leader like Marc Garneau, I would strongly consider voting for them again. I believe that Canada's two founding parties are usually close enough in values that changing back and forth periodically is a good thing. You however, appear to be a diehard partisan - who for seemingly emotional reasons would never vote Conservative.

One of the things I like about the current government is that relatively speaking, they have not thrown money down the drain with corruption or boondoggles - and one only has to look at the McGuinty/Wynne gang of crooks as a benchmark for incompetence. Your reference to "gutting" Veterans is a good one. They have increased spending on Veterans substantially since they came to power, building on the Charter that the Liberals initially put in place. One can criticize how there are barriers to getting money where it should go - but to say the system is "gutted" is plain stupid. And the problems are being addressed. As for the F45s, a contract has not yet been signed so there is nothing to complain about yet. Whether it's robo-calls or Duffy's payment - there have been several tempests in a teapot that make for great news stories - but don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to managing the government purse.

[PIK]

It seems today is coming a report about vets lying about their problems so they dont have to get a job. I knew eventually the truth would come out. It does not matter who you are , you will abuse the system and then blame your problems on the government. Imagine vets taking money from the vets that actual need it.

[Bob Macadoo]

It seems today is coming a report about vets lying about their problems so they dont have to get a job. I knew eventually the truth would come out. It does not matter who you are , you will abuse the system and then blame your problems on the government. Imagine vets taking money from the vets that actual need it.

Keeping on that plank will help the Conservatives "beat the odds".

[SpankyMcFarland]

OK I got it - too much on stimulus......but the Liberals wanted to spend it faster, if not more......and the NDP wanted to spend much more. The Auditor General report on stimulus spending was actually quite kind, saying that for such an aggressive program, the money was all reasonably accounted for. Somehow, you believe the other parties would have either spent less or done it better? Do you have anything to back that up? Did they say anything of substance that makes you believe this would have been the case.

I've mentioned more than once that if the Liberals had a leader like Marc Garneau, I would strongly consider voting for them again. I believe that Canada's two founding parties are usually close enough in values that changing back and forth periodically is a good thing. You however, appear to be a diehard partisan - who for seemingly emotional reasons would never vote Conservative.

One of the things I like about the current government is that relatively speaking, they have not thrown money down the drain with corruption or boondoggles - and one only has to look at the McGuinty/Wynne gang of crooks as a benchmark for incompetence. Your reference to "gutting" Veterans is a good one. They have increased spending on Veterans substantially since they came to power, building on the Charter that the Liberals initially put in place. One can criticize how there are barriers to getting money where it should go - but to say the system is "gutted" is plain stupid. And the problems are being addressed. As for the F45s, a contract has not yet been signed so there is nothing to complain about yet. Whether it's robo-calls or Duffy's payment - there have been several tempests in a teapot that make for great news stories - but don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to managing the government purse.

The Liberals tried sensible leaders and they got beaten. I would have preferred Garneau but the Harper attack machine would have gone after him just as hard as they hit JT.

I'm a fiscal conservative who would have preferred MG. I have voted for the Liberals and the PCs in the past. I would consider the Conservatives with a different leader but I just cannot stomach Harper - too authoritarian for my taste and too much of a phoney tough guy in foreign affairs. With a few exceptions, his MPs are just performing seals now, barking out the same tedious talking points

We haven't had a significant change in economic policy in Canada since Michael Wilson's time. I'm more worried about Harper's effects on our freedoms than Justin's damage to our wallets.

Edited January 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[socialist]

People are ignoring something very important. I deal and talk with many young voters, and from what I hear day in and day out is that many cant't wait to cast ballots in the next election. I've heard many say that this will be the first time they bother voting. When I ask them what makes them want to vote, one response is overwhelming. They say they can relate to Trudeau. They feel that Trudeau is the best bet for real change, and I agree. Trudeau respects the younger generation. The CONS covet the vote of older people who want more and more. The mobilization of first time voters, who will vote Liberal will be the deciding factor in this election.

I predict a Liberal majority. If the Cons win a minority, the progressives will unite to form government. 2015 is already shaping up.

[poochy]

People are ignoring something very important. I deal and talk with many young voters, and from what I hear day in and day out is that many cant't wait to cast ballots in the next election. I've heard many say that this will be the first time they bother voting. When I ask them what makes them want to vote, one response is overwhelming. They say they can relate to Trudeau. They feel that Trudeau is the best bet for real change, and I agree. Trudeau respects the younger generation. The CONS covet the vote of older people who want more and more. The mobilization of first time voters, who will vote Liberal will be the deciding factor in this election.

I predict a Liberal majority. If the Cons win a minority, the progressives will unite to form government. 2015 is already shaping up.

O yawn. But maybe he will buy the vote of the young pot smoking demographic, in any case. anyone who thinks that your average 18 yr old should be deciding who runs the country needs to get their head examined and it says a lot about the skin deep nature of the candidate that would have to rely upon those voters. I don't pretend to know a lot of first time voters, except for my own son, who when Trudeau made one of his classic gaffes last year, over the deployment of jets to the middle east, my son said he thought Trudeau spoke like he was one of his classmates, still in high school, more like a child than an adult ready to lead a country. You might be right, but my son is clearly more intelligentt than most poeple his age, more so than Trudeau it seems, he also doesn't smoke pot, so i suppose the Trudeau appeal is low for good young people like him.

[Keepitsimple]

The Liberals tried sensible leaders and they got beaten. I would have preferred Garneau but the Harper attack machine would have gone after him just as hard as they hit JT.

I'm a fiscal conservative who would have preferred MG. I have voted for the Liberals and the PCs in the past. I would consider the Conservatives with a different leader but I just cannot stomach Harper - too authoritarian for my taste and too much of a phoney tough guy in foreign affairs. With a few exceptions, his MPs are just performing seals now, barking out the same tedious talking points

We haven't had a significant change in economic policy in Canada since Michael Wilson's time. I'm more worried about Harper's effects on our freedoms than Justin's damage to our wallets.

Perhaps you can share something with me - and remember - I've already admitted to being a swing voter and would seriously consider voting for Garneau if he was leader. What I'm asking you is..... what is driving you to thinking that Harper would have such a negative effect on your freedoms. I just don't see it.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[socialist]

O yawn. But maybe he will buy the vote of the young pot smoking demographic, in any case. anyone who thinks that your average 18 yr old should be deciding who runs the country needs to get their head examined and it says a lot about the skin deep nature of the candidate that would have to rely upon those voters. I don't pretend to know a lot of first time voters, except for my own son, who when Trudeau made one of his classic gaffes last year, over the deployment of jets to the middle east, my son said he thought Trudeau spoke like he was one of his classmates, still in high school, more like a child than an adult ready to lead a country. You might be right, but my son is clearly more intelligentt than most poeple his age, more so than Trudeau it seems, he also doesn't smoke pot, so i suppose the Trudeau appeal is low for good young people like him.

Well, I do talk to a lot of youth. Maybe your son has very little understanding of politics, which wouldn't surprise me.

[Ash74]

Well, I do talk to a lot of youth. Maybe your son has very little understanding of politics, which wouldn't surprise me.

Again with the cheap shots.

No counter point, no intelligent debate. Just a shot.

Tell us again how you are an educator

[socialist]

Again with the cheap shots.

No counter point, no intelligent debate. Just a shot.

Tell us again how you are an educator

Poochy describing his son somehow initiates debate? Quit stalking me already.

[Ash74]

Poochy describing his son somehow initiates debate? Quit stalking me already.

How is it different than describing some youths?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Perhaps you can share something with me - and remember - I've already admitted to being a swing voter and would seriously consider voting for Garneau if he was leader. What I'm asking you is..... what is driving you to thinking that Harper would have such a negative effect on your freedoms. I just don't see it.

I

Well we're not talking the end of the world here, I'll grant you. My life will go on exactly the same whoever wins. However, I think he's had some effect on the atmosphere in the country e.g. CSEC, the census, the rows with the Supreme Court, robo-calls, the silencing of government scientists, the 'fair' elections act, the antics of Calandra et al in the House of Commons, the foreign policy lurches trashing Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper, the persecution of critics of Canada's so-called environmental policy, the opposition to needle exchange programs, the neutralizing of MPs and their committees and the hostility to dual citizenship. On internet surveillance, we don't have proper parliamentary oversight of what the spooks are getting up to and have to rely on people like Snowden and reports from the US and the UK to fill us in on what is going on. Of course, I don't know if the Liberals would be an improvement but I believe it's time for a new bunch of scoundrels and their cronies to have a go. On the other hand, I like getting angry and Harper certainly provides that.

Edited January 3, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Keepitsimple]

Of course, I don't know if the Liberals would be an improvement but I believe it's time for a new bunch of scoundrels and their cronies to have a go. On the other hand, I like getting angry and Harper certainly provides that.

I find a lot of those items to be more blown-up or speculative but..... fair enough - thanks for your response......as with many, your real argument seems to be more with their attitude......and I must admit, after almost 10 years, they could have transitioned to a less confrontational style some time ago - especially with a majority. But......be careful what you wish for......