I'll be voting Conservative...

[waldo]

What's your point?.....that someone who goes to church shouldn't be Prime Minister? Do you have one shred of substance that indicates Harper has mixed religion and politics? The irony of the Left's prejudice........

c'mon Simple... not just any church! Understanding Harper's Evangelical Mission --- Signs mount that Canada's government is beholden to a religious agenda averse to science and rational debate.

From where does the government's extreme animus towards journalists, environmental groups, First Nations and science (and I've put together but a partial list of victims here) arise? The moment demands we take a close look at Stephen Harper's evangelical beliefs.

Unknown to most Canadians, the prime minister belongs to the Christian and Missionary Alliance, an evangelical Protestant church with two million members. Alberta, a petro state, is one of its great strongholds on the continent. The church believes that the free market is divinely inspired and that non-believers are "lost."

But transparency and full disclosure has become the issue of paramount importance. To date, Harper has refused to answer media questions about his beliefs or which groups inform them. If he answered media queries about his minority creed (and fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians would call themselves evangelicals) he'd have to admit that he openly sympathizes if not endorses what's known as "evangelical climate skepticism."

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Please avoid personal attacks and please stay on topic.

[69cat]

Exactly Waldo, people are going off on the science of climate change and i post a very accurate example of why the science is questionable and the left wing sticks their head in the sand denying the existence of real science that goes against global warming.

Ok, i will give you two options

1) since you are offended that my link does not belong in this thread then speciffically address Springers first post that started this thread.

2) if not that, explain why the pdo is mistaking referenced in an article on NOAA website.

[drummindiver]

I revcieved a warning point for bringing this up before, but I still say it's relevant.

PPl on this board are so damned concerned about the ConsERVATIVES bringing in C -51 which allows trained federal agents to enter your home with a warrant, yet don't care the Liberals passed laws over ten years ago allowing untrained, basically anyone (dog catcher, spca worker, milkman) to enter your home WIHOUT A WARRANT!!!

Where is the (justified) outrage over this???
Oh yeah, the Libs did it, it's for our own good.

FMINF

Edited September 15, 2015 by Michael Hardner
changed Cons to Conservatives

[69cat]

For the record, Waldo posted that my link to questionable science regarding global warming did not belong in this thread but that post was deleted. But 14 pages and there has been no response to contest the original post by Springer and that is OK according to the Left Wing. Once again proving to never question global warming, it never goes well with the true beleivers.

[Scotty]

Another reason to vote Conservative is that if you don't, the Liberals or NDP will roll back TFSA contributions. Despite their continuing bleating that TFSA's disproportionately benefit the rich, most of the money in them is held by the lower and middle class.

In terms of the value of their investments, the under $25,000 group had a total of just over $27-billion in their accounts while the $25,000 to $49,999 cohort had about $35-billion. These are astounding numbers when looked at in the context of the “TFSAs are only for the rich” argument. Lower-income Canadians actually control 52.5 per cent of the total fair market value of all the plans in the country. The $50,000 to $99,999 group – middle income by most standards – held $35.1-billion in assets. Only about 18 per cent of all TFSA investments were owned by people with incomes in excess of $100,000.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/inside-the-market/top-up-your-tfsas-now-and-prepare-for-election-consequences/article26354659/

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scotty

[Keepitsimple]

Another reason to vote Conservative is that if you don't, the Liberals or NDP will roll back TFSA contributions. Despite their continuing bleating that TFSA's disproportionately benefit the rich, most of the money in them is held by the lower and middle class.

In terms of the value of their investments, the under $25,000 group had a total of just over $27-billion in their accounts while the $25,000 to $49,999 cohort had about $35-billion. These are astounding numbers when looked at in the context of the “TFSAs are only for the rich” argument. Lower-income Canadians actually control 52.5 per cent of the total fair market value of all the plans in the country. The $50,000 to $99,999 group – middle income by most standards – held $35.1-billion in assets. Only about 18 per cent of all TFSA investments were owned by people with incomes in excess of $100,000.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/inside-the-market/top-up-your-tfsas-now-and-prepare-for-election-consequences/article26354659/

Makes perfect sense. People with some level of affluence put their money in managed portfolios with real investment advisers - they don't fiddle around with the small stuff......but to the little guys - the micro-investors, these TFSAs are a big deal.

[69cat]

Yeah, anyone in the "middle class" (to use the left wing tactic of not putting numbers to define what i am referring to) should and, unless a worthless personal finance manager, can take advantage of the TFSA and infact benefit from the increased headroom. As is clearly evident, Canadians are not saving but rather spending because of low interest rates (the whole cheap credit lifestyle) so the Cons dangle a carrot to entice Canadians to save more and it is spun by left wing media as a bad thing and only for the wealthy. I never knew i was in the affluent and "wealthy" class, i thought i was just smart with my money and not pissing it away because of cheap credit. But the left wing wants to condition me to think completely differently about TFSAs.

Anyway, still no thought out response to:

Springers initial post

Why i need to fear bill c51

Why there is questionable science in the climate change article posted

For those undecided voters who may not beleive the mainstream media is left wing biased keep tuned as this thread follows the pattern well.

Edited September 15, 2015 by 69cat

[PIK]

Game wardens have more power then police.

[cybercoma]

When less than 18% of TFSA holders maxed out their contribution limits in 2013, don't sit here and say moving the upper limit benefits everyone. Nobody is calling for the cancellation of TFSAs, so you can put that strawman away too.

Edited September 15, 2015 by cybercoma

[69cat]

So what is your point? Quantify it. Who was the 18% that maxed out their TFSA limit? Was 90% of those the middle class? So, could we say 1 in 6 or even 1 in 7 middle class Canadians max out their TFSA? That is a darn high percentage. To give context, if 18% max out there TFSA, tell me how many Canadians max out their rrsp. I would say knowing the nature of how Canadians save would be relevant, no?

Lets see, about 66% even contribute, and i see reference to "the majority" do not max out their contribution. Yet 1 in 5 Canadians max out their TFSA. What can possibly be inferred from that? Well the lefties will say it clearly means the "wealthy" and only wealthy are able to max out their rrsp and so also go on to max out their tfsa. Trouble with that theory is i know a number if average working stiffs that out money in their tfsa as a rainy day fund and dont max out their rrsps.

And how is the tfsa a non-issue when at the start of the campaign Mulcair states he will reduce the tfsa to $3000 because it is a priviledge only for the wealthy. I think that clearly shows a party who is not remotely in touch with who the average Canadian is. 1 in 5 max out their tfsa you say? Well sun of a gun, we got a really strong "wealthy" class and Harpers economic plans a clearly on the right track. Or do you want to reconsider what that 18% number means in reality?

[Scotty]

When less than 18% of TFSA holders maxed out their contribution limits in 2013, don't sit here and say moving the upper limit benefits everyone. Nobody is calling for the cancellation of TFSAs, so you can put that strawman away too.

That's not what the stat says. It says 18% of the total money in TFSAs are from those with an income over $100k.

It also says that in the UK a similar savings system lets you put up to $30k in each year.

If I make $100k a year and work for a union with a pension then I'm contributing a lot of money, certainly more than $5k to my pension, and then the employer, especially if it's the government, is kicking in another $5k. And all that money is managed by someone, like the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund, and none of the gains are taxable until I'm paid.

How is that different than a TFSA?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scotty

[69cat]

Back the truck up, so 4 of 5 Canadians contributing to tfsa make less than $100,000? But how can that be so different to what the mainstream media, JT and Tom Mulcair want us to beleive regarding it being a perk for only the wealthy.

It seems that we are being lied to and fed a bunch of propaganda. Say it isnt so in such a democratic country like Canada. We could not possibly have propaganda and conditioning being performed by our media. That is a communist (oops, Russia likes socialist) tactic.

[cybercoma]

That's not what the stat says. It says 18% of the total money in TFSAs are from those ith an income over $100k.

It also says that in the UK a similar savings system lets you put up to $30k in each year.

What percentage of TFSA holders maxed out their accounts before the increase?

[69cat]

Does it really matter what the percent is? Right now we are contesting the mantra of the left and the media that the tfsa is only a vehicle for the wealthy. If we have now stated that joe working stiff is using the tfsa, do we now have to delve into joe working stiffs income of $70,000 to find out if he paid his house off and now had the ability to put $10,000 in a tfsa?

Come on, first the idea is to attack the tfsa as it is for the rich only, then the ndp and libs want to take away the proposed increase because joe working stiff comes across some money and figures, based on his own personal finances, that the money is better in a tfsa vs rrsp. And for those who wont deny there was a world economic crisis, maybe money locked in a tfsa is smarter than some rrsp purchases.

[G Huxley]

Why does greed and self interest always reach the top of the political agenda?

No wonder these guys keep going to trial.

[Argus]

The right wing authoritarians are hard at work on the keyboards today.

So question for you right wing authoritarian dystopian surveillance state proponents:

Do you expect me and other Canadians to pay for a massive surveillance apparatus to spy on ourselves like we really want to be a modern stasi state o

Let's be honest. You don't actually pay taxes, do you?

I'm content that our 'massive surveillance program' is considerably less massive and intensive than that of any of our allies, all of whom are among the freest places in the world to live.

[Argus]

thread drift... there are no shortage of KXL related threads... if you're up for it, find one of those, name your 5 studies and we'll have some fun!

Not really so much thread drift as comparison. Obama too, has ignored the recommendations for approving the keystone because a number of Democratic funders have been pressuring him to not approve. The money connection is naked and obvious down south, though. Even so, the Lefties in Canada love dear old Obama.

He's brown, after all, so how could they not!

Edited September 15, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Unfortunately no, the police are allowed to stop anyone for committing the act of driving. This was true before C-51.

However, if they for example stopped you for no reason and then decided to give you the breathalyzer, that would not be allowed unless there was reason to suspect impairment.

Theoretical, but not realistic. A cop can simply say he smelled alcohol on your breath.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

They're scared of Islam extremism because it's the new enemy. But mostly because they have no goddamn clue how to stop it. They're terrified because this time it's not a political ideology they're fighting, it's a religious one. One they can't destroy by just killing everyone that believes in it or toppling it's government

Oh, I bet we can.

and that is the only way they know how to deal with something, violence.

Always worked well in the past!

They're so scared of it they will give up their civil liberties one by one

Which civil liberties have I given up, again?

[Argus]

They are far more likely to be struck by lightning.

I have earthquake insurance on my house. I don't expect there to be any earthquakes of any substance, but I like being prepared, and the cost is no big deal.

Same with Islamic nut jobs. I don't expect anything major, but I don't see the cost of being prepared as being all that severe either. It's simply prudent governance, regardless of what all the paranoid tinfoil hat set think.

[Argus]

If you don't want immigrants pouring in (I agree on population grounds although disagree on many of your reasons) then you better ditch the conservative party as their foreign policies have been creating boat loads of them (e.g. Libya).

How did Conservative foreign policy create refugees from Libya? Are you saying if we hadn't joined in with our allies and dropped a few bombs Libya would be a paradise now with no refugees?

[Argus]

The existence of ISIS and Al Qaeda are both owed to conservative neoconservative policies.

Evidence? Citation?

[Argus]

First 69 science isn't a religion.

It's treated that way by some.

[Argus]

A good article on the religious right in Canada and in the Harper government: http://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/14/Covert-Evangelism-Stephen-Harper/

Are you going to post something similar about Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh beliefs? Or do you not dare judge them given their adherents are largely 'brown' people?