Parents will blow childcare cash on beer & popcorn

[err]

If they were underpaid, as you claim (but offer no proof), who held a gun to their head and forced them to take the job? 

I didn't claim that they were underpaid.... I identified the fact that you portrayed them as being "bad guys" for going on strike, without identifying why they went.... Another example of CPC claims not backed up by any kind of fact......

What you are saying is that every single worker must be paid "what they're worth" and all Canadians must be forced to pay more money for goods and services to justify this.

I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth... Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....

[Montgomery Burns]

err:

I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth...

What does that mean?  No one is forcing anyone.  You have a choice.  What do you want--minimum wage to be $20/hr?

Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....

Could you give us an indication of who should pay for all these high-paying jobs? Heterosexual families with children? Christians? Native Indians who can't even drink clean water? Inner-city minorities who continue to live on welfare because the economy can't create jobs for them? Those evil rich people who bust their asses working hard? Those stupid cowboy Americans?

[Renegade]

I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth... Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, if people have voluntarily accepted a job, then people are being paid EXACTLY what they are worth. The free market of wage scales determines what a person is worth, and it varies according to supply and demand.

[scribblet]

What this does "smack of" is concern for community and society as opposed to concern for those individuals who may not need the concern: the phony individualism of the CPc that is all about government support for thise who already have money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you insist on punishing people who you perceive as having money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just got back from a beer and popcorn run...

...and to answer your question: Leftist ideology is about unrelenting class warfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed it is, what the leftist idealogy pushes is that all people be equally poor, heaven help anyone who has enough on the ball to make a bit more.

Actually this is just more of a deep seated anti-family liberal approach, not to mention double standards, imagine the uprorar if a conservative had said that.

Here's a nice little article by Charles Adler

http://winsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Adl...14/1351739.html

By now you know that Paul Martin's little communications ratter, Scott Reid, has opened up a can of boa constrictors. But if the PM is lucky, and he has been so far, these boas will swallow Reid and avoid deep-throating the big dog himself.

"Popcorn and beer" is what brought us here. Reid tried to take a bite out of Stephen Harper's child-care bonus cheques and ended up biting more than he could chew. Reid said the average Canadian wouldn't spend an extra hundred dollars a month on child care. Milk money for little Scotty would more than likely be turned into beer money for those who are watchin' Scotty grow.

[FTA Lawyer]

You say you have been waiting through 12 years of Liberal inaction. I did point out that the commissions on this delivered their reports fairly early in the Mulroney years and that the Mulroney legislation - withdrawn and abandoned, was to have put the reccomendations in place by 1994. So, we are looking at about twenty years almost and Mulroney removing the revenues from the federal coffers to pay for the plans.

I think you might drop the partisanship on an issue that affects the future every bit as much as healthcare does.

Where are the Conservatives on the other considerations I have mentioned?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WHO should drop the partisanship?

Mulroney isn't the CPC leader anymore. Let's assume every bad thing you have to say about Mulroney is correct...he hasn't been at the helm for the last 12 years.

This is not a partisan argument, its a simple factual reality...the current governing party has been in control of the legislative agenda in this country for 12 years (less so in recent Parliament). They promised to implement a day care program...they are still promising.

By your own statements, they had the necessary reports from the commissions for the entire 12 years.

Unless there is in fact a national day care program in place, then arguing that someone else is responsible for its non-existence is the definition of partisan rhetoric.

I don't want you to abandon the Liberal party, declare you'll never vote for anyone but the Conservatives and agree with everything I say, but objectively, to have any credibility at all, you must accept that national daycare is a Liberal promise made but not delivered over the past 12 years.

And it is not an answer to the criticism to say "But Mulroney didn't do it either..." fine, I accept that as true...but the question is what did the current administration do for the portfolio (and the question for voters this time around will be...who will deliver on their promises if elected).

So please eureka, just please admit two things:

1. The Liberals have promised national daycare over the past 12 years; and

2. Canada does not yet have national daycare.

FTA

[Guest eureka]

In the first place, FTA, it is relevant tha the PC's abandoned childcare. Partly in view of the oft repeated story of the 12 year wait. Childcare has never been on the Conservative agenda in the time since Mulroney dropped it.

It is hypocrotical to say that the Liberals (not my party by the way) have done nothing when your party seems to have determined to do nothing until it seemed like a vehicle for tax reductions and the winnng of votes the other day.

Secondly, childcare is a provincial responsibility and a National Programme can only be instituted with the agreement of the provinces. The Liberals have been working on that for the past few years and have obtained agreement from two provinces - another of the drags on Canada from excessive Provincial powers.

Then, childcare, like healthcare and other needed programmes were unaffordable until the last few years. They were unaffordable because of the revenue reducing regime forced on the nation by the rise of Right Wing sentiments. Just as they will be unaffordable again if there is a Conservative government of this persuasion.

This Conservative party is engaging in a massive and cynical hypocricy. None of what it promises will be possible with the huge expenditures it proposes allied to further revenue reducing schemes. I suspect that Harper did not believe he had a chance of winning and therefore would never be accountable for the Christmas tree ringed with thorn bushes he is selling.

[shoop]

First off hypocracy is an adjective, not a noun.

The expenditures the CPC have proposed are far less than those proposed by the Liberals.

Third, what the f*ck does your last statement mean?

This Conservative party is engaging in a massive and cynical hypocricy. None of what it promises will be possible with the huge expenditures it proposes allied to further revenue reducing schemes. I suspect that Harper did not believe he had a chance of winning and therefore would never be accountable for the Christmas tree ringed with thorn bushes he is selling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Hypocricy is a noun. I don't know about hypocracy.

The last part means exactly what it says. Is there some difficulty with it? you may diagree but surely it is not too difficult for you to comprehend.

[shoop]

As it turns out we were both wrong in the spelling of hypocrisy.

Obstinancy is not an attractive trait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

What exactly is a Xmas tree ringed with thorn bushes? Is this a slight on religion? I have never seen one before or seen it used.

Hypocricy is a noun. I don't know about hypocracy.

The last part means exactly what it says. Is there some difficulty with it? you may diagree but surely it is not too difficult for you to comprehend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[FTA Lawyer]

In the first place, FTA, it is relevant tha the PC's abandoned childcare. Partly in view of the oft repeated story of the 12 year wait. Childcare has never been on the Conservative agenda in the time since Mulroney dropped it.

It is hypocrotical to say that the Liberals (not my party by the way) have done nothing when your party seems to have determined to do nothing until it seemed like a vehicle for tax reductions and the winnng of votes the other day.

Secondly, childcare is a provincial responsibility and a National Programme can only be instituted with the agreement of the provinces. The Liberals have been working on that for the past few years and have obtained agreement from two provinces - another of the drags on Canada from excessive Provincial powers.

Then, childcare, like healthcare and other needed programmes were unaffordable until the last few years. They were unaffordable because of the revenue reducing regime forced on the nation by the rise of Right Wing sentiments. Just as they will be unaffordable again if there is a Conservative government of this persuasion.

This Conservative party is engaging in a massive and cynical hypocricy. None of what it promises will be possible with the huge expenditures it proposes allied to further revenue reducing schemes. I suspect that Harper did not believe he had a chance of winning and therefore would never be accountable for the Christmas tree ringed with thorn bushes he is selling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you've proven my point 100%...you can't actually make non-partisan statements, nor can you respond to a simple question.

One of the arts of trial tactics is to let someone on the stand hang themselves...which you've done. If I ask someone to agree that the capital of Alberta is Edmonton, they'll either agree with me or look foolish.

I asked you if the Liberals have promised a national day care program over the past 12 years...your answer, instead of yes or no is that "Childcare has never been on the Conservative agenda since Mulroney dropped it".

I asked you if there is a national day care program in Canada at present and your answer is that Canada is "dragged" by "excessive Provincial powers" and that a Conservative government would make such a programme "unaffordable".

I suppose the capital of Alberta is now Lethbridge?

FTA

P.S. The CPC is not "my party", nor do I suggest the Liberals are "your party"...such terminology is true partisan discourse. I will vote CPC this time because of a number of factors that I am hopeful they will implement from their platform, including the baby bonus concept.

Vote any way you like, the Liberals have promised national daycare over the past 12 years and we don't yet have it...fact.

[Guest eureka]

I have been in court and before tribunals a few hundred times, FTA. No judge in my experience would give much weight to your response.

Your questions were answered and expanded on and, since you have identified yourself rather strongly as about to vote CPC, then I would suggest that it is entirely appropriate to say that it is your party: even if only for the moment.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Milk money for little Scotty would more than likely be turned into beer money for those who are watchin' Scotty grow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or daddy and mommy could decide to enjoy a couple of extra cigarettes a day.

If that's the case, an extra beer or a couple of extra cigarettes, most of that money will then end up back in the government's coffers.

That wouldn't be the case in the U.S. where beer and cigarettes are cheap!

[FTA Lawyer]

I have been in court and before tribunals a few hundred times, FTA. No judge in my experience would give much weight to your response.

Your questions were answered and expanded on and, since you have identified yourself rather strongly as about to vote CPC, then I would suggest that it is entirely appropriate to say that it is your party: even if only for the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you know then that I would have followed your "answers" with a pointed...

"So your answer to my questions is Yes?" and then you would say "Yes"...without the spew.

And no, I don't agree that casting a ballot for a party makes it "my party". I am not a member of the CPC...even though I was once a member of the then Canadian Alliance. My views are not endorsed by the CPC, nor in fact do they accord with the CPC on many issues (e.g. I was in favour of the Liberal bill to decriminalize marijuana).

In many ways, this my party vs. your party mindset is what is wrong with Canada's system. If the Liberals enact a sensible law, the Conservatives almost routinely oppose it because it is a Liberal proposal...and vice versa. Everyone wants to say that anything coming out of an NDP mouth means bankruptcy for the country or that anything coming out of a Bloc mouth means the end of Canada.

We need to get beyond this ridiculous, childish fighting if we want to truly see our country achieve what it can, economically, socially, etc.

Whether Trudeau screwed things up with the Charter or whether Mulroney is to blame for the GST or whether some past NDP leader whose names escape me proposed something economically stupid...has nothing to do, in my view, (and contrary to almost everyone on this board's view apparently) with what Harper will do or Martin will do or Layton will do.

There is no reason that a debate about the merits of Harper's baby bonus plan vs. Martin's universal state daycare plan should be pitting long-gone administrations' records against each other.

I'll admit, my post about Liberal failure over 12 years to implement a plan comes perilously close to falling into the trap...but the point I was trying to make was an assessment of Martin's plan versus Harper's, and which one is most likely to be 1)implemented and 2)successful.

So if we can, I propose that we go back to that topic, minus the pure bickering about who is the worst historical party in the country.

FTA

[Guest eureka]

I will go along with that, FTA, wholeheartedly. On the point of what I should have said, though, not entirely.

These are discussions not Q & A sessions. It is not Bardell v. Pickwick where I could not bold the "Answer the Question" enough to show the emphasis.

[scribblet]

As it turns out we were both wrong in the spelling of hypocrisy.

Obstinancy is not an attractive trait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

What exactly is a Xmas tree ringed with thorn bushes? Is this a slight on religion? I have never seen one before or seen it used.

Hypocricy is a noun. I don't know about hypocracy.

The last part means exactly what it says. Is there some difficulty with it? you may diagree but surely it is not too difficult for you to comprehend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Got me on that one too, guess my comprehension isn't up to par these days LOL how sanctimonious;

Harper: Liberals who blew $100 million on Adscam don’t trust parents with $100 a month for kids

[err]

What you are saying is that every single worker must be paid "what they're worth" and all Canadians must be forced to pay more money for goods and services to justify this.

I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth... Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you give us an indication of who should pay for all these high-paying jobs? Heterosexual families with children? Christians? Native Indians who can't even drink clean water? Inner-city minorities who continue to live on welfare because the economy can't create jobs for them? Those evil rich people who bust their asses working hard? Those stupid cowboy Americans?

If you'll re-read, you'll see that I was merely commenting on your thinking it was unreasonable to pay everybody "what they're worth"

[FTA Lawyer]

I will go along with that, FTA, wholeheartedly. On the point of what I should have said, though, not entirely.

These are discussions not Q & A sessions. It is not Bardell v. Pickwick where I could not bold the "Answer the Question" enough to show the emphasis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL...

Okay, I'll stop trying to cross-examine you...but only because you otherwise agree with my suggestions...

FTA