Nooo. Cons are leading by 12 points in polls

[yatko]

This can't be true cons are 12 percent ahead of Liberals?

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/interactives/polltracking/index.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/national/decision2006/pollGraphic_200x76.gif

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/generated/realtime/specialDecision2006.html

[gman]

Why not?

[x86asm]

The end is imminent.... :|

Also I wouldnt weigh too heavily on these polls, they tend to change DRASTICALLY after the votes are counted.

[yatko]

Some of us don't want to go back a century behind. This is truly worrysome

[elty]

Congradulation, the new government just manage to save 100s of millions in scandal and mismanage programs...................

Only to spend 100 times as much on military and tax cut for the richest group of people.

[neilson]

This has been something 18 Months in the waiting.

I came on RFD on May 13th, 2004 in hopes that I'd see a CPC Gov't the following month.

It's been a LONG Year and a Half, but between Harper refining himself and his party and Paul Martin running the Grits about as inept as Kim Campbell in 1993, the end is near for Big Red.

And, I promise you this. If the Tories even manage to gain 3 seats in Quebec, then you will see defections from the Bloc over the next year; I Promise You.


January 23rd, 2005 will be the end of the line for corruption. With the Grits on the outs, and the Tories free to fully investigate them(possibly as a majority, but let's hold our breathe for that), and show that Whole truth about the RCMP Income Trust Leak, Option Canada, and all the rest.

[koft]

Hmm Conservative... I actually liked the PC platform before they got taken over by (merged with) the Reform aka alliance. Yeah more free-trades with the US...doh! If Harper does win a majority just hope he can still maintain Canada in the black -> But my psychic is telling me: gonna be a sea of red.

[pfdude]

If Harper does win a majority just hope he can still maintain Canada in the black......

I'm thinking plenty of red

[itsyours]

Congratulation!
Oh wait... I have a poll here, let's wait and see until the end:

Main Poll for eligible and intended to vote voters (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240994)

[konfusion666]

didn't the same thing happen in the 2004 election but the libs won anyway?

[x86asm]

didn't the same thing happen in the 2004 election but the libs won anyway?

Exactly like I said, you can't rely on these polls. But this will be a close race indeed.

[Shaner]

didn't the same thing happen in the 2004 election but the libs won anyway?

The Liberals won but they didn't beat the Conservatives. The Conservatives beat themselves in 2004. This time around it's the Liberals that are shooting themselves in the foot. Unless the Conservatives screw up somehow, I can't see them losing the election.

[GTA_]

Its truly sad and scary if PC wins. Personally I won't care that much since Ontario has a liberal government; however, it would be a sad day in Canadian history and Canadian values of tolerance and diversity.

Still, its not too late, we'll see what happens.

[gman]

If C is chosen, I think nothing in C's platform will be done. It is not C does not want to do it. It is they can't do it.

e.g. cutting GST. They won't have enough vote to do so. NDP and BQ will not help C. They can only work with Liberals. The chance is Liberals won't help them either.

Basically, C will be elected for doing nothing. It will be interesting to see their 1st budget. I wonder if Harper will be Joe Clark II.

[neilson]

Not if it's a Majority.

[pfdude]

If C is chosen, I think nothing in C's platform will be done. It is not C does not want to do it. It is they can't do it.

e.g. cutting GST. They won't have enough vote to do so. NDP and BQ will not help C. They can only work with Liberals. The chance is Liberals won't help them either.

Basically, C will be elected for doing nothing. It will be interesting to see their 1st budget. I wonder if Harper will be Joe Clark II.

That's what I'm thinking too. Will be fun to see what happens.

Maybe Harper can pull some version of Mulroney's trick and temporarily increase the number of seats in the house and assign C's to them ;)

[gman]

Not if it's a Majority.

That would mean they will lead more than 10 points.

[afong56]

January 23rd, 2005 will be the end of the line for corruption.

this is the most ridiculous statement i've read in a long time.

i can guarantee everyone here on the board that you are 100% wrong. if the cons get elected (especially with a majority), they will be guilty of corruption during their time in power--they are politicians, bottom line. so, as soon as that news story breaks, promise us canadians that you'll stop flamebaiting us with your silly american views--

better yet, why don't you tell us what u.s. websites you haunt, and then we can return the favour by spamming those sites with useless diatribe???

[pfdude]

better yet, why don't you tell us what u.s. websites you haunt, and then we can return the favour by spamming those sites with useless diatribe???

I'm game for that. I know it's a free world and all, but what is the point of neilson posting in CDN political threads on a CDN website? Does he not have his own country to criticize perhaps through an american website?

[Shaner]

Its truly sad and scary if PC wins. Personally I won't care that much since Ontario has a liberal government; however, it would be a sad day in Canadian history and Canadian values of tolerance and diversity.

Still, its not too late, we'll see what happens.

Even you must agree that McGuinty is a horrible, horrible premier. I understand that Ontario (alledgedly) doesn't get enough money from the feds, but as premier, McGuinty has to take care of things like that, it's his job.

But anyway, that's a different discussion for a different day, just looking for a yes or no answer to my question, nothing more.

[mattpiloto]

Polls are polls. I don't trust them. Call 1600 people and get the opinion of the entire country? They have their use, but the true test will come on the 23rd. As for me, I hope the polls are right, but don't put too much stock in them.

[stevethewheel]

Man I sure hope the Conservatives win. It will be a minority gov't that won't last more than 2 years. After that we can have the re-vamped Liberals with unproven ideas who can claim they've purged the party and cleaned up their ways. And the Conservatives will be able to show the faithful just how they walk the talk like drunken sailors. If the timing is right Harper will walk the plank behind Bush, how poetic will that be?

[gorf]

As for me, I hope the polls are right, but don't put too much stock in them.

I'm hopeful but we'll wait til the 23rd. Martin is on a super heavy bashing campaign right now, he's fighting for his life now.

There was a Martin rally and all I heard was him bashing Stephen Harper, nothing positive. Personally I'm sick of Martin.

[neilson]

Dalton McGuinty < Bob Rae < Mike Harris.

It's true when you down to thinking about it.

[gorf]

After that we can have the re-vamped Liberals with unproven ideas who can claim they've purged the party and cleaned up their ways.

To be honest, I really think everyone ever associated with Chretien and Martin will have to go and I think it'll be tough for them to reorganize and come up with so many new candidates. I really think the Liberals need a much longer break to get their act together.

If it is a Conservative minority, this time I think people will "really" be pissed for going to the polls again too soon. I'm not sure if any party wants to risk that right now as they're all fragile. Except for Gilles of course, he dances to the beat of his own drums! :D

[kingfencer]

its looking horible for the liberals, people are buying into the Conservatives tax cuts.

[yatko]

Tim Lobzun from ingersoll, Canada writes: I calculated that a family with 35,000 in taxable income will save about $430 in 2005 with the tax cuts announced by the Liberal/NDP budget. A Family with $71,000 in taxable income will also save about $430 in 2005. Mr. Harper has announced that he will reverse these cuts and give us a 1% reduction in the GST. This will not start until he is able to present a budget which I estimate would come out in April. The income you are earning right now at the lower tax rate will be taxed at the end of the year. The GST you pay right now will remain at 7% until the mechanism for change (millions of cash registers and accounting programs) can be implemented.

The $430 in annual tax savings you get right now work out to about $8.00 a week. In order to save $8.00 a week in a GST at 6% as presented by the Conservative Party you would have to spend $800 a week on taxable items. This does not include what you spend on your mortgage each week (No GST) or most groceries (No GST). It does not include what you pay on your bank loan or credit card charges (No GST). It does not include the income tax already deducted from your cheque. Even Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have stated that their 1% reduction will save the average Canadian $400 a year. That is still about $8 a week and requires that we purchase taxable items worth $800 each week or a new $3200 big screen TV each month or a $40,000 car every year.

Mr. Harper says the election is about accountability. I think he needs an accountant.

The Sponsorship scandal cost each Canadian about 25 cents a week for one year. The election we didn't need costs each Canadian about 25 cents a week for a year. Mr. Harper's pledge to rollback the Liberal/NDP tax breaks will cost each taxpayer between four and six dollars a week. Perhaps Mr.Harper's new theme song should be "Hands in my Pocket" No cupping please!

[gilboman]

i guess the country is like those girls that can't appreciate a good guy and want to be treated like dirt once in a while.

i mean canadians have had too much good times financially and socially so now they want to run a deficit again and have some rights taken away.

[Mintmaster]

And the Conservatives will be able to show the faithful just how they walk the talk like drunken sailors. If the timing is right Harper will walk the plank behind Bush, how poetic will that be?
Harper is not that stupid. He was, as witnessed by what happened around budget time last year as well as the previous election, but he's learned his lesson. He won't ally with the Bloc either, but he might have last year.

If the Conservatives won last year, maybe you'd be right, but now he knows how to play the Canadian public, and how to stay away from bad press.

The only way the Liberals will get a majority again is if the Conservatives screw up. And every Canadian politician has learned a lot from Adscam.

[Mintmaster]

Congradulation, the new government just manage to save 100s of millions in scandal and mismanage programs...................

Only to spend 100 times as much on military and tax cut for the richest group of people.
100's of times if you're lucky.

I don't think Harper is dumb enough to bring us into deficit. He'd rather break promises than do that. But I guarantee you that our debt isn't going anywhere.

Anyway, we have no-one to blame but ourselves. I love this quote:
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

[x86asm]

i guess the country is like those girls that can't appreciate a good guy and want to be treated like dirt once in a while.

i mean canadians have had too much good times financially and socially so now they want to run a deficit again and have some rights taken away.

Ya, it seems to be cool to have these things being done to them. What's scary is that some people are cool with this :|

[gilboman]

Ya, it seems to be cool to have these things being done to them. What's scary is that some people are cool with this :|

it's like i'm tired of living in beverly hills..i want to try jane/finch or regent park >:( only thing is, everybody have to go with them and its not like they dont know what's in store for them, they are just tired of the good times

[poedua]

100's of times if you're lucky.

I don't think Harper is dumb enough to bring us into deficit. He'd rather break promises than do that. But I guarantee you that our debt isn't going anywhere.

Anyway, we have no-one to blame but ourselves. I love this quote:
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

Let's see....the Tories want to.....

- cut gst
- cut business taxes
- cut gas taxes
- cut personal tax
- cut the debt

AND

- spend $ on crime
- spend $ on health care
- spend $ on defence
- spend $ on transfers to provinces
- spend $ on daycare

AND....without a deficit ?

How ? CUT a wide scope of ( social & other ) programs .....wait for it...it's coming.

[gman]

Let's see....the Tories want to.....

- cut gst
- cut business taxes
- cut gas taxes
- cut personal tax
- cut the debt

AND

- spend $ on crime
- spend $ on health care
- spend $ on defence
- spend $ on transfers to provinces
- spend $ on daycare

AND....without a deficit ?

How ? CUT a wide scope of ( social & other ) programs .....wait for it...it's coming.

Hmmm! I thought it is Liberals wants to cut personal tax and C wants to cut GST. C's "daycare plan" is a joke.

There will be no deficit because C will probably fail to implement all of the above (except cutting personal tax and spend $ on health care).

[devious9191]

I'm game for that. I know it's a free world and all, but what is the point of neilson posting in CDN political threads on a CDN website? Does he not have his own country to criticize perhaps through an american website?

His posts seem much more informed than a lot of the other Canadian posters on the board.

[gei]

Yay! Cons are leading by 10 points in polls!

[gilboman]

Hmmm! I thought it is Liberals wants to cut personal tax and C wants to cut GST. C's "daycare plan" is a joke.

There will be no deficit because C will probably fail to implement all of the above (except cutting personal tax and spend $ on health care).

there'll be a deficit even if C fail to implement the above since they gotta help out our US neighbor by helping them build a useless star wars shield that will never work :lol:

[gman]

there'll be a deficit even if C fail to implement the above since they gotta help out our US neighbor by helping them build a useless star wars shield that will never work :lol:

Don't worry. Since that will cost so much money, he won't get enough vote to get that pass.

[Shaner]

there'll be a deficit even if C fail to implement the above since they gotta help out our US neighbor by helping them build a useless star wars shield that will never work :lol:

Are you really that nervous about the Liberals losing that you have to make stuff up? Come on, at least stick to truths.

[7jai]

Well Liberals had their shot....they blew it. Now on to the next party.

[eliteblaze]

if a government (indirectly/directly) union man shaner is supporting the conservatives you gotta really quesiton where liberals get their support from...

[neilson]

His posts seem much more informed than a lot of the other Canadian posters on the board.

THANK YOU.

I Am an American that cares about Canada's direction, and frankly you should appreciate that there's a few like me that are out here. I'd like to see anyone counter that arguement, because they know they can't!

[Shaner]

if a government (indirectly/directly) union man shaner is supporting the conservatives you gotta really quesiton where liberals get their support from...

I think you'll find that most people who work within the criminal justice system (Cops, Customs Officers, Correctional Officers) will be voting for the Conservatives this time around.

There are some groups who are probably pro-Liberal (I would assume judges are almost all going to vote Liberal), but it seems that for the most part, people employed to uphold the law and integrity of this country will be voting Conservative.

[Asun]

Let's see....the Tories want to.....

- cut gst
- cut business taxes
- cut gas taxes
- cut personal tax
- cut the debt

AND

- spend $ on crime
- spend $ on health care
- spend $ on defence
- spend $ on transfers to provinces
- spend $ on daycare

AND....without a deficit ?

How ? CUT a wide scope of ( social & other ) programs .....wait for it...it's coming.

By scraping gun registry and savings from adscam of course :D
Plus our military is in really shameful state. Spending a bit more on military is quite reasonable.

Why are people complaining about tax break for the rich? If the rich are getting all the breaks then I'll strive to be a rich person ;) Sounds like win-win to me.

[poedua]

By scraping gun registry and savings from adscam of course :D
Plus our military is in really shameful state. Spending a bit more on military is quite reasonable.

Why are people complaining about tax break for the rich? If the rich are getting all the breaks then I'll strive to be a rich person ;) Sounds like win-win to me.

making rax cuts, spending money....just to psuh us into a deficit is not a win/ win...particularly when program cuts will be involved to ...then again it's' Tory economics...so who knows

[gorf]

Don't know if this is accurate but here's 2 sites that should be looked at for numbers.

Last election liberal lies: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060109.ELXNMAIN09/TPStory


In the last election campaign, when the Tories promised an $80-billion platform, Mr. Martin said the Tory platform would push Canada into deficit. Then Liberals budgeted for $143-billion in spending.

And when the Tories promised about $40-billion in tax cuts during the 2004 campaign, the Liberals ran campaign commercials denouncing them and Mr. Martin called them "impossible." But the Liberals subsequently budgeted for $40-billion in tax cuts.

The Liberals, in the 2004 campaign, accused the Tories of spending money that wasn't there to spend, but it was only several months after that election that Mr. Martin's government revealed the fiscal situation was improving. A projected $1.9-billion surplus grew to $9.1-billion and last year the Liberals said improving economic conditions had added $54.5-billion of revenue to Ottawa's bottom line.


And our lovely biased CBC, don't know if the numbers are right.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/spendingtallies.html#conservatives

[hugh_da_man]

Let's see....the Tories want to.....

- cut gst
- cut business taxes
- cut gas taxes
- cut personal tax
- cut the debt

AND

- spend $ on crime
- spend $ on health care
- spend $ on defence
- spend $ on transfers to provinces
- spend $ on daycare

AND....without a deficit ?

How ? CUT a wide scope of ( social & other ) programs .....wait for it...it's coming.

Do people actually read what they are typing before hitting the "submit reply" button?

EVERY party is promising the same things. People are blinded by the Liberal scare tactics into believing that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda.

The Conservatives aren't the NDP, they don't spend money on social programs and give it away to the people who don't want to work, they put it back into the hands of the people who shouldn't be paying as much tax as they are currently paying.

I would welcome a Tory government like the Filmon government in Manitoba in the 90's. Cuts to bloated social and government programs with control of the budget followed by tax cuts and spending on education and health care.

[G.H.]

I am still skeptical about conservatives, they dont reveal their plateform, they deny interview with CBC national.

Conservatives doesnt support Kyoto, but I have yet to seen their environmental plateform. Conservatives doesnt honor the Liberal's last mini budget tax cut, and they said they will have their own package for tax cut(aside from GST tax cut), I have yet to seen their tax package. Conservatives doesnt honor Liberal's first nation agreement, they have yet to release their own version of first nation plateform. I dont know their stand for pacific gateway, I dont know their stand for Canada-US relation, I dont know their stand for debt(a little less than 500 billion debt, I like to reduce that), I dont know their stand for new deal for cities. I am looking for change, but I dont know what conservatives is going to change to.

Honestly none of the parties represent my values. Liberal is corrupted, NDP spends too much money, Conservatives hide things, Green party doesnt have representation in parliament. If BQ is federalist, maybe I will vote for them.

[devious9191]

I am still skeptical about conservatives, they dont reveal their plateform, they deny interview with CBC national.

Conservatives doesnt support Kyoto, but I have yet to seen their environmental plateform. Conservatives doesnt honor the Liberal's last mini budget tax cut, and they said they will have their own package for tax cut(aside from GST tax cut), I have yet to seen their tax package. Conservatives doesnt honor Liberal's first nation agreement, they have yet to release their own version of first nation plateform. I dont know their stand for pacific gateway, I dont know their stand for Canada-US relation, I dont know their stand for debt(a little less than 500 billion debt, I like to reduce that), I dont know their stand for new deal for cities. I am looking for change, but I dont know what conservatives is going to change to.

Honestly none of the parties represent my values. Liberal is corrupted, NDP spends too much money, Conservatives hide things, Green party doesnt have representation in parliament. If BQ is federalist, maybe I will vote for them.

You may want to take a look at this site that was posted earlier:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/issues/index.html

It seems to do a good job outlining each party's policies regarding different issues.. and might clarify the position of the Conservatives in particular on a few different issues.

[Mintmaster]

Do people actually read what they are typing before hitting the "submit reply" button?

EVERY party is promising the same things. People are blinded by the Liberal scare tactics into believing that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda.
Sure. Except the Liberals aren't promising to cut gas tax or GST. They aren't going to spend like the Cons on defence. From what we can see, the Conservatives will have less revenue and spend more. Harper needs to tell us what he'll cut.


The Conservatives aren't the NDP, they don't spend money on social programs and give it away to the people who don't want to work, they put it back into the hands of the people who shouldn't be paying as much tax as they are currently paying.Cuts to social programs and education to allow tax cuts is what Harris did to Ontario. Now we're in a deficit while trying to rebuild education and healthcare, and have to deal with the criminals he indirectly created. A lot of policies have effects 5-10 years down the road. Even gun control and banning handguns, while seemingly worthless now, may have a large effect in preventing a US style gun culture from spreading up here. I'm sure plenty of people are thinking of arming themselves because of all the negativity about crime from the campaigning.


I would welcome a Tory government like the Filmon government in Manitoba in the 90's. Cuts to bloated social and government programs with control of the budget followed by tax cuts and spending on education and health care.The social programs are really the only thing that make us distinct from the US, especially with crime and poverty. If you want that type of country, you should move down there rather than make Canada = US + healthcare.

[biosh]

Polls are polls. I don't trust them. Call 1600 people and get the opinion of the entire country? They have their use, but the true test will come on the 23rd. As for me, I hope the polls are right, but don't put too much stock in them.
Polls are used by the media to manipulate public opinion - they cherry pick the poll results they need to get the effect they are looking for. In this case, they are building up the fear of Harper actually getting elected, so that the appropriate backlash will propel the Liberals to victory, just like last time...

[gilboman]

The Conservatives aren't the NDP, they don't spend money on social programs and give it away to the people who don't want to work, they put it back into the hands of the people who shouldn't be paying as much tax as they are currently paying.

.

then why are they raising taxes to the low and middle income people?

are do you think only rich people should get tax cuts?

if anything, the conservatives are great liars and manipulators. they will raise taxes like harper said he would but "cut" the GST by two percent which is nothing compared to his raise in income taxes

[mattpiloto]

Polls are used by the media to manipulate public opinion - they cherry pick the poll results they need to get the effect they are looking for. In this case, they are building up the fear of Harper actually getting elected, so that the appropriate backlash will propel the Liberals to victory, just like last time...

Yes, "democracy" at its finest.

[devious9191]

then why are they raising taxes to the low and middle income people?

are do you think only rich people should get tax cuts?

if anything, the conservatives are great liars and manipulators. they will raise taxes like harper said he would but "cut" the GST by two percent which is nothing compared to his raise in income taxes

The 'raise' in income tax levels, is back to the level it was in October, before the liberals rammed it through the house a week before their government collapsed.

Edit: Actually, the raise will be restoring the percentage at the lowest level, and further decrease the personal exemption limit.

[Txiasaeia]

Polls are used by the media to manipulate public opinion - they cherry pick the poll results they need to get the effect they are looking for. In this case, they are building up the fear of Harper actually getting elected, so that the appropriate backlash will propel the Liberals to victory, just like last time...

Hmm... makes sense to me.

[gilboman]

The 'raise' in income tax levels, is back to the level it was in October, before the liberals rammed it through the house a week before their government collapsed.

Edit: Actually, the raise will be restoring the percentage at the lowest level, and further decrease the personal exemption limit.

a raise is still a raise. or think about it this way, your boss gave you a higher salary then he leaves. new boss comes in and cuts your salary to previous level.

did you not experience a wage cut from the new boss? only a totally ignorant fool would say NO.

samething with the tax hike since income taxes under liberals are less than what the conservatives vow to increase it to

[devious9191]

a raise is still a raise. or think about it this way, your boss gave you a higher salary then he leaves. new boss comes in and cuts your salary to previous level.

did you not experience a wage cut from the new boss? only a totally ignorant fool would say NO.

samething with the tax hike since income taxes under liberals are less than what the conservatives vow to increase it to

lol. And if you never received a paycheque at your new wage, did you really receive one? Maybe your old boss only said he was giving you a raise, since he knew he was on the way out anyways.

[MilkyWind]

I saw on CTV that the majority of this support for the conservatives for the 10% is coming from Quebec.

[afong56]

THANK YOU.

I Am an American that cares about Canada's direction, and frankly you should appreciate that there's a few like me that are out here. I'd like to see anyone counter that arguement, because they know they can't!

here's why i don't appreciate the prescence of americans like neilson on this board:

1. they are right wing ideologues that rarely demonstrate comprehension or acknowledge the legitimacy of opposing views
2. they lack sophistication and real understanding of the majority of canadians--we are not americans, and the majority of us don't have the same social conservatism that controls your country
3. they repeatedly flame this board with useless hyperbole and unsubstantiated statements like: "mcguinty < rae < harris"--care to provide us with some facts to support this claim???

what i would appreciate is a thoughtful, informed, erudite opinion from americans--if neilson is the best we can do, we should make do without. . .

frankly, neilson just proves that americans do not know much about canadians, and they certainly don't understand us. . .

[thelefteyeguy]

then why are they raising taxes to the low and middle income people?

are do you think only rich people should get tax cuts?

if anything, the conservatives are great liars and manipulators. they will raise taxes like harper said he would but "cut" the GST by two percent which is nothing compared to his raise in income taxes


I have full confidence in Harper and the conservatives. The bread and butter of voters are the middle income. Like the conservatives in Ontario, he will cut the rates for the middle income.

the Liberal income tax cuts were a joke, it should be reversed.

btw...lets not only characterize the conservatives as great liars and manipulators...it's not mutually exclusive.

Liberal supports pick and choose what they believe as do conservative supports.

Facts are Paul Martin did support the war for a short period, polls told him not to...so he changed his mind

Paul Martin had corp tax cuts planned as the finance minister, dropped them during his minority govt to get the NDP support

McFly in Ontario said no tax increase, within a month...announced a New Health Tax...a HUGE increase at an avg of $750 per year per Ontarians

so lets not call just the conservatives as liars ;)

[gilboman]

I have full confidence in Harper and the conservatives. The bread and butter of voters are the middle income. Like the conservatives in Ontario, he will cut the rates for the middle income.

the Liberal income tax cuts were a joke, it should be reversed.

btw...lets not only characterize the conservatives as great liars and manipulators...it's not mutually exclusive.

Liberal supports pick and choose what they believe as do conservative supports.

Facts are Paul Martin did support the war for a short period, polls told him not to...so he changed his mind

Paul Martin had corp tax cuts planned as the finance minister, dropped them during his minority govt to get the NDP support

McFly in Ontario said no tax increase, within a month...announced a New Health Tax...a HUGE increase at an avg of $750 per year per Ontarians

so lets not call just the conservatives as liars ;)

well lets not forget the cons in ontario said there was no deficit and boom we got a 6billion defiicit

samething with fed tories.

see the scary thing with tories is harper despite the overwhelming population telling him they dont support the iraq war, don't want election in summer etc.. still didnit care and pushed ahead.

i dont recall martin ever supportin iraq war, he was saying if UN said go he would consider it. but regardless he listened to the citizens of the country unlike harper

[thelefteyeguy]

well lets not forget the cons in ontario said there was no deficit and boom we got a 6billion defiicit

samething with fed tories.

see the scary thing with tories is harper despite the overwhelming population telling him they dont support the iraq war, don't want election in summer etc.. still didnit care and pushed ahead.

i dont recall martin ever supportin iraq war, he was saying if UN said go he would consider it. but regardless he listened to the citizens of the country unlike harper

as a supporter for the conservatives, i too made a wrong decision in choosing to support the war. However, I am not the only one that made a poor decision. Many of the countries around the world made a poor decision.

Despite the wrong decision, I am glad the world doesnt have Suddam in the news anymore.

Because of this wrong decision, I don't think harper will have this problem again. His poor decision cost him 4 yrs of being the opposition leader and continues to haunt him today.

[dealguy2]

as a supporter for the conservatives, i too made a wrong decision in choosing to support the war. However, I am not the only one that made a poor decision. Many of the countries around the world made a poor decision.

Despite the wrong decision, I am glad the world doesnt have Suddam in the news anymore.

Because of this wrong decision, I don't think harper will have this problem again. His poor decision cost him 4 yrs of being the opposition leader and continues to haunt him today.

It was and still is the RIGHT decision.

[poedua]

Polls are used by the media to manipulate public opinion - they cherry pick the poll results they need to get the effect they are looking for. In this case, they are building up the fear of Harper actually getting elected, so that the appropriate backlash will propel the Liberals to victory, just like last time...

There is some merit to this.

I'm not so sure about the overall poll results themselves...as i believe CTV runs a new an update the poll of who's in 'the the lead 'each night. To that, I would simply say, certain types of people answer polls, some do not ...the sample of respondents themselves may be biased - regardless of the poll result. As we have seen in the past, polls may be wrong in their predictive validity.

But, you're right , CTV clearly does "cherry-pick " the questions from a on-going poll they profile each night or so ....so out of a dozen or so poll questions...some seemingly "biased ' ones in favour of the Tories ( which re-inforce the obvious ) like "who has momentum" & " who has integrity " are chosen - with the intent of painting a "pro-Tory" picture for the TV audience

The fact that the poll is a joint CTV / Globe & Mail enterpise simply speaks for itself. The Globe & Mail is so blatantly and boorishly "pro- Tory " ( as is CTV ) - as the Torornto Star is pro-Lib - that any interpretation of a seemingly óbjective poll by the CTV/Globe & Mail is anyhting but, and has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[mattpiloto]

well lets not forget the cons in ontario said there was no deficit and boom we got a 6billion defiicit

samething with fed tories.

see the scary thing with tories is harper despite the overwhelming population telling him they dont support the iraq war, don't want election in summer etc.. still didnit care and pushed ahead.

i dont recall martin ever supportin iraq war, he was saying if UN said go he would consider it. but regardless he listened to the citizens of the country unlike harper

How about Alberta cons? We seem to be doing pretty good. Isn't Harper the "scary western guy" not the guy that was born and raised in the east?

[poedua]

Yes, "democracy" at its finest.

Be a little wary of TV polls ...remember tthe 2004 election when polls put the parties neck and neck eve of the election....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1088531821013_13?s_name=election2004&no_ads=



" Pollsters are defending themselves after Monday's election results appear to have flown in the face of their predictions. After five weeks of conducting phone interviews with more than 25,000 Canadians, pollsters said the race was neck-and-neck.

Ipsos-Reid predicted in its final poll, released June 25, that about 32 per cent of decided voters would vote for the Liberals, with decided voter support for the Conservatives trailing slightly at 31 per cent. The poll information was gathered from Monday June 21 to Wednesday June 23.

Yet at the end of the day Monday, the Liberals won 36.7 per cent of the vote, while the Conservatives won 29.6 per cent. "

In the end the Liberals picked up 5% more than predicted - tho i doubt it will happen this time around.

[poedua]

How about Alberta cons? We seem to be doing pretty good. Isn't Harper the "scary western guy" not the guy that was born and raised in the east?

No...he's just plain "scary''

[gorf]

Personally, I find the Liberals the scarey party. Never know what's going to come out of Martin's mouth now or what Canadian's he's going to trash. He's just a little to desperate to be anywhere near believable.

[neilson]

here's why i don't appreciate the prescence of americans like neilson on this board:

1. they are right wing ideologues that rarely demonstrate comprehension or acknowledge the legitimacy of opposing views
2. they lack sophistication and real understanding of the majority of canadians--we are not americans, and the majority of us don't have the same social conservatism that controls your country
3. they repeatedly flame this board with useless hyperbole and unsubstantiated statements like: "mcguinty < rae < harris"--care to provide us with some facts to support this claim???

what i would appreciate is a thoughtful, informed, erudite opinion from americans--if neilson is the best we can do, we should make do without. . .

frankly, neilson just proves that americans do not know much about canadians, and they certainly don't understand us. . .

All you have to do is ask anyone that's lived in Ontario from 1990 to the present how they'd rank the 3 Govt's.

Hands down NDP would be at the bottom, but right now I'd say if Dalton doesn't shape up, he's gonna be as bad as Mike Harris in most ppl's views.

You just have a problem with the fact that I am a Right of Centre person, and that after waiting and saying for 18 months, that a Tory Gov't is about to be elected.

I am an American that knows more about Canada then 95% of my fellow countrymen, and for that I think I have a bit if credibility.

[stevethewheel]

You just have a problem with the fact that I am a Right of Centre person, and that after waiting and saying for 18 months, that a Tory Gov't is about to be elected.



neilson - you taking a stand here and predicting a conservative win? Or just reflecting the polls.

Also, I don't find myself agreeing with you much at all but I don't think anyone should be excluded because they are "American". You seem to know a fair amount of what's going on for someone who's way of life doesn't depend on it so keep on commenting, don't get sidetracked by the "Yankee go home" stuff.

[Tiberius]

Well Liberals had their shot....they blew it. Now on to the next party.

How did the Liberals "blow it"? Just curious...

To use such a simple rational to elect your government seems... irrational... "on to the next party"... considering how different the parties are in philosophy and their stance on issues - they are not inter-changeable without significant consequence (should any party get a majority and have the ability to do as they please).

[Bordello]

How did the Liberals "blow it"? Just curious...
Do you really honestly think that the Liberals did absolutely nothing wrong in the last 12 years?

[itsyours]

i guess the country is like those girls that can't appreciate a good guy and want to be treated like dirt once in a while.

i mean canadians have had too much good times financially and socially so now they want to run a deficit again and have some rights taken away.
I like this quote. Can I borrow it awhile for my signature? Thanks gilboman.

[poedua]

Do you really honestly think that the Liberals did absolutely nothing wrong in the last 12 years?

I don't think anyone's made that claim.

[pfdude]

His posts seem much more informed than a lot of the other Canadian posters on the board.

LAUGH OUT LOUD THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE TO SPELL OUT LOL

[pfdude]

THANK YOU.

I Am an American that cares about Canada's direction, and frankly you should appreciate that there's a few like me that are out here. I'd like to see anyone counter that arguement, because they know they can't!

More like you're trying to steer Canada's direction.

[actuary]

And, I promise you this. If the Tories even manage to gain 3 seats in Quebec, then you will see defections from the Bloc over the next year; I Promise You.



Would you care to wager money on this statement? I'm willing to take your bet.

[itsyours]

Do you really honestly think that the Liberals did absolutely nothing wrong in the last 12 years?

I don't think anyone's made that claim.
The word absolutely he used implies that they have done a good job generally.

[pfdude]

I think you'll find that most people who work within the criminal justice system (Cops, Customs Officers, Correctional Officers) will be voting for the Conservatives this time around.

I guess this is coming from somebody in Kingston right?

Will the Cons throw more people in jail thus needing more guards on duty? I guess the economy in Kingston is about to boom.

What else does Kingston have besides a few decent schools and a bunch of jails?

[poedua]

I guess this is coming from somebody in Kingston right?

Will the Cons throw more people in jail thus needing more guards on duty? I guess the economy in Kingston is about to boom.

What else does Kingston have besides a few decent schools and a bunch of jails?'

pfdude...to be fair , Shaner has probably one of the most 'realistic' day to day perspectives of how of the criminal justice treats criminals........as he works in the field each day.

Shaner's thread of security covers is thoughts pretty well - worth a look.

As for Kingston...that's just a cheap-shot ...and entirely irrelevant to the election issue of how to best combat crime IMO.

Both parties seem to want to review ( tougher ) sentencing and some parole and bail provisions...but it's the proposed Liberal hand-gun ban that seems to polarize most voters...to me that's the biggest disticntion between the 2 parties on this issue.

[itsyours]

I guess this is coming from somebody in Kingston right?

Will the Cons throw more people in jail thus needing more guards on duty? I guess the economy in Kingston is about to boom.

What else does Kingston have besides a few decent schools and a bunch of jails?
He said that he hates criminals with a passion. That really trouble me. It would be tough for him and for the inmates to see each others everyday for a long time. It is a nightmare for both sides.
Learn to hate nobody and you will see life everywhere.

[poedua]

He said that he hates inmates with a passion. That really trouble me. It would be tough for him and for the inmates to see each others everyday for a long time. It is a nightmare for both sides.

Who said this - Shaner ?

ALL ( 100 % ) of inmates or a select few ?

[thelefteyeguy]

I guess this is coming from somebody in Kingston right?

Will the Cons throw more people in jail thus needing more guards on duty? I guess the economy in Kingston is about to boom.

What else does Kingston have besides a few decent schools and a bunch of jails?

vs. having more criminals on the street?

[poedua]

The word absolutely he used implies that they have done a good job generally.

absolutely = generally ????...... i disagree.

If for example, If a man says " I'm absolutely innocent "...I take that to mean I am 100% innocent....... not "generally "innocent.

I take "absolute ' to be mean a term of unequivocation.

[itsyours]

Who said this - Shaner ?
ALL ( 100 % ) of inmates or a select few ?
Somewhere in tons of his posts lately he said he hates...criminals (this may be his actual word, I'll correct my post until I found it otherwise).
Hating criminals when they are out at large doing harm things is OK but once they are in to pay the price, well ... better to love them. Learn to hate nobody and you will see life everywhere.

[Tiberius]

Do you really honestly think that the Liberals did absolutely nothing wrong in the last 12 years?

Nothing wrong? Oh please... we don't live in "fantasy world". Are you saying that the Cons would do "nothing wrong" if given 12 years in office (or even 1 year)??

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... so voting for "change" without really agreeing with or understanding what that change actually is/will be is foolish. So, my question stands... how did the Liberals "blow it"? Why does this make it the right/smart choice to vote for the Conservatives?

This comes down to a simple point:

This election is not the last election.. or the election before that... or before that... this is THIS election. We are voting for a party to represent us going forward. If a party has some issues after TWELVE years in office (duh! as if they wouldn't!) do you vote in this election for the party that is going to do the best things going forward (based on your beliefs, etc.)... or.. do you vote "against" a party and blindly vote in a different party to enact "change". Sometimes the change you "request" by that vote ends up hurting you more than you could have ever guessed - because you did not bother to Understand what it was you were voting For... you only knew what you voted Against.

Most voters don't bother to become informed - they vote based on simple-minded reasoning.
"I want my taxes lower."
"I'm mad that a Liberal program was used fraudulantly by someone so I'm voting against them."
"I don't like gay marriage so I'm voting Conservative."
"I want more spending on health care."
"I want more spending on the military."

You get the idea.

These people never bother to look at the "big picture" and understand the rest of the baggage that comes with their vote. Where does the money come from to increase spending by billions in several different areas at once???? How big a deficit will we be running over the coming years if such spending occurs? What minority will have it's rights squashed next by a majority that wants to impose it's will on others because it "can"?

So.... I'm asking... how did the Liberals "blow it".... and how does that equate to a reason to vote - not against them - but FOR another party in this election? If the Liberals still best represent how you want the country run, who are you really punishing if you vote for a different party and give them more power? I'd argue that you are hurting yourself more if that is your reason for voting "against" the Liberals. The money lost to scams and waste is VERY small in the grand scheme of things - so look beyond them when making such an important decision as picking the leaders of your country because they are drastically different in this election!

[poedua]

Nothing wrong? Oh please... we don't live in "fantasy world". Are you saying that the Cons would do "nothing wrong" if given 12 years in office (or even 1 year)??

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... so voting for "change" without really agreeing with or understanding what that change actually is/will be is foolish. So, my question stands... how did the Liberals "blow it"? Why does this make it the right/smart choice to vote for the Conservatives?

This comes down to a simple point:

This election is not the last election.. or the election before that... or before that... this is THIS election. We are voting for a party to represent us going forward. If a party has some issues after TWELVE years in office (duh! as if they wouldn't!) do you vote in this election for the party that is going to do the best things going forward (based on your beliefs, etc.)... or.. do you vote "against" a party and blindly vote in a different party to enact "change". Sometimes the change you "request" by that vote ends up hurting you more than you could have ever guessed - because you did not bother to Understand what it was you were voting For... you only knew what you voted Against.

Most voters don't bother to become informed - they vote based on simple-minded reasoning.
"I want my taxes lower."
"I'm mad that a Liberal program was used fraudulantly by someone so I'm voting against them."
"I don't like gay marriage so I'm voting Conservative."
"I want more spending on health care."
"I want more spending on the military."

You get the idea.

These people never bother to look at the "big picture" and understand the rest of the baggage that comes with their vote. Where does the money come from to increase spending by billions in several different areas at once???? How big a deficit will we be running over the coming years if such spending occurs? What minority will have it's rights squashed next by a majority that wants to impose it's will on others because it "can"?

So.... I'm asking... how did the Liberals "blow it".... and how does that equate to a reason to vote - not against them - but FOR another party in this election? If the Liberals still best represent how you want the country run, who are you really punishing if you vote for a different party and give them more power? I'd argue that you are hurting yourself more if that is your reason for voting "against" the Liberals. The money lost to scams and waste is VERY small in the grand scheme of things - so look beyond them when making such an important decision as picking the leaders of your country because they are drastically different in this election!

GREAT post !

[pfdude]

'

pfdude...to be fair , Shaner has probably one of the most 'realistic' day to day perspectives of how of the criminal justice treats criminals........as he works in the field each day.

Shaner's thread of security covers is thoughts pretty well - worth a look.

As for Kingston...that's just a cheap-shot ...and entirely irrelevant to the election issue of how to best combat crime IMO.

Both parties seem to want to review ( tougher ) sentencing and some parole and bail provisions...but it's the proposed Liberal hand-gun ban that seems to polarize most voters...to me that's the biggest disticntion between the 2 parties on this issue.

I'm sorry. That was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek impression that I learned from Harper.

[Tiberius]

GREAT post !

Thanks... sadly... most people won't read it (because of the length).

It's not a big deal though - as I don't think a post on a forum will change the world anyway... ;)

We just have to live with the "realities" of the world around us. These realities are the reasons why politics is what it is in our country (campaigns that attack the other parties, buying votes with numerous promises that aren't necessarily well thought out / in the best interests of the country / go against the principles on which a free country is supposed to stand - but panders to a large segment of the population that is bigoted / etc.)

Such is life...

[poedua]

Thanks... sadly... most people won't read it (because of the length).

It's not a big deal though - as I don't think a post on a forum will change the world anyway... ;)

We just have to live with the "realities" of the world around us. These realities are the reasons why politics is what it is in our country (campaigns that attack the other parties, buying votes with numerous promises that aren't necessarily well thought out / in the best interests of the country / go against the principles on which a free country is supposed to stand - but panders to a large segment of the population that is bigoted / etc.)

Such is life...

To be honest...I don't buy in to a lot of the Tory propaganda that fixates on the glaring 'gaffs' by the Libs - and by rights the Tories should in a campaign - as they never attempt bring up the overall economic ( G8) strides made by Libs and Kyoto ( which the Troeis etc. etc. ).

But that aside.

It might actually be a good thing if the Tories get in for either a minorty or a majority. I sincerely believe that the Tories will be even a bigger failure than the Liberals have alleged to have been..will creeping defcits, reversals of same sex and abortion laws, a rejection of Kyota and so on and on...not to mention the corrupotion that will predictably surface.

It is my personal opinion, that based on their polcies and their causcus, they lack the skills to govern - skills to get elected is one thing ...skills to govern is another IMO.

No better way to have a Lliberal government return to power than to give the candian public a good dose of Tory ( US style ) government for ahwhile.

How soon Mulroney is forgotten...at least HE had some brains. :)

[jedijome]

mulroney and harris, how can anyone in ontario ever forget those two governments.

the gaffs and corruptions the liberals are suffering from pale in comparison to the screwups those two governments made and the mismanagement that existed under them.

time for a change? sure, but not from the conservatives.

[mattpiloto]

mulroney and harris, how can anyone in ontario ever forget those two governments.

the gaffs and corruptions the liberals are suffering from pale in comparison to the screwups those two governments made and the mismanagement that existed under them.

time for a change? sure, but not from the conservatives.

There are many choices besides conservatives (although, unfortunately the only major one that is not Liberal is NDP). A vote for a party gives them $1.75 funding from elections canada (provided they attain a certain number of votes). Stephen Harper and Paul Martin are not your only choices.

[thelefteyeguy]

Nothing wrong? Oh please... we don't live in "fantasy world". Are you saying that the Cons would do "nothing wrong" if given 12 years in office (or even 1 year)??

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... so voting for "change" without really agreeing with or understanding what that change actually is/will be is foolish. So, my question stands... how did the Liberals "blow it"? Why does this make it the right/smart choice to vote for the Conservatives?

This comes down to a simple point:

This election is not the last election.. or the election before that... or before that... this is THIS election. We are voting for a party to represent us going forward. If a party has some issues after TWELVE years in office (duh! as if they wouldn't!) do you vote in this election for the party that is going to do the best things going forward (based on your beliefs, etc.)... or.. do you vote "against" a party and blindly vote in a different party to enact "change". Sometimes the change you "request" by that vote ends up hurting you more than you could have ever guessed - because you did not bother to Understand what it was you were voting For... you only knew what you voted Against.

Most voters don't bother to become informed - they vote based on simple-minded reasoning.
"I want my taxes lower."
"I'm mad that a Liberal program was used fraudulantly by someone so I'm voting against them."
"I don't like gay marriage so I'm voting Conservative."
"I want more spending on health care."
"I want more spending on the military."

You get the idea.

These people never bother to look at the "big picture" and understand the rest of the baggage that comes with their vote. Where does the money come from to increase spending by billions in several different areas at once???? How big a deficit will we be running over the coming years if such spending occurs? What minority will have it's rights squashed next by a majority that wants to impose it's will on others because it "can"?

So.... I'm asking... how did the Liberals "blow it".... and how does that equate to a reason to vote - not against them - but FOR another party in this election? If the Liberals still best represent how you want the country run, who are you really punishing if you vote for a different party and give them more power? I'd argue that you are hurting yourself more if that is your reason for voting "against" the Liberals. The money lost to scams and waste is VERY small in the grand scheme of things - so look beyond them when making such an important decision as picking the leaders of your country because they are drastically different in this election!

So your union leader has been taking some of your union dues (and the rest of the union members) and put it in his pocket (only very little for the past few yrs)...however he has made sure you didnt get get laid off and has made some great contracts with the company for the past decade... (The company has grown significantly within the past decade so it has had no reason to lay off ppl)

it is time to vote for a new union leader. Will you vote for him again?

i think he mean the Liberals blew it by skimming from the taxpayers through deliberate cutbacks. The big picture is integrity...who is being accountable for these actions.

btw...this is not the only scandal. If you want me to list them. I will

[thelefteyeguy]

mulroney and harris, how can anyone in ontario ever forget those two governments.

the gaffs and corruptions the liberals are suffering from pale in comparison to the screwups those two governments made and the mismanagement that existed under them.

time for a change? sure, but not from the conservatives.

Canadians have a very selective memory.

billion$ mismanagement by the HR ministry
billion$ mismanagement on the gun registry
and of course the adscam which only uncovered $100million...but of course the auditor general didnt have the full resources to investigate further


for someone to claim no knowledge of this as the finance minister...well would you believe in it ;)

[Tiberius]

So your union leader has been taking some of your union dues (and the rest of the union members) and put it in his pocket (only very little for the past few yrs)...however he has made sure you didnt get get laid off and has made some great contracts with the company for the past decade... (The company has grown significantly within the past decade so it has had no reason to lay off ppl)

it is time to vote for a new union leader. Will you vote for him again?

i think he mean the Liberals blew it by skimming from the taxpayers through deliberate cutbacks. The big picture is integrity...who is being accountable for these actions.

btw...this is not the only scandal. If you want me to list them. I will

I *LOVE* this example! (I'll bet you didn't expect that!! :lol: )

You are suggesting I support voting back in the "union leader" who personally stole my money.

However, that is NOT the case at all. If you want to use that example, my point is that you would not THROW AWAY THE UNION because one union member abused it and skimmed money!! You would get rid of the corrupt union member(s). Getting rid of the Union completely is a seperate issue and decision to be made. (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...)

Chretien was a corrupt mofo in my opinion - but I still liked the way he (the Liberals) steered the country. I would love to see him taken down for any involvement or knowledge he may have had in corruption/scandals/etc. I personally won't let my feelings about the former leader of a political party prevent me from supporting them if they still best represent my interests and beliefs.

Martin was not close to Chretien. Chretien actually did not want Martin to get the leadership of the party and Martin overcame the obstacles Chretien threw up in front of him. Actually, Chretien has (inadvertantly?) sabotaged Martin once he was the leader of the party when you look at the impact the scandals from Chretien's days are having on the Liberal party now.

[thelefteyeguy]

I *LOVE* this example! (I'll bet you didn't expect that!! :lol: )

You are suggesting I support voting back in the "union leader" who personally stole my money.

However, that is NOT the case at all. If you want to use that example, my point is that you would not THROW AWAY THE UNION because one union member abused it and skimmed money!! You would get rid of the corrupt union member(s). Getting rid of the Union completely is a seperate issue and decision to be made. (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...)

Chretien was a corrupt mofo in my opinion - but I still liked the way he (the Liberals) steered the country. I would love to see him taken down for any involvement or knowledge he may have had in corruption/scandals/etc. I personally won't let my feelings about the former leader of a political party prevent me from supporting them if they still best represent my interests and beliefs.

Martin was not close to Chretien. Chretien actually did not want Martin to get the leadership of the party and Martin overcame the obstacles Chretien threw up in front of him. Actually, Chretien has (inadvertantly?) sabotaged Martin once he was the leader of the party when you look at the impact the scandals from Chretien's days are having on the Liberal party now.


(you do make a good point but my analogy of the union was the government institution and not a political party)

It is your option that Martin is not close to Chretien (of course many have the same option as you). But there are also many like me that believe that this is not the case. He was the finance minister. The finance minister is the second most important position for the govt. He can denied all allegations like Chretien is doing right now. No one is taking accountablility.
If no one steps up, shouldnt the party be the one that is responsible?

What about the current finance minister and the RCMP probe? Should I still vote for a party that has a leader that who has had criminal allegations around him but he claims no knowledge of them?

[Tiberius]

(you do make a good point but my analogy of the union was the government institution and not a political party)

It is your option that Martin is not close to Chretien (of course many have the same option as you). But there are also many like me that believe that this is not the case. He was the finance minister. The finance minister is the second most important position for the govt. He can denied all allegations like Chretien is doing right now. No one is taking accountablility.
If no one steps up, shouldnt the party be the one that is responsible?

What about the current finance minister and the RCMP probe? Should I still vote for a party that has a leader that who has had criminal allegations around him but he claims no knowledge of them?

My understanding is that Martin has not been fingered by any of the investigations and reports. The fact that he was Finance Minister for part of the time under Chretien does put him in a position where blame could be passed to him - however it is not reasonable that he would have intimate knowledge of how every penny of tax payers money is spent. In other words, he may allocate/budget funds to a particular program - but then that program is in somebody elses hands to administer and spend the funds AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT. I do believe in accountability - and there is a way to link Martin to what happened... that IS hurting the Liberals. We (Canadians) do not have to "like" the connection that can be made. However, I choose to let the investigations take their course and if Martin was not aware of or involved in the scandals... so be it. If he was involved, he'll be punished. (in the end, I think he is being punished for holding the Finance Minister postion during the scandals... and he will lose his job after the Liberals fail to win a majority this election - and Canada will be the loser)

My point would be this:

Vote in this election based on which party best represents you.

If the Liberal party best represents you - voting to "hurt" the Liberal party (voting "against" them - and for someone else) is really hurting yourself.

After 12 years, some bad things happened... no surprise there.

The current situation is such that the Liberals will be squeeky clean because there is such a huge microscope on their every move!

[thelefteyeguy]

My understanding is that Martin has not been fingered by any of the investigations and reports. The fact that he was Finance Minister for part of the time under Chretien does put him in a position where blame could be passed to him - however it is not reasonable that he would have intimate knowledge of how every penny of tax payers money is spent. In other words, he may allocate/budget funds to a particular program - but then that program is in somebody elses hands to administer and spend the funds AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT. I do believe in accountability - and there is a way to link Martin to what happened... that IS hurting the Liberals. We (Canadians) do not have to "like" the connection that can be made. However, I choose to let the investigations take their course and if Martin was not aware of or involved in the scandals... so be it. If he was involved, he'll be punished. (in the end, I think he is being punished for holding the Finance Minister postion during the scandals... and he will lose his job after the Liberals fail to win a majority this election - and Canada will be the loser)

My point would be this:

Vote in this election based on which party best represents you.

If the Liberal party best represents you - voting to "hurt" the Liberal party (voting "against" them - and for someone else) is really hurting yourself.

After 12 years, some bad things happened... no surprise there.

The current situation is such that the Liberals will be squeeky clean because there is such a huge microscope on their every move!


I agree. I don't think any party during it's reign has had a squeeky clean record. However I do feel that the liberals need to start clean in 1 to 4 yrs time (depending on whether there is a majority/minority). Then perhaps the scandal will be put behind them. And then perhaps we will have a race of "Vision" vs "who Smears the best". The liberals won 12 years ago cause of the red book, Mike Harris won cause of the blue book. So far this whole 4 weeks of compagning has been the character/integrity of the leaders.

The reason im voting for the conservatives is quite simple. Reducing tax is much more harder than increasing tax. The 2% reduction in gst is a good start. And hoping eventually it's totally eliminated.

I'm also hoping the federal gov't implements a fixed tax rate on gasoline versus a variable rate. The current federal surplus is huge cause of the gas tax revenue.

[afong56]

All you have to do is ask anyone that's lived in Ontario from 1990 to the present how they'd rank the 3 Govt's.

Hands down NDP would be at the bottom, but right now I'd say if Dalton doesn't shape up, he's gonna be as bad as Mike Harris in most ppl's views.

You just have a problem with the fact that I am a Right of Centre person, and that after waiting and saying for 18 months, that a Tory Gov't is about to be elected.

I am an American that knows more about Canada then 95% of my fellow countrymen, and for that I think I have a bit if credibility.

so, in response to my pointed query you respond with? nothing. no facts, nothing to prove the palaver you constantly bleat out. you prove me correct with every fatuous post you make.

ask anyone who's lived in ontario? hey, how about me? i've lived in ontario my entire life (and voted in every election since before 1990), and guess what, i'd put harris' non-sense revolution at the bottom of every provincial government since i was born.

perhaps you would understand, if you actually lived in ontario, and had to live with the program spending cuts, the pain suffered in healthcare, social programs, and education which we are now feeling in the form of increased high-profile street crime. or how about the outrage that average ontarians feel at being charged by a foreign firm to travel on a highway that our tax dollars paid for, because the harris gov't sold it to hide their massive deficit spending???

but you don't understand. instead, you masquerade in this forum as a 'knowledgeable' american--that's laughable. in fact, i'd hazard to guess i know more about your country than you do.

i have no problem with people who are conservative. some of my best friends are conservative, both socially and politically. the difference is that they can discuss issues with knowledge and verisimilitude--they don't throw verbal flash grenades into discussions and walk away. you'd have way more credibility if you started speaking from knowledge and experience rather than trolling with whatever jingo-istic slogan you last read on a neo-con website.

if you are more knowledgeable than 95% of your fellow americans, then that is truly a damning statement--furthermore, i would suggest that being in the top 5% of knowing 'not very much' about canada, is very, very little credibility indeed. . .

[afong56]

neilson - you taking a stand here and predicting a conservative win? Or just reflecting the polls.

Also, I don't find myself agreeing with you much at all but I don't think anyone should be excluded because they are "American". You seem to know a fair amount of what's going on for someone who's way of life doesn't depend on it so keep on commenting, don't get sidetracked by the "Yankee go home" stuff.

actually, he has demonstrated a pretty superficial understanding of our politics.

i personally would never demand that he 'go home'--if he had actual 'meat' to add to the discourse, i'd have no problem with him. i'd love for him to prove me wrong, but for the most part his posts are trite and borderline trolling, imho.

[thelefteyeguy]

so, in response to my pointed query you respond with? nothing. no facts, nothing to prove the palaver you constantly bleat out. you prove me correct with every fatuous post you make.

ask anyone who's lived in ontario? hey, how about me? i've lived in ontario my entire life (and voted in every election since before 1990), and guess what, i'd put harris' non-sense revolution at the bottom of every provincial government since i was born.

perhaps you would understand, if you actually lived in ontario, and had to live with the program spending cuts, the pain suffered in healthcare, social programs, and education which we are now feeling in the form of increased high-profile street crime. or how about the outrage that average ontarians feel at being charged by a foreign firm to travel on a highway that our tax dollars paid for, because the harris gov't sold it to hide their massive deficit spending???

but you don't understand. instead, you masquerade in this forum as a 'knowledgeable' american--that's laughable. in fact, i'd hazard to guess i know more about your country than you do.

i have no problem with people who are conservative. some of my best friends are conservative, both socially and politically. the difference is that they can discuss issues with knowledge and verisimilitude--they don't throw verbal flash grenades into discussions and walk away. you'd have way more credibility if you started speaking from knowledge and experience rather than trolling with whatever jingo-istic slogan you last read on a neo-con website.

if you are more knowledgeable than 95% of your fellow americans, then that is truly a damning statement--furthermore, i would suggest that being in the top 5% of knowing 'not very much' about canada, is very, very little credibility indeed. . .

Hi Neilson,

Afong doesnt represent all Ontarians. I don't blame my Harris for my cat dying. ;)

But there are many of us conservatives out there that understand what Harris had to do which included reforming the Health System and the Education system.

Much of what is credited to the increase in literacy and increase in scoring by ontario high school students has to do with the Harris Gov't which he does not get credit for. No one has notice the increase in population in the outskirts of the GTA or the number of new schools built in new communities. It was a necessary step of closing some schools downtown in order to build news one in new communities

A lot of ppl complain about the Harris gov't causing increase in hospital wait times, but in reality this is a phenomon in the rest of Canada. The Health deficit? well how about the lack of funding from the federal govt due to SARS...no one talks about that.

Throwing money at a broken Health system and education system is not the way to proceed.

but again...we are debating about the Federal election. There will not be a Liberal Gov't in Ontario in 2 yrs, the conservatives with John Tory will eliminate/reduce the $750 health tax and he will be elected.

[neilson]

Hi Neilson,

Afong doesnt represent all Ontarians. I don't blame my Harris for my cat dying. ;)

But there are many of us conservatives out there that understand what Harris had to do which included reforming the Health System and the Education system.

Much of what is credited to the increase in literacy and increase in scoring by ontario high school students has to do with the Harris Gov't which he does not get credit for. No one has notice the increase in population in the outskirts of the GTA or the number of new schools built in new communities. It was a necessary step of closing some schools downtown in order to build news one in new communities

A lot of ppl complain about the Harris gov't causing increase in hospital wait times, but in reality this is a phenomon in the rest of Canada. The Health deficit? well how about the lack of funding from the federal govt due to SARS...no one talks about that.

Throwing money at a broken Health system and education system is not the way to proceed.

but again...we are debating about the Federal election. There will not be a Liberal Gov't in Ontario in 2 yrs, the conservatives with John Tory will eliminate/reduce the $750 health tax and he will be elected.

Thanks bro; I can take a punch for my beliefs.

But, and I'm sorry afong for calling you out like this, as much as ppl disliked the Harris years (2nd term moreso then 1st term); You have GOT to be kidding me if you put the Bob Rae years above the Mike Harris years. And, Ontarians, if I'm wrong for saying the Rae years were equally if not much worse economically for Ontario then the Harris or McGuinty years, please tell me now.

[biosh]

I'm beginning to think that it could possibly be a good thing for Canada if Harper and the reformers are elected - the following years will act as a clear demonstration of how good we have had it this past 15 years. Personally, I don't need any convincing, but it seems those who didn't live through the last conservative government need to see the dark side for themselves (it wasn't a coincidence that the former conservative federal party was decimated to a total of two seats across all regions of Canada).

Bring on the destruction, and then we can start talking about the good old days, and finally get really smart and start electing some Green and NDP MP's who might actually look out for the average Canadian, rather than our corporate masters...

[biosh]

Thanks bro; I can take a punch for my beliefs.

But, and I'm sorry afong for calling you out like this, as much as ppl disliked the Harris years (2nd term moreso then 1st term); You have GOT to be kidding me if you put the Bob Rae years above the Mike Harris years. And, Ontarians, if I'm wrong for saying the Rae years were equally if not much worse economically for Ontario then the Harris or McGuinty years, please tell me now.
The Ontario NDP years coincided with the last major recession...

[afong56]

Thanks bro; I can take a punch for my beliefs.

But, and I'm sorry afong for calling you out like this, as much as ppl disliked the Harris years (2nd term moreso then 1st term); You have GOT to be kidding me if you put the Bob Rae years above the Mike Harris years. And, Ontarians, if I'm wrong for saying the Rae years were equally if not much worse economically for Ontario then the Harris or McGuinty years, please tell me now.

calling me out? how about responding to me first? i've been calling you out for several posts (so to speak), and you've given nothing, i repeat, nothing of substance into the debate.

somehow, harris (mis)managed our province into a massive deficit, despite having a strong economy (not the worst recession since the great depression, as rae had to deal with). get your facts straight.

bringing out harris is another sign that you don't really understand canadians or especially, ontarians. harris is an albatross right now--one that the liberal party gained a lot of traction with in the last election, and will do so again in this election. if you truly understood this, then you would not mention harris, since it only serves to create negative, not positive, correlations in the minds of most ontarians. you are feeding a liberal election strategy by doing so. this is my free advice, since you seem to want to help the cons cause as much as you can.

undoubtedly, what you write will resonate with some on this board, that is only natural. what they fail to see is that you lack substance.
take a punch? well, if we must use that analogy, then logically, i'm the only one throwing. . .start by showing how harris fundamentally improved our province.

[afong56]

Throwing money at a broken Health system and education system is not the way to proceed.


and who broke that education system? harris mandated literacy tests that have become a boondoggle, forced five years of secondary school curriculum downloaded into four (or even worse, into the elementary levels), poisoned relations with teachers, and god help you if you had a special needs child during this time.

[neilson]

The Ontario NDP years coincided with the last major recession...

Ok, so then if that's the worst an NDP Provincial Gov't can do during a Recession, then explain the BC NDPs in the late 90s. I might be wrong, but that too was during a major recession........oh wait? It was the tech boom, silly me.

Mike Harris is villified in Canadian Politics, but you have to remember how bad the NDP made things in Ontario to get everyone to buy into the Common Sense Revolution.

[neilson]

and who broke that education system? harris mandated literacy tests that have become a boondoggle, forced five years of secondary school curriculum downloaded into four (or even worse, into the elementary levels), poisoned relations with teachers, and god help you if you had a special needs child during this time.

Are you sure this was any better under Bob Rae, and if so then explain.

Are you sure it's gotten any better under Dalton McGuinty, and if so explain.

[afong56]

Are you sure this was any better under Bob Rae, and if so then explain.

Are you sure it's gotten any better under Dalton McGuinty, and if so explain.

still waiting for a post of substance from you

well????

[afong56]

Ok, so then if that's the worst an NDP Provincial Gov't can do during a Recession, then explain the BC NDPs in the late 90s. I might be wrong, but that too was during a major recession........oh wait? It was the tech boom, silly me.

Mike Harris is villified in Canadian Politics, but you have to remember how bad the NDP made things in Ontario to get everyone to buy into the Common Sense Revolution.

do you have anything except the purely superficial to add?

if you're not trolling, start by adding some depth to your posts. . .

. . .we're still waiting

[neilson]

still waiting for a post of substance from you

well????

I'm still waiting for you.

It's all Tory bashing for you, but no mention of Dalton, and I practically had to force you to say Rae's name.

[biosh]

Are you sure it's gotten any better under Dalton McGuinty, and if so explain.
They've got a great minister of education in Gerard Kennedy (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/biography/edu_minister.html) who made a great run at the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party - as to the education system in Ontario, it is indeed on the mend from the Harris destruction with such things as decreased class sizes...

[afong56]

I'm still waiting for you.

It's all Tory bashing for you, but no mention of Dalton, and I practically had to force you to say Rae's name.

hmm. . .

it seems to me you began the trolling by throwing this fetid nugget out:



Dalton McGuinty < Bob Rae < Mike Harris.

It's true when you down to thinking about it.


. . .and then proceeding to add nothing, absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim. and when points are made to refute that claim, your rejoinder is to essentially say, "prove me wrong", "prove me wrong". . .

. . .when you have done nothing to prove yourself correct. . .you haven't even made an attempt!

this is classic troll behaviour. . .finish what you started, prove that you're not a troll.

[Moogleknight]

somehow, harris (mis)managed our province into a massive deficit, despite having a strong economy (not the worst recession since the great depression, as rae had to deal with). get your facts straight.

Actually, Eves and his attempts at buying votes did that. All his electricity subsidies and you know, paying for that one time deal by the name of SARS did the bull's work of that 6 billion dollar deficit in the election year.


harris is an albatross right now--one that the liberal party gained a lot of traction with in the last election, and will do so again in this election. if you truly understood this, then you would not mention harris, since it only serves to create negative, not positive, correlations in the minds of most ontarians. you are feeding a liberal election strategy by doing so. this is my free advice, since you seem to want to help the cons cause as much as you can.

Harris' name has never been very popular with the heavily NDP and Liberal parts of the GTA, even at the height of his popularity. I'm one of those people who believe Harris did what had to be done in his first 4 years where he inherited something akin to an 8 billion dollar deficit, and then actually ran a surplus by his second 4 years - which was promptly destroyed by Ernie Eves and his red Tory girlfriend.

As for Harris' popularity among current Ontario voters, he's still quite popular amongst core Conservative voters, and in his first 6 years of office really took the brunt of the criticism for cuts which had to occur. He's not too popular among students, but then again, Conservative policies rarely are.

As for Stephen Harper, if he's made of the same stuff as Ralph Klein, then he'll run a budget in the black rather than the red. Will social programs suffer? Undoubtedly. Will federal governmental powers be eroded? Definately. Will abortion be brought back to the table? Doubtful. Sure there might be a private members bill, but if Ontario MPs make up a good portion of the Conservative caucus (which would be a prerequisite of a Conservative government), it won't get to a second reading. Will Gay Marriage be brought back onto the table? Probably. Will it be rebuked? Doubtful. The Conservatives know it would be political suicide, but will bring about a free vote and promptly lose to make their core voters in the Conservative west happy. Afterall, they tried right?

As for the Conservative performance in a governement position: It will undoubtedly be less than what they're promising. Is it because of bad policy? Maybe. However, a party that's been in opposition for as long as the Conservative Party (I'm including both Reform Alliance and PC parties here) regardless of policy will be crippled in that they won't be familiar with the resources they'll have at their disposal as the governing party. The civil servants, whom had built personal relationships with their ministers will have to adjust to the new ideologies of their new employers and more than likely feathers will be ruffled as deputy ministers get shuffled off or retire. Civil servants are people too, they'll have political preferences, and more than likely after 12 years of Liberal rule, they'll be grounded in Liberal ideology. Furthermore, like in the case of Diefenbaker in 1957-63, the civil service might be privately hostile towards a new regime (this was especially the case in the external affairs department).

So is a Conservative government good for Canada? If it's a minority parliament again? I think so. If you believe that the Liberals are indeed the government party, then it shouldn't be such a bad thing that the Liberals lose this election. They'll lose the baggage of the old leader being connected with old Liberals and corruption, they'll heal their divisions with the removal of Martin, and if the Conservatives stumble as much as some of you suggest, then the Liberals rather than governing in a string of weak minority governments will be poised to retake government with a majority giving them the power to once again govern effectively. If you don't believe that the Liberals are the government party, and that the Conservatives will govern strongly and correctly, then they'll turn into a party that will lose a lot of its ideological slant, get more comfortable with the civil service, get a majority in the next election, and govern just as effectively as the Liberals in the 90's.

[neilson]

hmm. . .

it seems to me you began the trolling by throwing this fetid nugget out:



. . .and then proceeding to add nothing, absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim. and when points are made to refute that claim, your rejoinder is to essentially say, "prove me wrong", "prove me wrong". . .

. . .when you have done nothing to prove yourself correct. . .you haven't even made an attempt!

this is classic troll behaviour. . .finish what you started, prove that you're not a troll.

Um, you're the bombthrower, not I.

I have 18 months of consistant posts and opinions on RFD; and you can check that for proof.

You refuse to explain if Rae was better than Harris, and in what ways.

That alone leaves me to wonder.

[biosh]

Compare the two preceding posts from Moogleknight and Neilson - which one is better reasoned and backed up?

[afong56]

moogle--there was a huge price paid for what harris did:

the walkerton inquiry concluded that harris' cuts to regulatory bodies contributed to that disaster. how many municipalities suffered under the crushing burden of downloading of funding responsibilities?

if i remember correctly, with some creative bookkeeping, the tories continued to suggest that they were fiscally responsible, even when eves was campaigning to be elected premier.

furthermore, they were into the third year (2001/2002) of their second mandate before they successfully balanced their budget, if i'm not mistaken, which is a bit different from the 'second 4 years' of surplus, as you suggest.

but you know what? you are correct in suggesting that core conservatives will still look back fondly at harris' years. no amount of convincing would change such a mindset. fair enough. however, those core conservatives were probably voting for the federal conservatives, anyways.

[gilboman]

Canadians have a very selective memory.

billion$ mismanagement by the HR ministry
billion$ mismanagement on the gun registry
and of course the adscam which only uncovered $100million...but of course the auditor general didnt have the full resources to investigate further


for someone to claim no knowledge of this as the finance minister...well would you believe in it ;)

ya..they forget the billions in surplus that have been used to retire large portion of the debt, advancement of rights for minorities and increased social spending and tax cuts.

really, its like they see the 25cents the gov't deducted but not the 500 dollar refund the gov't gave them.

this is what the conservatives are playing on.

[tonychau]

Good point! I think the same. But could Canadian afford for 4 years term?
I hope there is moore goods with conservative to come if they win!

it is a good gamble. I hope it is not a buff.




So is a Conservative government good for Canada? If it's a minority parliament again? I think so. If you believe that the Liberals are indeed the government party, then it shouldn't be such a bad thing that the Liberals lose this election. They'll lose the baggage of the old leader being connected with old Liberals and corruption, they'll heal their divisions with the removal of Martin, and if the Conservatives stumble as much as some of you suggest, then the Liberals rather than governing in a string of weak minority governments will be poised to retake government with a majority giving them the power to once again govern effectively. If you don't believe that the Liberals are the government party, and that the Conservatives will govern strongly and correctly, then they'll turn into a party that will lose a lot of its ideological slant, get more comfortable with the civil service, get a majority in the next election, and govern just as effectively as the Liberals in the 90's.

[stevethewheel]

ya..they forget the billions in surplus that have been used to retire large portion of the debt, advancement of rights for minorities and increased social spending and tax cuts.


I think you made me remember something from when the Cons ran the country....introduced a Federal Tax "debt reduction surtax" but for years the debt didn't actually get reduced? I think it was in the Mulroney era. Obviously the debt was eventually reduced, but at the end of the Conservative rule, many years after the surtax was introduced. I could be dreaming, anybody with a longer and better memory for politics and fiscal policy that can help me out here?

[Moogleknight]

I'll agree there was a lot of suffering because of Harris, but it was a necessary evil when governments cut budgets. People who are used to deficit level spending will suffer when spending is cut. No matter how skillfully done, services always suffer. Many suffered from the cuts the Liberals instituted, some of which were health cuts back in the early 90's - money that Harris probably could have used.

The 80's brought Canada debt, and the 90's paid for that debt (and now the 2000's continue to), something had to be cut - whether it was education, health, other government services, something had to be cut - something had to be downloaded to the municipalities to make the provincial government fiscally viable. The federal government reduced funding to the provinces, the provinces downloaded responsibilities to the municipalities, all levels of government were saddled with crippling debt.

As for my suggestion that Harris ran a surplus in his second term, he did. One. But it was there.The federal Liberals took 5 years, revenue from the GST and economic growth due to the FTA to balance the budget. It took 7 for Harris (though in fairness had he not given out a tax break, it probably would have been 5 as well - thus the tax cuts were a mistake), so there were merits to the Harris government, mainly their willingness to pay the political price for all the cuts, so that the deficit could be reduced to a managble number... until Eves tried to buy his election (If you notice, my venom knows little of party lines - I think Eves was an awful premier). Regardless, yes there was a lot of pain in the Mike Harris days, but it was probably necessary pain.


moogle--there was a huge price paid for what harris did:

the walkerton inquiry concluded that harris' cuts to regulatory bodies contributed to that disaster. how many municipalities suffered under the crushing burden of downloading of funding responsibilities?

if i remember correctly, with some creative bookkeeping, the tories continued to suggest that they were fiscally responsible, even when eves was campaigning to be elected premier.

furthermore, they were into the third year (2001/2002) of their second mandate before they successfully balanced their budget, if i'm not mistaken, which is a bit different from the 'second 4 years' of surplus, as you suggest.

but you know what? you are correct in suggesting that core conservatives will still look back fondly at harris' years. no amount of convincing would change such a mindset. fair enough. however, those core conservatives were probably voting for the federal conservatives, anyways.

[afong56]

Regardless, yes there was a lot of pain in the Mike Harris days, but it was probably necessary pain.

perhaps you are correct, but the one thing that resonated the deepest, and for the longest time, was the general mean-spiritedness of the way this was done. i pray that if the cons win the federal election that they learn from the mistakes of the harris tories, and not repeat them.

who can forget the marginalization of so many minority interests during the 'common sense' revolution:
--telling the poor to buy 'dinted cans' of tuna
--proposing that welfare recipients be fingerprinted and carry stigmatising identification cards. . .'workfare'
--sending in stormtroopers to face down students, protestors, poverty advocates
--the entire dudley george debacle at ipperwash

and so on. . .i for one, will never forget.

[poedua]

perhaps you are correct, but the one thing that resonated the deepest, and for the longest time, was the general mean-spiritedness of the way this was done. i pray that if the cons win the federal election that they learn from the mistakes of the harris tories, and not repeat them.

who can forget the marginalization of so many minority interests during the 'common sense' revolution:
--telling the poor to buy 'dinted cans' of tuna
--proposing that welfare recipients be fingerprinted and carry stigmatising identification cards. . .'workfare'
--sending in stormtroopers to face down students, protestors, poverty advocates
--the entire dudley george debacle at ipperwash

and so on. . .i for one, will never forget.

Mike Harris - a name I'd rather forget.

Ten years ago, Ontario suffered a hammer blow to social assistance when the Conservative government, led by that supporter of the poor - Mike Harris - cut welfare rates by 22 %

And people are jumping up and down wondering why there are so many acts of gang violence in poor Toronto neighbourhoods ...I attribute it - in part - to the undermining of social support in " at -risk " communities - led by Mike.

Mike planted the seed - by virtue of his 22 % cut to the poor - and here we are in Ontario, 10 years later ....seeing the " crisis " of what he sowed IMO.

[neilson]

It's all Mike Harris.

Well, because noone here will bring it up, I will:

Bob Rae, NDP Premier of Ontario 1990-1995:

There are many reasons for the Rae government's loss of popularity between 1991 and 1993. The NDP had never governed Ontario before, and Ontario was in the depth of its worst recession since the Great Depression. The government quickly backtracked on several campaign promises -- most notably the introduction of public auto insurance, which precipitated the firing of Peter Kormos from cabinet. A number of cabinet scandals also cut into the government's popularity.

In addition, the Rae government initially underestimated the extent of the North American recession. Their first budget projected a deficit of almost ten billion dollars, and enacted a series of spending programs to mitigate the worst effects of an economic lag. Some have described this budget as following a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Unfortunately, the monies provided for in the budget were insufficient against the recession, and did not create enough productivity. One commentator described the budget as "the worst of both worlds" -- angering the business community, but not doing enough to provide for public relief. For many, the budget reinforced a popular stereotype of the NDP as irresponsible spenders.

After 1991, the government changed its economic focus. As the recession wore on, Rae implemented government cutbacks in an attempt to control the mounting budgetary deficit. His government also brought in the Social Contract, austerity legislation which reopened collective bargaining agreements with the province's public sector unions. This legislation imposed a wage freeze and introduced what became known as "Rae days", giving civil servants (including teachers, doctors, nurses, etc.) ten days off without pay per year. These cutbacks led to a falling-out with both the public sector unions, most notably Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), and the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and its leader Buzz Hargrove. Sid Ryan, Ontario President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, referred to the Social Contract as the worst labour legislation he had ever seen.

This breach between the NDP and the labour movement struck at the party's foundations. The NDP was founded as an alliance between the old Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the labour movement, and Rae's policy decisions alienated many traditional NDP voters. Thousands of members resigned from the party, and several unions turned against the NDP and vowed to defeat the government in the next election. The Rae government later attempted to regain labour support by passing Bill 40, a measure which (among other things) introduced anti-scab provisions to the province. This was not enough to bridge the gap with organized labour, however, and the party lost much of its organizational support. The government also introduced unpopular revenue-raising initiatives such as photo-radar, which hurt its electoral prospects. Rae's decision to approve casino gambling for the province was also opposed by many in the party.

In the 1993 federal election, the NDP fell to an historic low of 6% support in Ontario. One day after the election, defeated parliamentarian Steven Langdon called on Rae to resign as Premier. Langdon had openly campaigned against the Rae government's austerity measures, and received a higher percentage of votes than any other NDP candidate in the province.

Rae's government attempted to introduce a variety of socially progressive measures during its time in office, though its success in this field was mixed. In 1994, the government introduced legislation which would have provided for same-sex partnership benefits in the province. At the time, this legislation was seen as a revolutionary step forward for same-sex recognition; it was defeated, however, when several NDP MPPs (including two cabinet ministers) voted against it.

The Rae government's affirmative action measures also proved controversial. In 1993, the government sought to improve the numbers of women, non-whites, aborginals and disabled persons working in the public sector. It was assumed by most that this would be accomplished through preferential hiring methods. This policy would probably not have occasioned much controversy in a better economic climate; in the middle of a recession, however, many unemployed workers regarded it as discriminatory. Some in the political opposition described it as racist, and there is little doubt that the controversy cost the NDP support among its working-class base. In addition, there were some on the political left who believed the NDP was unduly emphasizing race ahead of class considerations in this period.

Notwithstanding its setbacks, the Rae government achieved some positive accomplishments during its time in office. It saved many jobs in northern Ontario through its bailout of Algoma Steel, and negotiated a similar contract for workers in Kapuskasing. The government also opened several negotations with aboriginal groups toward self-government. There were some areas of northern Ontario where the NDP polled better in 1995 than in 1990.

[Paolo]

the PC party may show that theyre ahead in the polls, but when it comes time for Election, i think many ppl will be voting for The VIDEO PROFESSOR, A.K.A. Jack Layton's New Democratic Party

[poedua]

It's all Mike Harris.

Well, because noone here will bring it up, I will:

Bob Rae, NDP Premier of Ontario 1990-1995:

There are many reasons for the Rae government's loss of popularity between 1991 and 1993. The NDP had never governed Ontario before, and Ontario was in the depth of its worst recession since the Great Depression. The government quickly backtracked on several campaign promises -- most notably the introduction of public auto insurance, which precipitated the firing of Peter Kormos from cabinet. A number of cabinet scandals also cut into the government's popularity.

In addition, the Rae government initially underestimated the extent of the North American recession. Their first budget projected a deficit of almost ten billion dollars, and enacted a series of spending programs to mitigate the worst effects of an economic lag. Some have described this budget as following a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Unfortunately, the monies provided for in the budget were insufficient against the recession, and did not create enough productivity. One commentator described the budget as "the worst of both worlds" -- angering the business community, but not doing enough to provide for public relief. For many, the budget reinforced a popular stereotype of the NDP as irresponsible spenders.

After 1991, the government changed its economic focus. As the recession wore on, Rae implemented government cutbacks in an attempt to control the mounting budgetary deficit. His government also brought in the Social Contract, austerity legislation which reopened collective bargaining agreements with the province's public sector unions. This legislation imposed a wage freeze and introduced what became known as "Rae days", giving civil servants (including teachers, doctors, nurses, etc.) ten days off without pay per year. These cutbacks led to a falling-out with both the public sector unions, most notably Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), and the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and its leader Buzz Hargrove. Sid Ryan, Ontario President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, referred to the Social Contract as the worst labour legislation he had ever seen.

This breach between the NDP and the labour movement struck at the party's foundations. The NDP was founded as an alliance between the old Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the labour movement, and Rae's policy decisions alienated many traditional NDP voters. Thousands of members resigned from the party, and several unions turned against the NDP and vowed to defeat the government in the next election. The Rae government later attempted to regain labour support by passing Bill 40, a measure which (among other things) introduced anti-scab provisions to the province. This was not enough to bridge the gap with organized labour, however, and the party lost much of its organizational support. The government also introduced unpopular revenue-raising initiatives such as photo-radar, which hurt its electoral prospects. Rae's decision to approve casino gambling for the province was also opposed by many in the party.

In the 1993 federal election, the NDP fell to an historic low of 6% support in Ontario. One day after the election, defeated parliamentarian Steven Langdon called on Rae to resign as Premier. Langdon had openly campaigned against the Rae government's austerity measures, and received a higher percentage of votes than any other NDP candidate in the province.

Rae's government attempted to introduce a variety of socially progressive measures during its time in office, though its success in this field was mixed. In 1994, the government introduced legislation which would have provided for same-sex partnership benefits in the province. At the time, this legislation was seen as a revolutionary step forward for same-sex recognition; it was defeated, however, when several NDP MPPs (including two cabinet ministers) voted against it.

The Rae government's affirmative action measures also proved controversial. In 1993, the government sought to improve the numbers of women, non-whites, aborginals and disabled persons working in the public sector. It was assumed by most that this would be accomplished through preferential hiring methods. This policy would probably not have occasioned much controversy in a better economic climate; in the middle of a recession, however, many unemployed workers regarded it as discriminatory. Some in the political opposition described it as racist, and there is little doubt that the controversy cost the NDP support among its working-class base. In addition, there were some on the political left who believed the NDP was unduly emphasizing race ahead of class considerations in this period.

Notwithstanding its setbacks, the Rae government achieved some positive accomplishments during its time in office. It saved many jobs in northern Ontario through its bailout of Algoma Steel, and negotiated a similar contract for workers in Kapuskasing. The government also opened several negotations with aboriginal groups toward self-government. There were some areas of northern Ontario where the NDP polled better in 1995 than in 1990.

What link is the above' essay ' copied from ?

A discussion of the NDP is irrelevant to attributing cuts in social assistance to Harris. :)

Too bad about Bob Rae though ...right guy - .partner in Bay street law firm, U of T prof , Rhode scholar etc - wrong party.

In every respect, Harper doesn't hold a candle to him...or to Harris for that matter.

[gman]

I like both Rae and Harris. I dislike Ontario Liberals. I know I am weird, either left or right but not middle (for Ontario politic). Both Rae and Harris did most what they said they would do ... unlike Ontario Liberals. And, I like Rae Days. Only Rae did dare to run against union head on.

[afong56]

What link is the above' essay ' copied from ?

A discussion of the NDP is irrelevant to attributing cuts in social assistance to Harris. :)

Too bad about Bob Rae though ...right guy - .partner in Bay street law firm, U of T prof , Rhode scholar etc - wrong party.

In every respect, Harper doesn't hold a candle to him...or to Harris for that matter.

he's cut and pasted this entire article verbatim from wikipedia. . .

too lazy to use his own words, and not knowledgeable enough to write more than a line or two on his own. . .

this kind of academic dishonesty is simply called plagiarism--pathetic, actually.

[biosh]

What link is the above' essay ' copied from ?

Ya caught him weaslin', dead to rights...

;)

[neilson]

he's cut and pasted this entire article verbatim from wikipedia. . .

too lazy to use his own words, and not knowledgeable enough to write more than a line or two on his own. . .

this kind of academic dishonesty is simply called plagiarism--pathetic, actually.

I never called it my own.

I wanted to talk about the Rae years, went to an unbiased sourse (Wikipedia), and highlighted the parts of his Premier term that mattered.

I never claimed it as my own, but thanks for finally seeing that Mike Harris was elected because the Ontario ppl were sick and tired of NDP in Queens Park.

[poedua]

I never called it my own.

I wanted to talk about the Rae years, went to an unbiased sourse (Wikipedia), and highlighted the parts of his Premier term that mattered.

I never claimed it as my own, but thanks for finally seeing that Mike Harris was elected because the Ontario ppl were sick and tired of NDP in Queens Park.

I understand. But, just a tip for the future...for what it's worth.

If you copy something in "word - for -word " as you did, although you may know they aren't your words - others may not....I thinks it's more an issue for ' verbatim " posts than anything else.

You never go wrong by simply taking a second and including the link from which you sourced the material for your post ...it's sort of an " unwritten " RFD ettiquette when posting with the aid of third party sources IMO :)

it allow people to assess the relevance, validity and/ or bias of your soruce for themselves

[biosh]

I never called it my own.

I wanted to talk about the Rae years, went to an unbiased sourse (Wikipedia), and highlighted the parts of his Premier term that mattered.

I never claimed it as my own...
Oh, give it up - you've been pwned. Be a man, and at least accept responsibility for not attributing a quote to it's source...

[neilson]

Oh, give it up - you've been pwned. Be a man, and at least accept responsibility for not attributing a quote to it's source...

The only thing I'm sorry about is that you guys aren't ready for a Conservative Minority, much less a Majority.

[north77]

The Conservatives are ahead now, but that doesn't mean much. They were ahead last election IIRC, and lost it. However, I'm not sure what the margin was or if it ever was this large.

The latest Conservative tv ad is very to the point and quite the 'reminder.'

Finally someone mentions Martin's offshore accounts. I wondered if/when this was going to be brought up! :lol:

[biosh]

The only thing I'm sorry about is that you guys aren't ready for a Conservative Minority, much less a Majority.
As I wrote earlier in the thread - I'm ready...

I'm beginning to think that it could possibly be a good thing for Canada if Harper and the reformers are elected - the following years will act as a clear demonstration of how good we have had it this past 15 years. Personally, I don't need any convincing, but it seems those who didn't live through the last conservative government need to see the dark side for themselves (it wasn't a coincidence that the former conservative federal party was decimated to a total of two seats across all regions of Canada).

Bring on the destruction, and then we can start talking about the good old days, and finally get really smart and start electing some Green and NDP MP's who might actually look out for the average Canadian, rather than our corporate masters...

[poedua]

The only thing I'm sorry about is that you guys aren't ready for a Conservative Minority, much less a Majority.

Perhaps, but that's got nothing to do with providing a link source - with your post - when your post is taken from an external third source

This acknowldgement of ' verbatim ' posts of considerable length ( and others ) is simply a way of posting with some small degree of integrity ( i.e the ability of readers to assess your source ) Based on my experience with his posts , Biosh is calling you on this because he has followed this " rule " on countless occasions himself.

Providing the link is all that's needed.

[poedua]

The Conservatives are ahead now, but that doesn't mean much. They were ahead last election IIRC, and lost it. However, I'm not sure what the margin was or if it ever was this large.

The latest Conservative tv ad is very to the point and quite the 'reminder.'

Finally someone mentions Martin's offshore accounts. I wondered if/when this was going to be brought up! :lol:

Offshore account or flags of conveneince , he has 2 international issues to explain now ?

[devious9191]

The Conservatives are ahead now, but that doesn't mean much. They were ahead last election IIRC, and lost it. However, I'm not sure what the margin was or if it ever was this large.

This time is a bit different I think. Going into the election the polls were showing it as a statistical tie I think (32% liberal, 31% cons), and that obviously turned out to be bs. I do think that the 11% they have now is probably more around 5% once all the NDPers jump ship.

From what I can recall from the last election (and I could be wrong), the conservatives were only leading at the very start of the election, before the debates. I wouldn't think there would be many policy initiatives announced by any of the parties at this late stage.. so unless someone screws up big time, the Conservatives should get a sizeable minority (a majority seems highly unlikely though..)

[jedijome]

so harper wants the topic of missle defense to be rediscussed?

yeah ok, and you conservatives think the gun registry was a big waste of money? missle defense is an even more useless and illogical waste of money. none of the tech works in the first place.

sigh, he's already showing signs of being an american puppet.

[Happy13178]

This has been something 18 Months in the waiting.

I came on RFD on May 13th, 2004 in hopes that I'd see a CPC Gov't the following month.

It's been a LONG Year and a Half, but between Harper refining himself and his party and Paul Martin running the Grits about as inept as Kim Campbell in 1993, the end is near for Big Red.

And, I promise you this. If the Tories even manage to gain 3 seats in Quebec, then you will see defections from the Bloc over the next year; I Promise You.


January 23rd, 2005 will be the end of the line for corruption. With the Grits on the outs, and the Tories free to fully investigate them(possibly as a majority, but let's hold our breathe for that), and show that Whole truth about the RCMP Income Trust Leak, Option Canada, and all the rest.

I'm bookmarking this, just to bring it up later on.

[65505201]

he's cut and pasted this entire article verbatim from wikipedia. . .

too lazy to use his own words, and not knowledgeable enough to write more than a line or two on his own. . .

this kind of academic dishonesty is simply called plagiarism--pathetic, actually.

Are you serious? We're handing in assignments here? Academic dishonesty? Lol.

If the quote was not for a political thread, a simple "please include the link" would've been all that you guys would've said.

[65505201]

Perhaps, but that's got nothing to do with providing a link source - with your post - when your post is taken from an external third source

This acknowldgement of ' verbatim ' posts of considerable length ( and others ) is simply a way of posting with some small degree of integrity ( i.e the ability of readers to assess your source ) Based on my experience with his posts , Biosh is calling you on this because he has followed this " rule " on countless occasions himself.

Providing the link is all that's needed.

Wow. You, and especially biosh, are really nitpicking on something small here. Perhaps you guys need to stick to the topic. If he refuses to acknowledge that he took the stuff from wiki, then you guys have a case.

OTOH, calling him an academic fraud and "unable to think for himself", etc. because he forgot to include the link just shows how much of a dink you guys are.

[konfusion666]

anyone who has been on this forum for more than 5 minutes knows of neilson's history and his persistent borderline trolling behaviour, including repeated warnings from mods. if you cons want to support a troll, go for it i say! :D

[jedijome]

I'm bookmarking this, just to bring it up later on.

yes please do bookmark it, then you can throw it back in his face especially when the next corruption scandal erupts in washington. everyone knows that conservatives/republicans can't go corrupt (they're already bought and paid for before they get into office :lol:)

anyways neilson butt out, go worry about your own country , you've got much bigger problems than we do up here.

[afong56]

Wow. You, and especially biosh, are really nitpicking on something small here. Perhaps you guys need to stick to the topic. If he refuses to acknowledge that he took the stuff from wiki, then you guys have a case.

OTOH, calling him an academic fraud and "unable to think for himself", etc. because he forgot to include the link just shows how much of a dink you guys are.

this is an issue because during this thread, neilson has tried to pass himself off as a knowledgeable american, claiming to make valuable contributions to the discourse, while actually adding nothing but worthless flamebait and stealing others' words.

note that nowhere in his posts did he say he 'forgot' to attribute properly--obviously he feels it's perfectly fine to let other writers speak for him, because he has nothing of his own to say. all that mattered was that he sourcemined until he found some info that he wanted.

and since we have now apparently acknowledged the 'legitimacy' of wikipedia in assessing the relative merits/value of mcguinty/rae/harris, then go read their entry on mike harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Harris) --any objective person could conclude that bob rae was better than harris because nowhere in that article will you find any 'successes' by the harris government, whereas the 'borrowed' wiki article clearly points out some positive accomplishments by rae's gov't.

[poedua]

Wow. You, and especially biosh, are really nitpicking on something small here. Perhaps you guys need to stick to the topic. If he refuses to acknowledge that he took the stuff from wiki, then you guys have a case.

OTOH, calling him an academic fraud and "unable to think for himself", etc. because he forgot to include the link just shows how much of a dink you guys are.

I never called him.an ..academic fraud and "unable to think for himself",.

I simply asked him where he copied is info from - because it was obvious from the qulaity of the writing, it wasn't his ( at least to me ) - and - I suggested sourcing references are good idea in future, from an integrity perspsective.

As for " how much of a dink you guys are "...I think the fact you even have "dink 'in your vocabulary says more about who you hang around with at recess than anything else ( that term won't fly once you get to high school )

But beyond that, suggest you stop with the personal attacks against Biosh and myself ....and grow up.

Back to the debate. :)

[poedua]

this is an issue because during this thread, neilson has tried to pass himself off as a knowledgeable american, claiming to make valuable contributions to the discourse, while actually adding nothing but worthless flamebait and stealing others' words.

note that nowhere in his posts did he say he 'forgot' to attribute properly--obviously he feels it's perfectly fine to let other writers speak for him, because he has nothing of his own to say. all that mattered was that he sourcemined until he found some info that he wanted.

and since we have now apparently acknowledged the 'legitimacy' of wikipedia in assessing the relative merits/value of mcguinty/rae/harris, then go read their entry on mike harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Harris) --any objective person could conclude that bob rae was better than harris because nowhere in that article will you find any 'successes' by the harris government, whereas the 'borrowed' wiki article clearly points out some positive accomplishments by rae's gov't.

Well said. Good post.

You've certianly highlighted the need to reference sources ( better than i have it seems :) ) ...the inherent bias of selection and "cherry-picking ' of the Rae post off Wikipedia that you mentioned is a good example.

[poedua]

Are you serious? We're handing in assignments here? Academic dishonesty? Lol.

If the quote was not for a political thread, a simple "please include the link" would've been all that you guys would've said.

But, that's EXACTLY what i did...." What link is the above' essay ' copied from ? "...just a simple question.

He overreacted by saying " I never claimed this or that.....yada yada yada ."

He has the problem...not us IMO. :)

[ephemera]

Why are the liberal votes scared? Scared of losing, scared of having a conservative government. What are people scared of? This is a democracy not a dictatorship lead by one party. Sheesh, get over it, you will still have your job, your xbox, your GF, your 30 dell LCD. And you will have more money in your pocket!

Remember all those hollywood lefty's saying they would leave the USA if BUSH won? Did ANY of them MOVE? Nope. But they where scared. Sheesh. They are millionaire crybabies!

[itsyours]

Why are the liberal votes scared? Scared of losing, scared of having a conservative government. What are people scared of? This is a democracy not a dictatorship lead by one party. Sheesh, get over it, you will still have your job, your xbox, your GF, your 30 dell LCD. And you will have more money in your pocket!
Remember all those hollywood lefty's saying they would leave the USA if BUSH won? Did ANY of them MOVE? Nope. But they where scared. Sheesh. They are millionaire crybabies!
"And you will have more money in your pocket"...
Do you really believe it? Or you are a multimillionaire?

[yelworC_]

And you will have more money in your pocket...
Do you really believe it? Or you are a multimillionaire?

No... he only understands the basic principles of economy...

[65505201]

As for " how much of a dink you guys are "...I think the fact you even have "dink 'in your vocabulary says more about who you hang around with at recess than anything else ( that term won't fly once you get to high school )

But beyond that, suggest you stop with the personal attacks against Biosh and myself ....and grow up.

Back to the debate. :)

Dink is pretty much as strongly as I can word it w/o getting tempbanned. I can use more 'adult' language if you wish, but I think I have already gotten my point across.

BTW, insinuating who I hang around with at recess and telling me to grow up is a personal attack as well. Perhaps not as vulgurly worded, but no less insulting. I suggest you stick to the debate yourself and argue the merits of people's arguments.

Also, if you want to pick at the vocabulary some are using here...

Biosh:
pwned <---- :rolleyes:

As for personal attacks, I'm merely responding to how some posters are treating others (namely the conservative posters) here. You want to stop personal attacks? There are plenty others here in this thread alone that you can respond to. How many redneck references have been made already? O wait. Most of these 'others' are liberal supporters. You wouldn't want to make them look bad, now would you?

[65505201]

But, that's EXACTLY what i did...." What link is the above' essay ' copied from ? "...just a simple question.

He overreacted by saying " I never claimed this or that.....yada yada yada ."

He has the problem...not us IMO. :)

He overreacted (if you really think that) because others have accused him of academic plagerism, not thinking for himself, etc. etc.

And yes, I know you weren't the one that said this. It's afong.

[biosh]

Biosh:
pwned <---- :rolleyes:

Actually, "pwned" was the exact correct term for what happened in this instance - is this your first time on the Internet?

;)

[65505201]

Actually, "pwned" was the exact correct term for what happened in this instance - is this your first time on the Internet?

;)

Uh. Yes. I know what "pwned" means. Whether he really was "pwned" because he neglected to reference his post will depend on who you ask.

I used your example because pod apparently thinks that "dink" is a word that is reserved only for elementary kids who need to "grow up." I have yet to see a formal debate where one debater goes "I pwned j00, n00b."

[biosh]

Uh. Yes. I know what "pwned" means. Whether he really was "pwned" because he neglected to reference his post will depend on who you ask.

I used your example because pod apparently thinks that "dink" is a word that is reserved only for elementary kids who need to "grow up." I have yet to see a formal debate where one debater goes "I pwned j00, n00b."
I guess you're right:

Excerpt from Hansards - 23 June 1976:

The Chair: I'm sorry for the technical difficulty, but we won't dock you on
your time, even though you are clearly a dink. We'll start now. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

MP for Rainy River: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Navy League of Canada, Sudbury branch, I bid everybody good morning. I was asked to come and speak on behalf of disabled people mainly because we have the Brain Injury Association of Sudbury and District in our building, which is great. I guess in a lot of ways we feel we have first-hand knowledge of this. I'm going to start my presentation and give you an idea of how we look at disabilities in the Navy League of Canada.

[afong56]

He overreacted (if you really think that) because others have accused him of academic plagerism, not thinking for himself, etc. etc.

And yes, I know you weren't the one that said this. It's afong.

it's no longer an accusation--it has been proven, and (unapologetically, i might add) admitted to. it's a textbook example of plagiarism.

can you refute the accuracy of anything i've posted?

just wondering if you read all of the posts of this thread, from the beginning, or have taken this up out of context. . .

[65505201]

it's no longer an accusation--it has been proven, and (unapologetically, i might add) admitted to. it's a textbook example of plagiarism.

can you refute the accuracy of anything i've posted?

just wondering if you read all of the posts of this thread, from the beginning, or have taken this up out of context. . .

Yes, I have read all the posts in this thread. I know that the post was not referenced properly. Big whoop. My point is that you could've asked for the reference, like what pod did. Instead, you went completely on the offensive, denoucing the poster instead of the contents of the post. Academic plagerism? Please. Last time I checked, RFD was not a forum for submitting school assignments.

Nowhere did I see neilson stating explcitly that the post was in his own words. Now, if he denied that he copied the article from somewhere and then you found the wiki link, then yes. He will have gotten pwned. Unless he deleted a post or two (or if I had missed it [and it is possible]) that is not case.

As for apologizing...are you serious? Someone essentially tells you that you're stupid and that you should STFU. Another poster tells you that you got pwned. All because you forgot to include the reference. And you....apologize? Wow.

[radeonboy]

Sorry isnt the only party in this years election opposing same sex marriage is the Conservatives correct? They would redo the marriage laws right for man and woman.

[Happy13178]

The only thing I'm sorry about is that you guys aren't ready for a Conservative Minority, much less a Majority.

Arem't ready for what? Another term of absolutely nothing getting done in parliament? All I heard about up until the election call was what the conservatives were going to block or who they were going to ally with to force an election. What makes ANYONE think that if the conservatives win, it'll be any different? They're not going to win a majority, short of a miracle, which means a minority government again. Which means at least the liberals, and maybe the ndp too, will block everything they can and force another election. I don't care so much about the Conservatives, provided the far right can be kept under control, but I get the impression Harper is running because he wants to be Prime Minister, not because he thinks he can do better with the country.

[poedua]

He overreacted (if you really think that) because others have accused him of academic plagerism, not thinking for himself, etc. etc.

And yes, I know you weren't the one that said this. It's afong.

Well, it has certainly been brought to his attention in no uncertain terms.

And it's seemed to have worked.... he seems to have learned his lesson....that's all that counts.....I doubt he'll make that oversight again. :)

[itsyours]

I get the impression Harper is running because he wants to be Prime Minister, not because he thinks he can do better for the country.
I have the same feeling.

[pfdude]

And you will have more money in your pocket!

Wow, I'm just as excited as when I get peanuts on an airplane. The plain salty kind.

[Bordello]

I have the same feeling.
And Martin is any different?

[afong56]

Yes, I have read all the posts in this thread. I know that the post was not referenced properly. Big whoop. My point is that you could've asked for the reference, like what pod did. Instead, you went completely on the offensive, denoucing the poster instead of the contents of the post. Academic plagerism? Please. Last time I checked, RFD was not a forum for submitting school assignments.

Nowhere did I see neilson stating explcitly that the post was in his own words. Now, if he denied that he copied the article from somewhere and then you found the wiki link, then yes. He will have gotten pwned. Unless he deleted a post or two (or if I had missed it [and it is possible]) that is not case.

As for apologizing...are you serious? Someone essentially tells you that you're stupid and that you should STFU. Another poster tells you that you got pwned. All because you forgot to include the reference. And you....apologize? Wow.

ahem, your attempts to defend neilson are both amusing and puzzling, in that, i'm not sure why you're doing it? have you noticed that his own posts are inadequate in justifying his claims, and you feel it necessary to intervene? just curious.

since you brought it up, you are correct on one point. it was wrong of me to describe anything that he posted as 'academic' dishonesty--since nothing he has written in this thread comes close to the academic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/academic) level.

however, the definition of plagiarism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarizing) perfectly matches exactly what i've written all along, and not what you have contended. are you sure you know what plagiarism really is? this is not a slight against you, but a lot of people think they know, when they don't. guess what? plagiarising, and then going back afterwards to attempt to attribute doesn't mean he's off the hook--he committed plagiarism and got caught.

apologies? never asked for, since he's obviously not remorseful, and probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

[Moogleknight]

I'm a Conservative voter, and I'd like to say that I don't think I've been attacked. It's mainly because I've tried to provide meaningful, and well constructed debate rather than little simplistic one liners. When dealing with those who value education, it's best to use your own education when formulating your thoughts, especially when those who hold the opposite position show such passion in their responses. That passion is best responded to with a passionate, but well thought out rebuttal.

[afong56]

I'm a Conservative voter, and I'd like to say that I don't think I've been attacked. It's mainly because I've tried to provide meaningful, and well constructed debate rather than little simplistic one liners. When dealing with those who value education, it's best to use your own education when formulating your thoughts, especially when those who hold the opposite position show such passion in their responses. That passion is best responded to with a passionate, but well thought out rebuttal.

i am in complete agreement.

therein lies the difference between yourself and neilson.

you are a conservative, and i can absolutely respect that. i have no problems with those who are ideologically different--what i don't have respect for is ideologues who troll, and it mystifies me that there are those who will defend them.

furthermore, i am not anti-american. i have studied american history and culture for a long time, and have a deep appreciation for their accomplishments, but with that knowledge also comes a recognition of their many shortcomings.

if you were to tell me that you were american, i would welcome you with open arms, for exactly the reasons that you mention.

[RVDTHPS]

Something I came across doing stormclix.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5199/lol0vl.jpg

[Bordello]

:arrowu: Interesting, but maybe you should have uploaded a screenshot that doesn't implicate you in downloading pirated software.

And yes, Martin is a crook.

[Singh_21]

I hope conservatives win...Liberals need to be kicked out...

[afong56]

:arrowu: Interesting, but maybe you should have uploaded a screenshot that doesn't implicate you in downloading pirated software.

And yes, Martin is a crook.

perhaps, but less so than mulroney and chretien, and if harper gets elected, he'll be a crook too.

what's your point?

[rdtx2002]

I hope conservatives win...Liberals need to be kicked out...

voting for the sake of change is illadvised.

[Moogleknight]

...and suddenly, my appeal for more intelligent conversation falls on deaf ears :|

[Bordello]

...if harper gets elected, he'll be a crook too.
Miss Cleo is amongst us I see.

[rdtx2002]

well it's not hard to assume that all politians are crooks.. it's evidence by how poeple think car salesmen are more trustworthy than politicians

[pfdude]

:arrowu: Interesting, but maybe you should have uploaded a screenshot that doesn't implicate you in downloading pirated software.

And yes, Martin is a crook.

That's hilarious. I guess he's no better than Martin. A crook is a crook.

[afong56]

Miss Cleo is amongst us I see.

it doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that governments in power will abuse their power, whether through patronage appointments, kickback schemes, preferential contracts, pork barrel politics, etc. perhaps you are blinded by your knee-jerk reactionary zealotry to admit that?

[neilson]

ahem, your attempts to defend neilson are both amusing and puzzling, in that, i'm not sure why you're doing it? have you noticed that his own posts are inadequate in justifying his claims, and you feel it necessary to intervene? just curious.

since you brought it up, you are correct on one point. it was wrong of me to describe anything that he posted as 'academic' dishonesty--since nothing he has written in this thread comes close to the academic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/academic) level.

however, the definition of plagiarism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarizing) perfectly matches exactly what i've written all along, and not what you have contended. are you sure you know what plagiarism really is? this is not a slight against you, but a lot of people think they know, when they don't. guess what? plagiarising, and then going back afterwards to attempt to attribute doesn't mean he's off the hook--he committed plagiarism and got caught.

apologies? never asked for, since he's obviously not remorseful, and probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

That's right.

I never said I wrote the article, and I wanted to post the most accurate, un-biased info on a person. You all can talk about Mike Harris, but with your Liberal Slant that makes anything and everything he does look bad.

I support the Right, and I think certain people on here use my obvious political support to refute and insult it.

So, I'll post something accurate that is not of my writing:

Top 10 Liberal blunders

Don Martin
Calgary Herald

Saturday, January 14, 2006

In the good ol' days before, um, right now, Canada's divine ruling party would walk to a win on the backs of self-destructing rivals. Be it Reform or renamed Canadian Alliance or re-emerged Conservatives, the main Liberal opponent could be counted on to botch winnable campaigns. Well, welcome to 2006 where it's the Liberals conducting a textbook campaign on how to lose power in 10 easy screwups. These are the worst missteps of Prime Minister Paul Martin's campaign to date, compiled with the help of several Liberal insiders suddenly polishing their resumes.

1. AdSlam

That the Liberals would hit the smear button hard, even with Paul Martin demanding intelligent campaign discourse, was no surprise with his government so seriously threatened. But to suggest armed Canadian soldiers would invade cities under Stephen Harper's command if there was a Conservative victory went way too far. Result: All 12 of the ads have been tainted and the last flicker of Liberal hope to demonize Harper has flamed out.

2. AdSlam Aftermath

Martin (Paul) won't apologize and shrugs off his Conservative military manoeuvre as more infomercial than attack ad. But Martin (Keith), a Liberal MP, apologizes for the ad and says only an "idiot" would approve of sending it out. Anne McLellan (deputy prime minister) says it was never approved by Martin (prime minister), who then admits he did approve the ad. Result: Confusion all 'round and questions about everybody's judgment.

3. Bunker blues

War rooms are overrated for impacting an election, but massaging the message is important and attacking the opposition is critical. So why has the Liberal war room been dead slow to react and consistently beaten to the punch by all three rival parties? Some Liberals fret the command post is populated with inexperienced soldiers and yes-people-types who don't challenge the oft-whacky edicts coming from the campaign plane. Result: Slow, unimaginative feeding of selective facts to the media.

4. Klander Clunker

Ontario Liberal executive Mike Klander quit after comparing NDP candidate Olivia Chow to a Chinese chow chow dog on his weblog under a caption: "Separated at Birth." "It was a play on words," an apologetic Klander insisted. How, then, to explain the play on words in calling New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton an "A-hole" on the same site? Result: Liberal campaign staff appear racist and intolerant in their key electoral battleground.

5.'Pop' goes the campaign

When Martin communications boss Scott Reid, echoed by the most irritating Liberal on television today, strategist John Duffy, derided the Conservative child-care allowance as a beer and popcorn fund for the parents of pre-school children, it was the quip heard across Canada. It cast a slur on all parents and was particularly offensive to Liberal-loving immigrant families, who tend to embrace formal daycare alternatives and might prefer the Harper plan. Result: Reid disappears from sight, his boss denounces his spokesman and, not coincidentally, the Liberals start their dip in the polls.

6. See Paul Run

In a moment of rhetorical hyperbole, Paul Martin says he'd debate and defend Canada against Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe "on every street corner, in every city and in every town and village in Quebec." Bring it on, brother, says Duceppe. Chicken Martin ducks the debate offer while Harper steps in with his dukes up. The result: Harper shines while Martin suffers a credibility meltdown in federalist Quebec.

7. What? Me? Resign?

News of an RCMP investigation into an alleged market-lifting leak of an income trust announcement hit the Liberals hard. When Finance Minister Ralph Goodale refused to step down after millions of investment dollars moved abruptly, inexplicably and profitably hours ahead of his statement, it tainted a Martin government which had vowed to set a new high in ethical purity. Result: The buck stops nowhere and the campaign has its turning point.

8. Escape Clause

There's little to no evidence Martin had ever considered repealing the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution until Monday's debate. That's when he closed his eyes and threw the long bomb, hoping the idea would catch on with some voters. It hasn't. Result: With no timeouts left and the clock ticking down, even Liberals are leaving the building.

9. Early policy leaks, late platform launch

Holding back Liberal policy until five weeks into the campaign was bad enough, but having the contents dribble out in advance was worse, particularly when bad luck ensured every initiative was overtaken by negative news breaking out on other Liberal fronts. To add insult to injury, the entire platform was leaked to a Calgary magazine which hates all things Liberal. Result: Media peeved at being scooped ignore what little policy was not overshadowed by new scandals.

10. Same team, different result

Martin stuck with his same old friends to guide this campaign, even though they ran his 2004 campaign with extreme mediocrity and only won when the Conservatives stumbled. They were counting on a Harper collapse to save them again. So far, he hasn't co-operated. (Probable) result: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Calgary Herald
© The Vancouver Sun 2006

[biosh]

I'm not sure what it is Jim, but it seems capable of processing information and adjusting it's behaviour accordingly...

[65505201]

ahem, your attempts to defend neilson are both amusing and puzzling, in that, i'm not sure why you're doing it? have you noticed that his own posts are inadequate in justifying his claims, and you feel it necessary to intervene? just curious.

since you brought it up, you are correct on one point. it was wrong of me to describe anything that he posted as 'academic' dishonesty--since nothing he has written in this thread comes close to the academic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/academic) level.

however, the definition of plagiarism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarizing) perfectly matches exactly what i've written all along, and not what you have contended. are you sure you know what plagiarism really is? this is not a slight against you, but a lot of people think they know, when they don't. guess what? plagiarising, and then going back afterwards to attempt to attribute doesn't mean he's off the hook--he committed plagiarism and got caught.

apologies? never asked for, since he's obviously not remorseful, and probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

I felt the need to intervene because of the method you decided to attack his post. Yes, I do know what plagerism is. I am, in fact, being very careful in what I put down on paper as I am in the middle of a thesis project. Two points to consider:

1. What type of writing are we expecting here? If we are talking about submitting 4th year/Masters/PhD level thesis documents, then yes, I would be as pissed off as you are. However, it's a RFD post for crying out loud. If this wasn't a political thread with strong emotions swirling, would you have made such a stink about it? I'm with pod on this one. Simply asking for the refence would have sufficed.

2. By focusing your attack on his lack of proper referencing, I can't help but be reminded of politicians jabbing at other candidates instead of explaining why their own plans are better. Would it have made a difference if he did reference properly? It would seem to me that you would've simply called him a mindless idiot that can't think for himself.

Attack the ideas, not the people.

P.S. It also gets a rise out of me when some posters call all conservative voters hicks, hillbillies, and rednecks. Thank you for your useful contributions to the debate.

[afong56]

That's right.

I never said I wrote the article, and I wanted to post the most accurate, un-biased info on a person. You all can talk about Mike Harris, but with your Liberal Slant that makes anything and everything he does look bad.



so, i take it you don't want to comment on the wiki article on harris that i linked in my earlier post, which, since you consider it "accurate, un-biased info", does an excellent job of making him look bad. . .and all without a 'liberal slant'!!!

i'm merely using your own choice of sources to show you the error of your ways. . .

[neilson]

so, i take it you don't want to comment on the wiki article on harris that i linked in my earlier post, which, since you consider it "accurate, un-biased info", does an excellent job of making him look bad. . .and all without a 'liberal slant'!!!

i'm merely using your own choice of sources to show you the error of your ways. . .

Again, if you're not gonna take the time to explain Bob Rae, then why should I do the same for Mike Harris? All seems kinda 1 sided to strictly focus on Mike.

[gordholio]

I remember back in the eary Eighties when Conservative, Brian Mulroney took Liberal leader, John Turner to task for allowing Pierre Trudeau's patronage appointments when Trudeau left office and Turner took over.
Turns out Conservative Mulroney was TEN times worse.

[afong56]

I felt the need to intervene because of the method you decided to attack his post. Yes, I do know what plagerism is. I am, in fact, being very careful in what I put down on paper as I am in the middle of a thesis project. Two points to consider:

1. What type of writing are we expecting here? If we are talking about submitting 4th year/Masters/PhD level thesis documents, then yes, I would be as pissed off as you are. However, it's a RFD post for crying out loud. If this wasn't a political thread with strong emotions swirling, would you have made such a stink about it? I'm with pod on this one. Simply asking for the refence would have sufficed.

2. By focusing your attack on his lack of proper referencing, I can't help but be reminded of politicians jabbing at other candidates instead of explaining why their own plans are better. Would it have made a difference if he did reference properly? It would seem to me that you would've simply called him a mindless idiot that can't think for himself.

Attack the ideas, not the people.

P.S. It also gets a rise out of me when some posters call all conservative voters hicks, hillbillies, and rednecks. Thank you for your useful contributions to the debate.

thanks for the compliment, but can you honestly say that his contributions rise above the level of trolling?

and my criticisms (in this thread and others) go far beyond his failure to cite sources. he simply doesn't add much (if anything) to the discourse.

if his posts amounted to a fraction of the same thoughtfulness and logic that yours contain in defending him, then i wouldn't have a problem. i've said it before, the fact that he portrays himself as knowledgeable of canada or canadians is laughable.

[neilson]

thanks for the compliment, but can you honestly say that his contributions rise above the level of trolling?

and my criticisms (in this thread and others) go far beyond his failure to cite sources. he simply doesn't add much (if anything) to the discourse.

if his posts amounted to a fraction of the same thoughtfulness and logic that yours contain in defending him, then i wouldn't have a problem. i've said it before, the fact that he portrays himself as knowledgeable of canada or canadians is laughable.

There you go again Afong. I am an American from Alabama that is a Republican, and on those 3 merits you feel the need to brand me as a "troll" for support of the Right.

How many Liberal or NDP posters on here would you consider to be "trolls"?

How many Anti-Bush ppl on where would you consider to be "trolls"?

I know you're easily pissed off by the fact that I'm not some mindless American that would have an ***** made of myself in regards to Canada by Rick Mercer; but guess what? We do care about Canada, but ppl like you that never want to give us a fair shake are why we don't care to put up with understanding Canada.

I have been on RFD since May 13th, 2004. 1 and a half years.

I think I've been on here long enough, and with consistant views that you'll find ALL you need to about my posts in the search function.

In fact, let me go dig up my old posts from the Last Election.

[afong56]

There you go again Afong. I am an American from Alabama that is a Republican, and on those 3 merits you feel the need to brand me as a "troll" for support of the Right.

How many Liberal or NDP posters on here would you consider to be "trolls"?

How many Anti-Bush ppl on where would you consider to be "trolls"?

I know you're easily pissed off by the fact that I'm not some mindless American that would have an ***** made of myself in regards to Canada by Rick Mercer; but guess what? We do care about Canada, but ppl like you that never want to give us a fair shake are why we don't care to put up with understanding Canada. . . .

. . .I have been on RFD since May 13th, 2004. 1 and a half years.

I think I've been on here long enough, and with consistant views that you'll find ALL you need to about my posts in the search function.

In fact, let me go dig up my old posts from the Last Election.

there are plenty of trolls of all political persuasions on this board. i am many things, but i'm not one of them.

since you don't know me, and i don't know you, all we have to go on are the posts that appear here. on that basis alone, how can you conclude "I know you're easily pissed off by the fact that I'm not some mindless American that would have an ***** made of myself in regards to Canada by Rick Mercer"???

are you a mind reader? if so, you're not a very good one, since that thought has never crossed my mind, and it certainly hasn't appeared in any of my posts. btw, no sentient being is mindless--some have more intelligence and knowledge than others, and some have less.

try and follow along: you made an unsubstantiated claim here, regarding the relative merits of three past premiers of ontario, using a clear mathematical equation (" a < b < c"). finally, after some prodding, you cribbed notes from wikipedia in an attempt to show that b (rae) was a bad premier.
in my posts, i attempted to show that c (harris) was a bad premier. in fact, i later used the same source that you did to show and suggest that c was worse than b.
point of fact: i employed the exact same methods that you did, but somehow, i'm avoiding the issue???

fyi, i'm not voting liberal, so you'll have to start re-phrasing your vitriol.

oh, and btw, keep bringing up harris--the more that ontarians connect harper with harris, the better it gets for the liberal party. . .you're playing right into their hands, bravo!

p.s. if you must dig up your old posts (heaven forbid), could you at least save us the mile long posts, and link to them, instead of full quotation???

[afong56]

I'm not sure what it is Jim, but it seems capable of processing information and adjusting it's behaviour accordingly...

wow, i'm old enough to get that one. . .lol!

[Bordello]

there are plenty of trolls of all political persuasions on this board. i am many things, but i'm not one of them.

since you don't know me, and i don't know you, all we have to go on are the posts that appear here. on that basis alone, how can you conclude "I know you're easily pissed off by the fact that I'm not some mindless American that would have an ***** made of myself in regards to Canada by Rick Mercer"???

are you a mind reader? if so, you're not a very good one, since that thought has never crossed my mind, and it certainly hasn't appeared in any of my posts. btw, no sentient being is mindless--some have more intelligence and knowledge than others, and some have less.

try and follow along: you made an unsubstantiated claim here, regarding the relative merits of three past premiers of ontario, using a clear mathematical equation (" a < b < c"). finally, after some prodding, you cribbed notes from wikipedia in an attempt to show that b (rae) was a bad premier.
in my posts, i attempted to show that c (harris) was a bad premier. in fact, i later used the same source that you did to show and suggest that c was worse than b.
point of fact: i employed the exact same methods that you did, but somehow, i'm avoiding the issue???

fyi, i'm not voting liberal, so you'll have to start re-phrasing your vitriol.

oh, and btw, keep bringing up harris--the more that ontarians connect harper with harris, the better it gets for the liberal party. . .you're playing right into their hands, bravo!

p.s. if you must dig up your old posts (heaven forbid), could you at least save us the mile long posts, and link to them, instead of full quotation???
There's a lot of anger in this post. Neilson has been pretty calm when responding to your pathetic accusations. I don't think I could have the same self-control.

[afong56]

There's a lot of anger in this post. Neilson has been pretty calm when responding to your pathetic accusations. I don't think I could have the same self-control.

hahahaha, you couldn't be more wrong! i get a good laugh out of his posts, actually, but thanks for caring.

[poedua]

That's right.

I never said I wrote the article, and I wanted to post the most accurate, un-biased info on a person. You all can talk about Mike Harris, but with your Liberal Slant that makes anything and everything he does look bad.

I support the Right, and I think certain people on here use my obvious political support to refute and insult it.

So, I'll post something accurate that is not of my writing:

Top 10 Liberal blunders

Don Martin
Calgary Herald

Saturday, January 14, 2006

In the good ol' days before, um, right now, Canada's divine ruling party would walk to a win on the backs of self-destructing rivals. Be it Reform or renamed Canadian Alliance or re-emerged Conservatives, the main Liberal opponent could be counted on to botch winnable campaigns. Well, welcome to 2006 where it's the Liberals conducting a textbook campaign on how to lose power in 10 easy screwups. These are the worst missteps of Prime Minister Paul Martin's campaign to date, compiled with the help of several Liberal insiders suddenly polishing their resumes.

1. AdSlam

That the Liberals would hit the smear button hard, even with Paul Martin demanding intelligent campaign discourse, was no surprise with his government so seriously threatened. But to suggest armed Canadian soldiers would invade cities under Stephen Harper's command if there was a Conservative victory went way too far. Result: All 12 of the ads have been tainted and the last flicker of Liberal hope to demonize Harper has flamed out.

2. AdSlam Aftermath

Martin (Paul) won't apologize and shrugs off his Conservative military manoeuvre as more infomercial than attack ad. But Martin (Keith), a Liberal MP, apologizes for the ad and says only an "idiot" would approve of sending it out. Anne McLellan (deputy prime minister) says it was never approved by Martin (prime minister), who then admits he did approve the ad. Result: Confusion all 'round and questions about everybody's judgment.

3. Bunker blues

War rooms are overrated for impacting an election, but massaging the message is important and attacking the opposition is critical. So why has the Liberal war room been dead slow to react and consistently beaten to the punch by all three rival parties? Some Liberals fret the command post is populated with inexperienced soldiers and yes-people-types who don't challenge the oft-whacky edicts coming from the campaign plane. Result: Slow, unimaginative feeding of selective facts to the media.

4. Klander Clunker

Ontario Liberal executive Mike Klander quit after comparing NDP candidate Olivia Chow to a Chinese chow chow dog on his weblog under a caption: "Separated at Birth." "It was a play on words," an apologetic Klander insisted. How, then, to explain the play on words in calling New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton an "A-hole" on the same site? Result: Liberal campaign staff appear racist and intolerant in their key electoral battleground.

5.'Pop' goes the campaign

When Martin communications boss Scott Reid, echoed by the most irritating Liberal on television today, strategist John Duffy, derided the Conservative child-care allowance as a beer and popcorn fund for the parents of pre-school children, it was the quip heard across Canada. It cast a slur on all parents and was particularly offensive to Liberal-loving immigrant families, who tend to embrace formal daycare alternatives and might prefer the Harper plan. Result: Reid disappears from sight, his boss denounces his spokesman and, not coincidentally, the Liberals start their dip in the polls.

6. See Paul Run

In a moment of rhetorical hyperbole, Paul Martin says he'd debate and defend Canada against Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe "on every street corner, in every city and in every town and village in Quebec." Bring it on, brother, says Duceppe. Chicken Martin ducks the debate offer while Harper steps in with his dukes up. The result: Harper shines while Martin suffers a credibility meltdown in federalist Quebec.

7. What? Me? Resign?

News of an RCMP investigation into an alleged market-lifting leak of an income trust announcement hit the Liberals hard. When Finance Minister Ralph Goodale refused to step down after millions of investment dollars moved abruptly, inexplicably and profitably hours ahead of his statement, it tainted a Martin government which had vowed to set a new high in ethical purity. Result: The buck stops nowhere and the campaign has its turning point.

8. Escape Clause

There's little to no evidence Martin had ever considered repealing the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution until Monday's debate. That's when he closed his eyes and threw the long bomb, hoping the idea would catch on with some voters. It hasn't. Result: With no timeouts left and the clock ticking down, even Liberals are leaving the building.

9. Early policy leaks, late platform launch

Holding back Liberal policy until five weeks into the campaign was bad enough, but having the contents dribble out in advance was worse, particularly when bad luck ensured every initiative was overtaken by negative news breaking out on other Liberal fronts. To add insult to injury, the entire platform was leaked to a Calgary magazine which hates all things Liberal. Result: Media peeved at being scooped ignore what little policy was not overshadowed by new scandals.

10. Same team, different result

Martin stuck with his same old friends to guide this campaign, even though they ran his 2004 campaign with extreme mediocrity and only won when the Conservatives stumbled. They were counting on a Harper collapse to save them again. So far, he hasn't co-operated. (Probable) result: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Calgary Herald
© The Vancouver Sun 2006

Provide the link please...we don't know whether you "edited" the text above or not to suit your own purposes...naturally, providing the link will remove all doubt. :)

[Txiasaeia]

Provide the link please...we don't know whether you "edited" the text above or not to suit your own purposes...naturally, providing the link will remove all doubt. :)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=4316e308-7a8d-45ad-aeb7-2a966767e4db

[curtis]

blah blah blah blah blah

Source: Blah, Blah, Blah (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blah)

[biosh]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=4316e308-7a8d-45ad-aeb7-2a966767e4db
We're trying to raise the boy right, and you go to spoilin' him. I didn't take you for an enabler, Txiasaeia...

;)

[poedua]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=4316e308-7a8d-45ad-aeb7-2a966767e4db

that's Txiasaeia...appreciate it .....why neilson seem either unable or unwilling to supply the sources of his ' pasted in ' posts ( for a secomd time now ) - to ensure his integrity - is beyond me. :)

[poedua]

We're trying to raise the boy right, and you go to spoilin' him. I didn't take you for an enabler, Txiasaeia...

;)

it would appear - at least when it comes to this issue - neilson is NOT a quick study :)