NationStates Jolt Archive

My guess is that there will be a spring election in 2007. There is no way this government is going to last longer than than the Liberal minority we had.

Until I violently overthrow it. ;)

Until I violently overthrow it. ;)

and implement marxist communism?

I will go on record as saying it won't last past Thanksgiving - October 9th of this year.

and implement marxist communism?

I suppose it's always an option...

I will go on record as saying it won't last past Thanksgiving - October 9th of this year.

why so? I don't think the other parties would be stupid enough to push for an election this soon. People are tired of the constant elections.

why so? I don't think the other parties would be stupid enough to push for an election this soon. People are tired of the constant elections.
Yeah, but Harper is pulling too many 180s and using the BQ to keep himself in power makes him look like what he is - an utter and complete asshole with no scruples and, contrary to what he's maintained for the last few years, underscores that he has had unspoken agendae on his back-burners that he's hoping to ram down our collective throats.

I'm tired of the constant elections, too - but Mr. Harper is being willfully (and woefully) ignorant as to just how short a leash the Canadian electorate provided him last month. This will be a very short-lived government. Mark my words!

I wouldn't mind if it fell in time for the summer. I do need a nice cushy summer job afterall.

Yeah, but Harper is pulling too many 180s and using the BQ to keep himself in power makes him look like what he is - an utter and complete asshole with no scruples and, contrary to what he's maintained for the last few years, underscores that he has had unspoken agendae on his back-burners that he's hoping to ram down our collective throats.

I'm tired of the constant elections, too - but Mr. Harper is being willfully (and woefully) ignorant as to just how short a leash the Canadian electorate provided him last month. This will be a very short-lived government. Mark my words!

Steven Harper's bloated corpse hanging from the bridge into Hull? :D

Steven Harper's bloated corpse hanging from the bridge into Hull? :D
Nah... Do it like Charlton Heston at the end of 'The Omega Man' out in front of Parliament Hill, on the Eternal Flame fountain.

well, even if the election is going to be in 2006, i'm hoping it will be in mid-late december so I can FINALLY vote Stevie's ass out of leader of the opposition.
They should change the minimum age to 16 instead of 18. Then at least the NDP would get more seats.

Alright, here comes the Albertan hick (thank you Lady) to say

The government will last longer than 'til 2007. Without a doubt. The BQ has officially, as all of Canada knows (the President Bush, however, might not) formed some kind of alliance with Harper. The NDP seems to be swaying that way too (I personally, would have voted NDP or Green).

The Liberals don't even have a leader. As put nicely by one artist:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060202

Noone wants, it seems, the post.

Now, you can't have an election when one party is not a factor. It's against the constitution, or whatnot.

And then count the time it would take for that now-relectant leader to get a movement into motion against the Tories. Honestly, the liberals are lazy and asleep at this point. They aren't waking up any time soon either.

They should change the minimum age to 16 instead of 18. Then at least the NDP would get more seats.


Amen to that!

Amen to that!

at least you are agreeing with me on something!

I'm willing to buy into lowering the voting age provided it's done in tandem with the introduction of an obligatory course of studies in Canadian political science. Or perhaps credited volunteerism (working for political campaigns or Elections Canada).

...as long as most canadians value financial freedom (IE, freedom from overtaxation/redistribution of wealth).

...as long as most canadians value financial freedom (IE, freedom from overtaxation/redistribution of wealth).
Sorry, I really don't think you've got quite the hang of it - our national outlook, that is. Barking up the wrong tree, methinks.

Sorry, I really don't think you've got quite the hang of it - our national outlook, that is. Barking up the wrong tree, methinks.

hmmmm, okay.

i'll put it to you this way:

Do you enjoy throwing away your money?

I'm willing to buy into lowering the voting age provided it's done in tandem with the introduction of an obligatory course of studies in Canadian political science. Or perhaps credited volunteerism (working for political campaigns or Elections Canada).

There is mandatory study of political science in the Grade 11 socials studies curriculum, at least in BC anyway. The thing is, some teachers have the special power of making even the most interesting historical and political events dull. At my school, other than the Challenge classes, nobody else even cares the slightest about Canadian history, and the Challenge classes only care because well...they're geniuses.

I think for the people who WANT to make a difference and WANT to vote according to what they believe is right (16 and 17 year olds) should get the chance to. They are always complaining about apathy in young voters, so why don't they just lower the voting age to get more young voters to vote?

...as long as most canadians value financial freedom (IE, freedom from overtaxation/redistribution of wealth).

Because the right-wing Liberals were sooo hard on the rich... :rolleyes:

hmmmm, okay.
I'm not going to be drawn into some lecture on the perils of spending money in what is clearly a thread hijack by someone possessing neither the specific political insight nor precious little else of actual relevence to contribute to the topic at hand.




At any rate, what's money for if not to spend? And why your nation's bizarre collective abhorrence of taxation?

I'm not going to be drawn into some lecture on the perils of spending money in what is clearly a thread hijack by someone possessing neither the specific political insight nor precious little else of actual relevence to contribute to the topic at hand.




At any rate, what's money for if not to spend? And why your nation's bizarre collective abhorrence of taxation?

It's not abhorrence of taxation, per se. It's more an abhorrence of socialism/redistribution of wealth and an embracing of financial freedom (IE, the right of people to spend (more of) their own money).

If I confused the platforms (and application of said platforms) of the various Canadian political parties, I apologize.

It's not abhorrence of taxation, per se. It's more an abhorrence of socialism/redistribution of wealth and an embracing of financial freedom (IE, the right of people to spend (more of) their own money).

If I confused the platforms (and application of said platforms) of the various Canadian political parties, I apologize.

A couple of social programs isn't socialism.

Public health care and a national daycare service is a long way from massive wealth redistribution. But, we can discuss that further in a sperate thread.

I voted for the earliest available option.
Even before Harper officially became PM he was running into trouble, and, as politicians love to do, started pointing fingers at everyone but himself. "Yeah, it's THEIR fault I don't like to talk to people! They should have told me I had to be personable as PM!"
...
No, the people are more than happy to have a PM who stays behind closed doors, and doesn't tell us crap, letting us hear everything from other people Harper's talked to...

I find myself surprised that others are surprised that Harper is going to cut spending for daycares... where did people THINK his "new allowance" was going to come from? Magic money? Are people stupid?
"Yes, here's $100/month. Now, I will take $5 billion from the daycare system... and... what? Don't look at me like that. If you want your kids there, pay the places. Good parents will have the mother living at home, so they will have an extra $100 per month in their pockets. You fiends living sinful lives will just have to pay more for your daycare... suckers!"

I'm remaining with my stance of disliking Harper.

I voted for the earliest available option.
Even before Harper officially became PM he was running into trouble, and, as politicians love to do, started pointing fingers at everyone but himself. "Yeah, it's THEIR fault I don't like to talk to people! They should have told me I had to be personable as PM!"
...
No, the people are more than happy to have a PM who stays behind closed doors, and doesn't tell us crap, letting us hear everything from other people Harper's talked to...

I find myself surprised that others are surprised that Harper is going to cut spending for daycares... where did people THINK his "new allowance" was going to come from? Magic money? Are people stupid?
"Yes, here's $100/month. Now, I will take $5 billion from the daycare system... and... what? Don't look at me like that. If you want your kids there, pay the places. Good parents will have the mother living at home, so they will have an extra $100 per month in their pockets. You fiends living sinful lives will just have to pay more for your daycare... suckers!"

I'm remaining with my stance of disliking Harper.

LMFAO!!!!! Yes, Harper is quite the asshole when it comes to keeping his promises...hell, he's just an asshole all-round. I don't know what the tories were thinking when they voted him as the leader of their party. I would think PM Stronach would've gotten more seats than Harper ever would, since unlinke SOMEONE, Belinda is not from the Reform party!

I find it odd how as conservatives, the tories are supposed to cut back on everything, privatize them, and just cut taxes. But right now they are saying that they want to INCREASE funding to areas like education, child care, and health care. Hell, that's a bigger oxymoron than the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Oh well, we'll just have to see who the LIberals elect as the new leader. It would be SO much better if the new leader had a backbone. *sigh* But I know it's almost definitely not happening.

My guess is that there will be a spring election in 2007. There is no way this government is going to last longer than than the Liberal minority we had.

I hope as long as they can to sort out canada and bring it back to the rightful stand it needs. Pushing the Commonwealth forward.

I wouldn't mind if it fell in time for the summer. I do need a nice cushy summer job afterall.

Why don't you get a job yourself? Why would you rely on the next government? Do socialists not know how to do anything for themselves?

[sigh] Way too many liberals on this forum

Paul Martin <-----:mp5: <--NDP<-------------------------------:sniper: <CPC

hmmmm, okay.

i'll put it to you this way:

Do you enjoy throwing away your money?


You mean like ... ohhh.... say, signing up for the balistic missile defense system?

If Harper's party runs a deficit - which it seems impossible not to do if he attempts to fulfill all his promises - then there will be a significant backlash against people who claim to be conservative, but really only mean it in the social sense.

It's not abhorrence of taxation, per se. It's more an abhorrence of socialism/redistribution of wealth and an embracing of financial freedom (IE, the right of people to spend (more of) their own money).

If I confused the platforms (and application of said platforms) of the various Canadian political parties, I apologize.
I would prefer social freedom and economic restriction than social restriction and economic freedom.

Though liberals and conservatives have similar financial adgendas anyways.

Why don't you get a job yourself? Why would you rely on the next government? Do socialists not know how to do anything for themselves?

[sigh] Way too many liberals on this forum

Paul Martin <-----:mp5: <--NDP<-------------------------------:sniper: <CPC
What?

I would get a job working for elections Canada, they pay well, hire temporary workers and let you set your own hours. I worked for them the election before last (the last one was mostly during exams) and it was a great experience, if I could find a job like that with my level of experience and the fact that I have to return to school in September but lasted the entire summer I'd be pleased as punch.

I did say he was barking up the wrong tree...

silly USians.

I would prefer social freedom and economic restriction than social restriction and economic freedom.

Though liberals and conservatives have similar financial adgendas anyways.

The only reason the Liberals had similar financial agendas was because they HAD to be conservative in their spending in order to get us out out of debt, which was thanks to the Conservatives! I think IF we ever get out of debt, the Liberals would change their economic platforms to reflect a meaningful change from the Conservatives.

The only reason the Liberals had similar financial agendas was because they HAD to be conservative in their spending in order to get us out out of debt, which was thanks to the Conservatives! I think IF we ever get out of debt, the Liberals would change their economic platforms to reflect a meaningful change from the Conservatives.

Considering the PM that put Canada in debt the most was your blessed Pierre Fagieu, what would a Liberal know about paying off the debt? Liberals do however know how to steal money!

Considering the PM that put Canada in debt the most was your blessed Pierre Fagieu, what would a Liberal know about paying off the debt? Liberals do however know how to steal money!
No, the debt blew out of all proportion 'cause of Brian Pedolroney. I thought everybody knew that. :rolleyes:

The large debt was caused during Mulroney's era, it's as much a cause of the 80's recession then any of his policies, really.

If Paul Martin was still leader the Conservatives would not make it to 2007. Since the Liberals are leaderless it won't be till 2008 that we will have another election.

I had marginal expectations for Harper, but it was dissapointing that he broke multiple promises on his first day of being Prime Minister.

Anybody know how long it would take for the Liberals to elect a new leader? It seems they are in a serious lack of good candidates who want to run. Whatever, a Liberal government and a Conservative government is basically the same, other than the fact that the Liberals don't care if you get an abortion or marry people of the same sex. Fuck I hate Harper!

As an American, I only know enough of Canadian elections to know that I would have voted for the NDP.


How do Canadian elections work?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11004

this poll puts Harper support at 59%

Keep that till next election, and hey we got a real government that can get things done without whiney hippies and communists!

I'd say at least three years. The Liberals are in too much disarray right now, and the Canadians really want to see what a Conservative government can do, even if they're not entirely convinced by them.

If Paul Martin can get pass the first few hurdles and learn to govern with a minority government we could easily see him for a lot longer than that. But if he starts to go crazy and tries to dismantle long standing social programs, then it could be much less.

He already gave a memo to the premiers, there will be no childcare.

I hate to be ignored -- Could someone PLEASE explain Canadian government/elections to me.


Thanks :D

I hate to be ignored -- Could someone PLEASE explain Canadian government/elections to me.

Imagine just voting for members of the House, and the party that gets more seats forms the government: they choose a Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet. It's very similar to what they do in the UK.

Imagine just voting for members of the House, and the party that gets more seats forms the government: they choose a Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet. It's very similar to what they do in the UK.


So one votes for each house member collectively - not by district - and he or she is sent to the House to collaborate and decide the executive branch?

Seat distrobution by party as opposed to individual races, correct?

So one votes for each house member collectively - not by district - and he or she is sent to the House to collaborate and decide the executive branch?
No, by district, called ridings in Canada. The races are supposed to be individual, but most people vote for the party unless there's a very charismatic candidate somewhere, so it works out to being a party distribution anyway and some people get angry if the guy changes parties later.

Imagine just voting for members of the House, and the party that gets more seats forms the government: they choose a Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet. It's very similar to what they do in the UK.

there are 308 ridings in Canada, which translates into 308 seats. If a party gets 155 seats or more, they form a majority government, and can push bills through the house of commons without the support of other parties. If the party with the most seats gets 154 seats or less, they form a minority government, which is what we have now, with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives having the lead. Then, they would need the support of at least one other party to push through legislations or bills.

this poll puts Harper support at 59%

Keep that till next election, and hey we got a real government that can get things done without whiney hippies and communists!

A tory majority? Oh Buddha, I'd rather move to the States then.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11004

this poll puts Harper support at 59%

Keep that till next election, and hey we got a real government that can get things done without whiney hippies and communists!
Polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid and CanWest Global are notorious for their regional skew, i.e. the fact that they don't poll anyone east of Winnipeg. That Harper's supposed popularity isn't 100% is somewhat baffling, seeing as how he won Alberta lock, stock and barrel.

No, I'm positive he polls at 59% on the prairies. But come back down to planet earth, Disturnn. The Aspers are yanking your doodle.

there are 308 ridings in Canada, which translates into 308 seats. If a party gets 155 seats or more, they form a majority government, and can push bills through the house of commons without the support of other parties. If the party with the most seats gets 154 seats or less, they form a minority government, which is what we have now, with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives having the lead. Then, they would need the support of at least one other party to push through legislations or bills.



A tory majority? Oh Buddha, I'd rather move to the States then.



Moving to States will not solve much. Try Britain.

Moving to States will not solve much. Try Britain.

Nah, I'd go for Russia. The weather's more similar. :p

The conservatives are going to ride out the full length of their mandate, and here's why; Unlike the Liberals, and Paul Martin in particular, they actually seem to be pursuing the platform they campaigned on (and before you start on the emerson/fortier stuff, hear me out).

The biggest problem with the Liberal party, who, let's face it, are the only real opposition to the Conservatives, is a lack of solid leadership. Paul Martin ran this country based on opinion polls, rather than any sort of personal conviction. He flip-flopped continuously on issues, including the ones that Liberals/Socialists claim to hold so dearly, primarily same sex marriage and missile defense. If the Liberals had a leader with a spinal cord, than the country would have elected another Liberal government.

Harper's government started off with some rediculous decisions, but let's face it, if Emerson gives them their deal on softwood, and his appointments in Quebec give him his 'national coalition', all he needs to do is proceed on the issues he campaigned on, and that is his version of childcare, the federal accountability act, being tough on crime, and repairing relations with the United States.

Whether your personal opinion matches with the conservative platform is irrelevant. The odour of politics is nothing new to the electorate. Once criminal investigations are more prominent among the previous administration, the public will be less likely to jump to the Red Bandwagon.

Maybe that's why no one wants to take the Liberal leadership?

My guess is that there will be a spring election in 2007. There is no way this government is going to last longer than than the Liberal minority we had.
You are extremely optomistic. I suggest that they will be lucky to survive past the summer. Too many gaffes already:

Emerson switching seats, and new Conservative Garth Turner is critical.

Appointing a unilingual Anglophone Alberta MP as parliamentary secretary for Francophones.

Accuse Liberals of cronyism yet appoint Michael Wilson (ex Mulroney Finance Minister) to UN.

The hasty appointment of an unelected senator when the prime minister has repeatedly said he is in favour of an elected Senate.

Appointing an unelected campaign manager as a Cabinet minister.

Going to go ahead with $1200 per child under 6 even though 5 Provinces demand that the Government live up to the 5 year deal signed by them.

Fired his PR secretary because he didn't like the negative press. That is 5 secretaries that he has gone through in the past 4 years.

Stepping up Canada's commitment in Afghanistan even though 62 per cent of Canadians are against sending troops to Afghanistan, while only 27 per cent are in favour.

Appointing Vic Toews as Justice Minister even though he is against gay marriage and any form of abortion.

Not bad for only being in office for one month? :rolleyes:

The conservatives are going to ride out the full length of their mandate,
You wish. Not going to happen.

You are extremely optomistic. I suggest that they will be lucky to survive past the summer. Too many gaffes already:

Emerson switching seats, and new Conservative Garth Turner is critical.

Appointing a unilingual Anglophone Alberta MP as parliamentary secretary for Francophones.

Accuse Liberals of cronyism yet appoint Michael Wilson (ex Mulroney Finance Minister) to UN.

The hasty appointment of an unelected senator when the prime minister has repeatedly said he is in favour of an elected Senate.

Appointing an unelected campaign manager as a Cabinet minister.

Going to go ahead with $1200 per child under 6 even though 5 Provinces demand that the Government live up to the 5 year deal signed by them.

Fired his PR secretary because he didn't like the negative press. That is 5 secretaries that he has gone through in the past 4 years.

Stepping up Canada's commitment in Afghanistan even though 62 per cent of Canadians are against sending troops to Afghanistan, while only 27 per cent are in favour.

Appointing Vic Toews as Justice Minister even though he is against gay marriage and any form of abortion.

Not bad for only being in office for one month? :rolleyes:

Not bad at all. He might actually have broken the record for most scandles within the hour of his swearing-in.

But honestly, they can't hold an election without a Liberal leader, and who knows how long it will take for them to elect one? Besides, you've got to give Harper credit for having a backbone and sticking to his original campaign promises, even though they might be quite stupid and unpopular decisions. On the other hand, he's been what every other politician have been, a hypocritical asshole. And they wonder why people have such negative perceptions of politicians.:rolleyes:

I'LL go for Liberal leader, if that's the only thing stopping them from replacing Harper. :p

Stepping up Canada's commitment in Afghanistan even though 62 per cent of Canadians are against sending troops to Afghanistan, while only 27 per cent are in favour.

I'm guessing that 62% of Canadians don't know a thing about what our troops do in Afganistan, other then the fact that Americans are there too. Thus, it must be evil:rolleyes: .

I'm guessing that 62% of Canadians don't know a thing about what our troops do in Afganistan, other then the fact that Americans are there too. Thus, it must be evil:rolleyes: .

Exactly. it's unbelievable how unintelligent Canadians have become in the past 4 years. Did Canadians forget that the Taliban killed Canadians too in 9/11? Did Canadians forget that 9/11 even happened!

Soon it's going to turn into the holocaust, with people denying that 9/11 happened

My guess is that there will be a spring election in 2007. There is no way this government is going to last longer than than the Liberal minority we had.
Spring 2008

Exactly. it's unbelievable how unintelligent Canadians have become in the past 4 years. Did Canadians forget that the Taliban killed Canadians too in 9/11? Did Canadians forget that 9/11 even happened!

Soon it's going to turn into the holocaust, with people denying that 9/11 happened

I really don't think that's going to happen, with the Americans and Michael Moore constantly reminding us of the tragedy. The only problem I have with 9/11 is that even though a LOT of people died and it was horrifying, the Americans made such a big deal out of it. The multiple bombing of London, as i recall, only made the news for 2-3 days, and the continuous violence in the Middle East, despite all the deaths, doesn't even make front page news anymore. It seems like people are tired of hearing about it, even though it's reality.

Then again, i must admit, the ignorance of the majority of the Canadian population astonishes me.

Spring 2008
why?

why?

Party?

Unfortunately, I must concur with those here who are expressing longer-than-normal survivability chances for Mr Harper's government. While he has made a number of huge gaffes in his first weeks, including pretty much breaking some of his most strongly held campaign promises, there is no one to challenge him. The Liberals are in total disarray (and please, please, please don't elect that blonde bimbo as leader). No other party has the numbers to form an alternative government, barring a grand Liberal/BQ/NDP coalition.

Apart from this, Canadians have been to the polls twice in the last two years, and we've heard all the flak that Jack is already taken for "forcing" this election. Imagine what it would be like if we went again right away.

Harper also isn't stupid (no matter how it appears). He knows how fragile his government is now, and so I don't think he'll really run the risk of governing as if he had a majority. You can get a lot done with executive federalism (deals between the leaders of the provinces and the federal government that don't go through parliament or legislatures). I think we'll be seeing a lot more "backroom" deals, instead of the up-front work.

The alliance the Conservatives are forming with the BQ could be dangerous, though, for both parties. For the Conservatives, it's seen as condoning separatism; dealing with the devil, if you will. For the BQ, it's going against their social democratic ideals (in everything outside of sovereignty), which the majority of Québécois do not want.

Of course, none of this affects the lifespan of the Harper government, just his chances of winning again if it comes to a new election.


Regrettably, I give this government a chance until at least mid-2008.

Well, let's assess the situation:

The BQ have their machetes parked right up by Mr. Harper's gonads.
The Liberals are leaderless.
The NDP are still partying a month after the elections.

Since the Liberals and NDP can't really match up to a handcuffed Harper and BQ, I think the Tory Minority will last until Summer 2008 as long as Harper keeps us Quebecers happy.

...as long as most canadians value financial freedom (IE, freedom from overtaxation/redistribution of wealth).
Just beccause they're called conservative, doesn't mean that they're going to get rid of taxes and government programmes. In fact, Harper wants to increase military spending. Where does that money come from?

It's not abhorrence of taxation, per se. It's more an abhorrence of socialism/redistribution of wealth and an embracing of financial freedom
So, it's only welfare (social and corporate, I presume?) that Americans abhor? Think about what you're saying. With perfectly sound logic you can call the military a socialist institution, as Milton Friedman does. Do you abhor
that?

Why don't you get a job yourself? Why would you rely on the next government? Do socialists not know how to do anything for themselves?
I don't see how getting a job with some company is any more "doing things for yourself" than getting a job with the government.

Just beccause they're called conservative, doesn't mean that they're going to get rid of taxes and government programmes. In fact, Harper wants to increase military spending. Where does that money come from?

Well if you want to keep the military, the spending has to be increased.

Just beccause they're called conservative, doesn't mean that they're going to get rid of taxes and government programmes. In fact, Harper wants to increase military spending. Where does that money come from?


the money comes from getting rid of useless liberal programs of course

the money comes from getting rid of useless liberal programs of course

I think everyone in a given country should be able to read before that country's allowed to develop ICBMs.

the money comes from getting rid of useless liberal programs of course

Hey, who needs public healthcare when we can have more steel penii! :rolleyes:

the money comes from getting rid of useless liberal programs of course

you know, a particular instance comes to mind. Mulroney got rid of the Katimavik program to fund matching uniforms for the Canadian military. Do you really think Katimavik was a useless liberal program that deserved to be cut so that the military could look good? I'm all for a stronger military, but that should only be under the circumstance where the government has a surplus AFTER all the spendings. Or Harper could just stop that stupid GST cut shit. It doesn't benefit most people that much. Oh, i'm going to save $100 a year thanks to the 1% GST cut, I'm rich now! Please :rolleyes:

I predict this joke Reform government would last till spring/summer of 2007.

I think everyone in a given country should be able to read before that country's allowed to develop ICBMs.

Are you saying that people aren't getting the opportunity to read in this country? Are we somehow forbidding education or something? There may be a lack of literacy for some, but I doubt it has anything to do with a lack of government spending.

And who said anything about ICBM's? They're talking about co-operating with the United States on a missile defense grid to deflect or shoot down incoming missiles. The US doesn't really need ICBM's on our soil, they have plenty of their own.

you know, a particular instance comes to mind. Mulroney got rid of the Katimavik program to fund matching uniforms for the Canadian military. Do you really think Katimavik was a useless liberal program that deserved to be cut so that the military could look good? I'm all for a stronger military, but that should only be under the circumstance where the government has a surplus AFTER all the spendings. Or Harper could just stop that stupid GST cut shit. It doesn't benefit most people that much. Oh, i'm going to save $100 a year thanks to the 1% GST cut, I'm rich now! Please :rolleyes:

So our armed forces should only get the proper equipment they need to do the job, only if every other spending issue on the budget is dealt with first, and only if there is a budgetary surplus? I dread to see what would happen if you were in charge of our armed forces...

On the GST issue however, I know where you're coming from. Tax reduction, however, is a main conservative goal, and GST reduction was a more visible, and politically powerful target than Income Tax. And he's talking about a gradual reduction of a tax which was put in place to balance the budget... and was here long after the budget was balanced.

So our armed forces should only get the proper equipment they need to do the job, only if every other spending issue on the budget is dealt with first, and only if there is a budgetary surplus? I dread to see what would happen if you were in charge of our armed forces...

On the GST issue however, I know where you're coming from. Tax reduction, however, is a main conservative goal, and GST reduction was a more visible, and politically powerful target than Income Tax. And he's talking about a gradual reduction of a tax which was put in place to balance the budget... and was here long after the budget was balanced.

No, i'm saying we already have enough money going into the military and we don't need more, especially not at the expense of other social programs.

uh...reducing the GST to balance the budget? not sure i'm following. Besides, Harper said he would bring back up the income tax rate, so really, what difference does it make? My family actually benefits more from the income tax cut than from the GST cut.

They're talking about co-operating with the United States on a missile defense grid to deflect or shoot down incoming missiles. The US doesn't really need ICBM's on our soil, they have plenty of their own.
I am morally and ethically opposed to furthering a resurgent arms race. It's a Godawful amount of time, effort, energy and money gone for naught. A missile defense grid to shoot down what, exactly? Launched by who?

Why not spend a trillion dollars on outfitting every bedroom with Boogeymen detectors?


Makes as little sense.

I am morally and ethically opposed to furthering a resurgent arms race. It's a Godawful amount of time, effort, energy and money gone for naught. A missile defense grid to shoot down what, exactly? Launched by who?

Why not spend a trillion dollars on outfitting every bedroom with Boogeymen detectors?


Makes as little sense.

To shoot down missile's. What else? It's ONLY in the name of the goddamn system.

Launched by who - Hmm well North Korea already admitted they have nukes and plan on using them. Iran is making nukes. China and Russia are looking at us in a naughty way. And the terrorists are getting better and better technology everyday.

And btw, if it wasn't for the arms race in the cold war, we wouldn't have the internet now.

To shoot down missile's. What else? It's ONLY in the name of the goddamn system.There's no missiles to shoot at. Except in third-rate action films.

Launched by who - Hmm well North Korea already admitted they have nukes and plan on using them.Wow, I hadn't realized to what extent North Korean governmental propaganda, directed at the average North Korean citizen, was at swaying the opinion of North American students. Bet you'll feel foolish when you get around to taking media studies.

Iran is making nukes.http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/26/iran-nuclear060226.html

China and Russia are looking at us in a naughty way. You're just making this too damned easy.

And the terrorists are getting better and better technology everyday.Eek. A mouse.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW01-25-06.jpg

And btw, if it wasn't for the arms race in the cold war, we wouldn't have the internet now. Nor would I have teflon cookware, but trust me, I'd've found other ways to while away the hours. Ways that probably wouldn't bring me into contact with such woefully frightened people.

No, i'm saying we already have enough money going into the military and we don't need more, especially not at the expense of other social programs.

uh...reducing the GST to balance the budget? not sure i'm following. Besides, Harper said he would bring back up the income tax rate, so really, what difference does it make? My family actually benefits more from the income tax cut than from the GST cut.

We most definitely weren't spending enough on the military, which even the Liberals were planning on stepping up. If you don't believe in having a military force, that's one thing. If however, you like the idea of the men and women in our armed forces not fighting in leaky rowboats or ancient, rusty helicopters, then yeah, it costs money. Or do you prefer that the men and women in our armed forces feed their children with food stamps? I suppose you could put the armed forces money into that social program.

Regarding GST: The idea behind the GST was to increase funding to fight the deficit, which was accomplish by the Liberals, who also promised to scrap the GST. Except they didn't. The idea here, is to get rid of the damn tax eventually.

There's no missiles to shoot at. Except in third-rate action films.

Right. Will never, ever happen. Impossible!! Would only happen in something like a Tom Clancy novel, like let's say terrorists flying a plane into a famous national landmark such as the White House, Pentagon or World Trade Center. Like that would ever happen!:rolleyes:

We already work with the United States with NORAD, isn't this basically an extension of that same concept?

Why not spend a trillion dollars on outfitting every bedroom with Boogeymen detectors?

Hey... now there's an idea.... I want my Boogeyman detector...

I don’t even know if the Conservatives will manage to field a single successful bill through government. Harper is only getting away with doing all he’s doing because Parliament hasn’t sat yet. There hasn’t even been a single bill proposed and already the Conservatives have fallen flat on their faces and outraged their own supporters. Unless they pander to the separatist agenda, they haven’t got any allies in this Minority Government. If they do pander to the separatists, they’ll lose all support except for the nutbars in the Conservative party (back from their early Reform roots) who don’t want Quebec anyways.

I think the Conservatives will flounder through some free votes, before collapsing after bringing forth an unacceptable budget.

Even with the Liberal Party sitting like a bunch of dysfunctionals in opposition, I don’t see the Party putting up with too much. Martin ran the party like a dictatorship and purged it of any rivals. No surprise that they’re a lame duck after Martin abandoned them, and just because he’s too much of a big baby to sit in opposition.

We most definitely weren't spending enough on the military, which even the Liberals were planning on stepping up. If you don't believe in having a military force, that's one thing. If however, you like the idea of the men and women in our armed forces not fighting in leaky rowboats or ancient, rusty helicopters, then yeah, it costs money. Or do you prefer that the men and women in our armed forces feed their children with food stamps? I suppose you could put the armed forces money into that social program.

I'm not saying take away funding from military spendings, but it should not be one of Harper's priorities, especially since the country is in such an utter disorder with the child care, health care, and education, not to mention all the crap from Harper's own party. Besides, Harper wants more military spending so we can go into Iraq and please the Americans. What the hell do we want to go into Iraq for? Isn't Afganistan enough?

the money comes from getting rid of useless liberal programs of course
How ironic. I look at the above comment and then compare it with your location and I shake my head in disbelief.....

"Location: Best nation on earth - Canada!!!"

Liberals have been in power for 33 of the last 42 years, and the last Conservative government we had was 1984 to 1993, and we all remember who was the Prime Minister.... oh yeah "Lyin" Brian Mulroney. Sordid details supplied upon request.....

How ironic. I look at the above comment and then compare it with your location and I shake my head in disbelief.....

"Location: Best nation on earth - Canada!!!"

Liberals have been in power for 33 of the last 42 years, and the last Conservative government we had was 1984 to 1993, and we all remember who was the Prime Minister.... oh yeah "Lyin" Brian Mulroney. Sordid details supplied upon request.....

So you asking me to hate my own country simply because liberals seem to get in power alot?

Sorry bud, but I love this nation no matter who's in power.

To shoot down missile's. What else? It's ONLY in the name of the goddamn system.

Launched by who - Hmm well North Korea already admitted they have nukes and plan on using them. Iran is making nukes. China and Russia are looking at us in a naughty way. And the terrorists are getting better and better technology everyday.

And btw, if it wasn't for the arms race in the cold war, we wouldn't have the internet now.
Wow!! You sure have bought into the fear factor? China and Russia are looking at us in a naughty way? Come on now, please do explain that one.

And like North Korea really has their sites set on nuking Canada. :rolleyes:

So you asking me to hate my own country simply because liberals seem to get in power alot?

Sorry bud, but I love this nation no matter who's in power.
I am not asking you to hate Canada at all.

The Liberal governments with their blend of social and economic programs are what makes this country strong.

However, if you are one of the elite, perhaps you are willing to sacrifice some beneficial programs so that you can stuff more bucks into your pocket?

I'm not saying take away funding from military spendings, but it should not be one of Harper's priorities, especially since the country is in such an utter disorder with the child care, health care, and education, not to mention all the crap from Harper's own party. Besides, Harper wants more military spending so we can go into Iraq and please the Americans. What the hell do we want to go into Iraq for? Isn't Afganistan enough?

Our forces can't even get to Afghanistan without hitching a ride with our good yankee buddies. Wouldn't it be nice, if we could accomplish our goals without having to co-operate with the US?

And I don't recall Harper saying anything about sending forces to Iraq, at least not since the whole WMD issue was misproven. Kind of like the abortion issue. People putting words in his mouth. As for pleasing the Americans, I seem to recall Harper telling the American Ambassador to stuff it recently regarding the armed icebreakers in Arctic waters. (The icebreaker thing is definitely questionable however... and I concede that our role in Afghanistan should be put up for debate.)

Regarding GST: The idea behind the GST was to increase funding to fight the deficit, which was accomplish by the Liberals, who also promised to scrap the GST. Except they didn't. The idea here, is to get rid of the damn tax eventually.

Okay.. here's the question then.

If the GST was to fight the deficit and the deficit is gone, the reason for it is gone yes? But if that's the case, why only a 1% reduction each year? After all, if the reason is actually gone, shouldn't the whole thing be gone?

In reality, the reason for it was to make the hidden manufacturer's tax visible (which is why there's legislation out there about not being able to simply include it in the purchase price). Which, really sucked in Alberta. I liked being able to see the price and knowing that that's how much would be coming out of my pocket for it.. I don't care whether that money goes to the government or the producer, I just care how much I'm paying. Now I don't know until I get up to the register.

Let's call this what it is, a regressive tax-reduction scheme. Those who need the money least see the largest reduction, and those who need it most get less money back from the government (by a corresponding reduction in the GST rebate). It's one of those things that sounds nice, but then you realize they're not going to use any lube.

If we are lucky it will last until the end of the day!!!!!
I hate those neo-nazi goose-stepping bastards. You know something is up when candidates are not allowed to speak to the media to give their opinions on things.
The Bloc will keep them in power until Quebec can't get anything more from the rest of the country.

If we are lucky it will last until the end of the day!!!!!
I hate those neo-nazi goose-stepping bastards. You know something is up when candidates are not allowed to speak to the media to give their opinions on things.
The Bloc will keep them in power until Quebec can't get anything more from the rest of the country.

how intelligent is that? just because they have a different set of beliefs, all of a sudden they are neo-nazis?

and if we are lucky, they will last for the next century.

Okay.. here's the question then.

If the GST was to fight the deficit and the deficit is gone, the reason for it is gone yes? But if that's the case, why only a 1% reduction each year? After all, if the reason is actually gone, shouldn't the whole thing be gone?

In reality, the reason for it was to make the hidden manufacturer's tax visible (which is why there's legislation out there about not being able to simply include it in the purchase price). Which, really sucked in Alberta. I liked being able to see the price and knowing that that's how much would be coming out of my pocket for it.. I don't care whether that money goes to the government or the producer, I just care how much I'm paying. Now I don't know until I get up to the register.

Let's call this what it is, a regressive tax-reduction scheme. Those who need the money least see the largest reduction, and those who need it most get less money back from the government (by a corresponding reduction in the GST rebate). It's one of those things that sounds nice, but then you realize they're not going to use any lube.

I know. I was simply stating that the GST cut was a more politically appealing option to the electorate. Income tax cuts are generally more productive.

And for the record, I'm not so much 'pro-tax cut' as I am 'anti-spending'. I don't like the idea that people think of the budget surplus as this big pie that needs to get handed out for your vote, espescially since we still have a large national debt. I'd sooner see the surplus spent on reducing that debt, than cut taxes. But, I'd also sooner see us not being 'over-taxed' to create that surplus in the first place.

how intelligent is that? just because they have a different set of beliefs, all of a sudden they are neo-nazis?

and if we are lucky, they will last for the next century.
How intelligent is it to commit to missile defense systems that'll never shoot down so much as an albatross?

going by your definition of 'luck', the only way we'll be lucky is if time itself were to dialate a hundredfold.

My guess is that there will be a spring election in 2007. There is no way this government is going to last longer than than the Liberal minority we had.

The longest Conservative minority government was only 6 months. But I think Harper will last longer because,

a) He has the Bloc on his side; all he needs to do is pass legislation that allows for more provincial powers. The Bloc will go for it, because...

b) Nobody wants another election. Especially the Bloc who will be supporting the Parti Quebecois in the Quebec provincial election that is coming up soon. There's no way the Bloc will force an election anytime soon.