Balogna. You are the type of atheist who rational atheists shy away from. lol
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
By the way, it is ALBERTAblue. Geez.
Sorry, AlbertaBlue, my word processor probably has been autocorrecting it without my noticing it.
Sorry, AlbertaBlue, my word processor probably has been autocorrecting it without my noticing it.
Let me give you my take on the three major newspapers. As far as news content is concerted, they are all reliable, reputable news sources. I wouldn’t have a problem believing a news story I read in any of them.
When it comes to editorial content, The Post is definitely biased towards Conservatives; some of the articles in the Post really almost make it a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party. So I wouldn’t believe anything I read on the editorial pages of The Post.
The Star has a definite bias to the left. To that extent, it may sometimes support Liberals, but it is more interested in trashing the Conservatives. And it is more oriented towards NDP than Liberals.
The Globe is a centrist paper and its policies align most closely with those of Liberals (of the three newspapers). However that does not mean that Globe is a Liberal supporter, last two elections it endorsed Conservatives.
The upshot of it is, Conservatives have a mouthpiece (The Post), other parties don’t.
That may be true, AlbertaBlue, but expenses incurred in 2009 can still be claimed until the end of April 2010.
So even if legislation is passed in February or March, people still can claim the deduction on 2009 taxes. And even if they have filed the tax return, so what? It is only a simple form to file an amendment to tax return and get your money back.
I have done it few times, both before April 30 and after April 30 deadline. You have up to three years to file an amendment. All you do is write the new figure on the relevant line (say line no. 121, or 122 etc.) and CRA takes care of the rest, they calculate the refund due.
If you file later on, say a year or two later, they even pay the interest, even though it is not their fault.
So it is quite practical to pass the legislation in Feb or Mar of 2010, make it retroactive and people can claim the tax deduction in the 2009 tax return (either in the return itself or by filing an amendment).
Well yes, but you still did not answer my question. You want lower taxes, but suppose spending cuts cannot be found, either for practical or for political reasons. Would you still want lower taxes?
Many conservatives would, and that is the origin of borrow and spend conservative philosophy. Both Reagan and Bush enacted huge tax cuts, and as a result, built up huge debt and deficit.
What I cannot support is the tax and spend policies of the former Liberal govt under Jean "Only a few millions were stolen" Chretien. Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments.
That is where we disagree, AlbertaBlue. To me, Chretien did a stellar job of managing the economy, he converted Mulroney deficit (40 billion plus) into a healthy surplus. Whatever he did to balance the books (tax increases, spending cuts etc.) was fully justified.
Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments. Less government with right wing parties, more with left wing parties.
What you get with right wing parties (both in Canada and USA) is huge debt, huge deficit. These days conservatism is synonymous with borrow and spend. Government actually increased under Bush, and it is increasing under Harper.
It is right wing propaganda that right wing parties lead to less government. Right wing parties many times mean more government, but in different areas of life as compared to left wing parties. Government spending went up under Bush, much more so than under Clinton.
Same with Harper, government spending is going up under Harper, much more so than it did under Chrétien.
Yes, this may be an oversimplification, but it is, and has been generally true for decades in both the US and Canada.
Not only it an oversimplification, but it is wrong. Government spending went up at a greater rate when Republicans controlled the Congress and Bush was the President. And the right wingers, who shed crocodile tears over government spending had no problem with spending whatever when their side was in power.
That is where we disagree, AlbertaBlue. To me, Chretien did a stellar job of managing the economy, he converted Mulroney deficit (40 billion plus) into a healthy surplus. Whatever he did to balance the books (tax increases, spending cuts etc.) was fully justified.
Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments. Less government with right wing parties, more with left wing parties.
What you get with right wing parties (both in Canada and USA) is huge debt, huge deficit. These days conservatism is synonymous with borrow and spend. Government actually increased under Bush, and it is increasing under Harper.
It is right wing propaganda that right wing parties lead to less government. Right wing parties many times mean more government, but in different areas of life as compared to left wing parties. Government spending went up under Bush, much more so than under Clinton.
Same with Harper, government spending is going up under Harper, much more so than it did under Chrétien.
Yes, this may be an oversimplification, but it is, and has been generally true for decades in both the US and Canada.
Not only it an oversimplification, but it is wrong. Government spending went up at a greater rate when Republicans controlled the Congress and Bush was the President. And the right wingers, who shed crocodile tears over government spending had no problem with spending whatever when their side was in power.
I also believe in choice, which is why I believe that both scientific and creationism should be taught. It is not a matter of church vs state, either, don't go down that tired old path.
Certainly it is a matter of church, a matter of religion, AlbertaBlue. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it is superstition, a religion. Religious instruction does not belong in science class. If they want to teach Creationism as part of some course on religion (that is how some Christians believe the world was created), I have no problem with that. But to elevate Creationism to the status of scientific theory is total nonsense.
Might as well teach flat earth theory with the theory that earth is round. Well perhaps that is not a good example, flat earth theory is better than Creationism. Flat earth theory is a scientific theory and as such can be proven wrong. Creationism is religion and by definition, always right.
Certainly it is a matter of church, a matter of religion, AlbertaBlue. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it is superstition, a religion. Religious instruction does not belong in science class. If they want to teach Creationism as part of some course on religion (that is how some Christians believe the world was created), I have no problem with that. But to elevate Creationism to the status of scientific theory is total nonsense.
Might as well teach flat earth theory with the theory that earth is round. Well perhaps that is not a good example, flat earth theory is better than Creationism. Flat earth theory is a scientific theory and as such can be proven wrong. Creationism is religion and by definition, always right.
I don't support fiscal mismangement or corruption. All political parties can have these flaws. Do you honestly believe that Conservative politicians are inherently incapable of making bad financial decisions or accepting bribes and kickbacks?
Conservatives want less government and less taxes. Sounds pretty good, unless you consider that this also means less benefits or more user fees. Either we pay as a group through taxes or we pay as individuals. In certain cases, I rather pay as a group through taxes for some benefits, than as an individual.
I'd rather pay for new roads with taxes, than have toll roads.
I'd rather pay for health care with taxes than have private health care.
I'd rather pay taxes than have private schools and uneducated poor people stuck in a unending cycle of poverty.
I'd rather pay more taxes and make university free and merit based, so that our engineers and doctors are the most qualified, rather than from wealthy families.
I'd rather pay taxes than have more homeless people and hungry children... and so on...
I don't mind paying my taxes as long as that money is well spent rather than squandered or kicked back to corrupt politicians and their cronies.
Yes I lean toward socialism, but I'm also an independent business person in the upper tax bracket. If I was a purely selfish person I might support the conservatives because I can afford toll roads, private schools, university. I'm not poor or homeless and I have no problem supporting my children. But I like living in a country where everyone's basic needs are met and I am less likely to be threatened by a desperate person who is willing to knife me for my pocket change.
Last edited:
I support the CPC largely because of foreign policy, they are basically identical to the libs on the Home Front.....
I'd rather pay taxes than have more homeless people and hungry children... and so on...
Yep.....but first please show that less homeless and hungry would be the point....charity is best left in private hands...
I was talking about social welfare, not charity. Canada is a wealthy enough country that no Canadian should be ignorant, homeless, cold or hungry. Food, clothing, shelter and education are basic necessities. But we pretty much agree on everything else. I never knew you were a closet socialist.
Regarding Harper's Foreign Policy. I disagree with many of Harper's ideas.
Harper's idea of justification for starting a war:
Stephen Harper's address to the House of Commons - 20 March 2003 - Wikisource
Or was that Australian PM John Howard's justification?
John Howard's speech to the Australian Parliament - 18 March 2003 - Wikisource
Either way, it was illegal:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Harper's idea of a "Measured Response":
Harper stands by his comment on Israel's 'measured' response
Harper's idea of supporting the troops:
UN officer reported Israeli war crimes before deadly bombing: widow
Harper's idea of quickly helping Canadians in trouble abroad:
TheStar.com | Canada | Harper catching up on details
and so on....
Yep.....but first please show that less homeless and hungry would be the point....charity is best left in private hands...
I was talking about social welfare, not charity. Canada is a wealthy enough country that no Canadian should be ignorant, homeless, cold or hungry. Food, clothing, shelter and education are basic necessities. But we pretty much agree on everything else. I never knew you were a closet socialist.
Regarding Harper's Foreign Policy. I disagree with many of Harper's ideas.
Harper's idea of justification for starting a war:
Stephen Harper's address to the House of Commons - 20 March 2003 - Wikisource
Or was that Australian PM John Howard's justification?
John Howard's speech to the Australian Parliament - 18 March 2003 - Wikisource
Either way, it was illegal:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Harper's idea of a "Measured Response":
Harper stands by his comment on Israel's 'measured' response
Harper's idea of supporting the troops:
UN officer reported Israeli war crimes before deadly bombing: widow
Harper's idea of quickly helping Canadians in trouble abroad:
TheStar.com | Canada | Harper catching up on details
and so on....
Last edited:
Dumping raw materials in trade for low quality imports with profits going to EU and Asia is good foreign policy?
Or do you mean the blood end of their foreign policy?
It will be marketing. Almost makes me wish for the days when elections were won by who ever supplied the most free alcohol:
Royal history in one of Kingston’s nooks - Queen's Journal
Not quite true. You can make RRSP and RESP contributions until the end of February.
I would take cash. In small bills in a brown envelope. But a free beer would make the screwing we will get feel better .
Wouldn't that make you a Politician, and not a voter?
Ironically, the $$$ in the envelop would be a portion of your own
money being returned to you...sort'a like a GST cheque. :lol::lol::lol:
That won’t be any worse than how the votes are solicited at present, earth_as_one.