Liberal phobia and the cause….
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
Who gives a hoot about Greece?
Funny, Trust was the issue when Canadians voted the Gliberals out. lmao
Really? I think you're as blind as a deaf bat.
(1) Accountability Act — passed April 11, 2006
(2) Afghanistan mission extended to 2011
(3) Age of consent from 14 to 16 effective May 1, 2008
(4) Agent Orange compensation package of $96 million –$20,000 to all veterans and civilians who lived within 5 kilometers of CFB Gagetown in N.B. between 1966 and 1967 with illnesses associated with exposure
(5) Apology to Native people by Government of Canada on June 11, 2008 for residential school abuses
(6) Automative Innovation Fund of $250 million over five years (or $50 million a year) to developing greener, more fuel efficient vehicles
(7) Border guards armed
(8) B’nai Brith International President’s Gold Medallion awarded to PM Stephen Harper
(9) Canada Employment Credit of $1000.00
(10) Child Tax Credit ($2000 for every child under 18) (Link to all tax credits)
(11) Chinese Head Tax — government apology on June 22, 2006
(12) Chinese immigrant provision of $20,000 to every individual and/or surviving spouses who paid the head tax plus a $24 million towards an”historical recognition program”
(13) Community Development Trust — $1 billion to help communities suffering from manufacturing and forestry industry slowdowns and unemployment
(14) Debt reduction of $10.2 billion in 07/08 budget
(15) Environmental plan “Turning the Corner” released on April 26, 2007 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants while balancing the needs of the environment and the economy, plus update on March 10, 2008 following public consultation
(16) Fixed Election Dates — An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (Bill C-16), passed May 3, 2007 is an Act primarily for majority governments since minority governments can fall at almost any time when the opposition express a lack of confidence in the government.
(17) Food Labelling Initiative — to clarify and modernize labelling on food products, including “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims – to be fully in effect following consultations by December 31, 2008
(18) GIS — Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors changed to allow for higher earned income
(19) GST — Goods & services tax cut from 7% to 6% and then to 5%
(20) Health Canada Website launched for parents on food and children’s products that have been recalled
(21) Hep C compensation redressed
(22) Homelessness Partnering Strategy – $269.6 million over two years from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009
(23) Homeless Research Demonstration Projects — In February 2008, Harper government allocated $110 million to the Mental Health Commission of Canada to find ways to help the growing number of homeless people who have a mental illness.
(24) Hydrogen Highway — Created a $1.5 billon trust as part of a network of partners for hydrogen fuelling stations for fuel celled buses and vehicles in British Columbia
(25) Immigration & Refugee Protection Act changes — to shorten time taken to immigrate to Canada — fully approved by parliament on June 18, 2008
(26) Income splitting for Canadian seniors and pensioners
(27) Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement
(28) Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission established (IRSTRC) with Justice Harry Laforme as Chair — with commission to begin on June 1st, 2008
(29) Kid’s sport tax credit (up to $500 per child)
(30) Land Claim Agreements — a total of 54 were settled up to and including 2008
(31) Lobbying Act — passed July 2, 2008
(32) Manley Report approved
(33) Medical Alert Bracelets for Children — free of charge
(34) Mental Health Commission of Canada — established and incorporated as a non-profit corporation in March of 2007
(35) Military spending increased to a post-war peak, including the delivery of four C-17 Globe Master strategic airlift aircraft
(36) Money laundering crack down on organized crime and terrorists
(37) Nahanni National Park expanded by 5000 square kilometers
(38) National Museums — $98 million for capital infrastructure projects over five years, with some urgent repairs starting immediately
(39) National Vehicle Scrappage — an environmental program by “EcoAction” to get vehicles 1995 or older off the road — started immediately and to be fully in effect by January 1st, 2009
(40) Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement
(41) Ombudsman for Victims of Crime established
(42) Ontario-Canada Infrastructure Agreement for $6.2 billion
(43) Poland — Youth Mobility Agreement signed on July 14, 2008 that allows youth from either country to work and travel for up to one year
(44) Public transit tax credits
(45) Quebecois as a nation — a motion to confirm Quebec within a united Canada
(46) Randle Reef Clean-up
(47) Restored citizenship for last Canadian involved in WW1
(48) Saskatchewan Carbon Capture Storage Project
(49) “Save a Million Lives” international program for people affected by poverty
(50) Savings Account that is tax free
(51) Softwood Lumber Agreement (Bill C-24)
(52) Street racing crack down
(53) Students exempted from taxation for scholarships, bursaries and fellowships
(54) Student improvements to financing programs with 2008 budget of $123 million with 2008, starting in 2009 following the expiration of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation
(55) Tackling Violent Crime Act
(56) Tax Back Guarantee — a plan to use interest sayings from national debt repayments to reduce personal income taxes, each and every year
(57) Taxpayers Bill of Rights
(58) Taxpayers Ombudsman
(59) Ukranian & Eastern European immigants — $10 million to educate Canadians about the internment in Canadian work camps during WWI
(60) Universal Child Care Benefit — $1200.00 per year for every child under age six
(61) Universal Child Care Plan
News Releases
There are probably more. So just keep flying into those brick walls, Batty. It's hilarious.
The Liberal party is evil and has been from the start! They are anti-christian, anti-God, anti-poverty, anti-human, ........they are leftists wantebees who could never make it in the real world like alot of the poor people that they ridicule and keep poor. Ontario Works is completely designed by them and people are dying all the time on Ontario Works and Disability from high stress, ridicule, and not enough money and being denied medications, losing their housing etc. THey also invented this multi-CULT-ism and that will be the one true thing to ripe canada apart in the coming years because alot of immigrants are allowed to keep their culture and there is already alot of hatred in canada amongst the different groups and we have the highest unemployment rate (30% ) in the G7 countries.......we should be taking care of CANADIAN BORN and our seniors before we bring in any more immigrants or any color or religion...........
Send it anyway. Maybe send the pictorial version as it may be more easily understood than the transcribed one.
No ... it's just that I am a survivor of Common Sense Ontario. Methinks someone casts stones upon the wrong demon.
Ontario eh Ontario eh
I got nothing to hide....
Socrates - do you really think Iggy is up to the job of leading the country -
Kelly McParland: Ignatieff takes another crack at explaining abortion debacle - Full Comment
Dan Arnold posts a video of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on The Hour, trying to explain his "bad day at the office" last week over the Liberals' flubbed effort to ambush the Conservatives on abortion. Background here and here.
There's some interesting revisionist history going on in the interview. Ignatieff's doing his best to make it sound like it was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding in the big, warmhearted Liberal family, but I think I spy a coupe of weird uncles lurking in the corner.
Ignatieff admits it wasn't his finest moment, but then offers the implausible assertion: "I don't think the party is divided on this."
No? You put forward an abortion motion intended to signal a united front against the retrograde Tories, and so many Liberals either oppose it or stay away that it goes down in flames, and you're telling us this isn't a sign the party is divided? Funny form of unity, that.
Then he argues that, as leader, he was handcuffed by his unwillingness to force dissenters to tow the party line:
"I can't compel on a matter of conscience. I can compel and crack the whip on a lot of issues, but not an issue touching fundamentally moral and even religious principles."
Two big problems with this claim:
1. It suggests Ignatieff consulted the caucus in advance, knew several members would oppose him, but let the vote go ahead anyway, even though it was certain to embarrass the party and make him look foolish and - worse - inept. Up to now we've been led to believe party leaders blundered by not bothering to consult the caucus, and were thus caught off guard by the vote, hence the confusion that followed. If Mr. Ignatieff is now saying all the confusion and ineptitude was deliberate, he and his team look even worse than they did under the first scenario.
2. How is it that Mr. Ignatieff feels he can't compel caucus members to vote against their principles, but he does feel -- very strongly, he insists -- that Canada is compelled to force countries seeking aid to accept abortion if they hope for our help? Many, if not most, of the countries that would most benefit from the health plan proposed by the government either restrict or outlaw abortion. It is Mr. Ignatieff's case that any Canadian aid plan must include abortion, defying the sovereign right of those countries to make their own laws and adhere to their own values. Why is he willing to force his opinions on those countries, but not on Liberal MPs?
Weirdest of all, the Liberal leader then cites Hillary Clinton as justification for his position, since the U.S. secretary of state lectured Ottawa on the need to promote abortion. As Simon Fraser professor Alexander Moens argues, Clinton probably wouldn't be able to get a resolution making that claim approved by her own Congress. And isn't it just a bit weird that the party that spent years spouting anti-American jibes at any hint the Conservatives might be sympathetic to the White House, is now promoting the validity of its views on abortion based on the fact someone in the U.S. agrees with them?
Wrapping things up, Mr. Ignatieff returns to his need to show flexibility when it comes to issues of conscience.
"I cannot silence a person who comes to me, looks me in the eye and says, as a matter of conscience: 'I cannot go with you on the abortion debate.' "
But he can force that policy on mothers and infants in impoverished countries, or threaten to bar them from the assistance Canada can give.
Not very convincing, Mr. Ignatieff. In future you'd be better off leaving this puppy alone.
Kelly McParland: Ignatieff takes another crack at explaining abortion debacle - Full Comment
Dan Arnold posts a video of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on The Hour, trying to explain his "bad day at the office" last week over the Liberals' flubbed effort to ambush the Conservatives on abortion. Background here and here.
There's some interesting revisionist history going on in the interview. Ignatieff's doing his best to make it sound like it was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding in the big, warmhearted Liberal family, but I think I spy a coupe of weird uncles lurking in the corner.
Ignatieff admits it wasn't his finest moment, but then offers the implausible assertion: "I don't think the party is divided on this."
No? You put forward an abortion motion intended to signal a united front against the retrograde Tories, and so many Liberals either oppose it or stay away that it goes down in flames, and you're telling us this isn't a sign the party is divided? Funny form of unity, that.
Then he argues that, as leader, he was handcuffed by his unwillingness to force dissenters to tow the party line:
"I can't compel on a matter of conscience. I can compel and crack the whip on a lot of issues, but not an issue touching fundamentally moral and even religious principles."
Two big problems with this claim:
1. It suggests Ignatieff consulted the caucus in advance, knew several members would oppose him, but let the vote go ahead anyway, even though it was certain to embarrass the party and make him look foolish and - worse - inept. Up to now we've been led to believe party leaders blundered by not bothering to consult the caucus, and were thus caught off guard by the vote, hence the confusion that followed. If Mr. Ignatieff is now saying all the confusion and ineptitude was deliberate, he and his team look even worse than they did under the first scenario.
2. How is it that Mr. Ignatieff feels he can't compel caucus members to vote against their principles, but he does feel -- very strongly, he insists -- that Canada is compelled to force countries seeking aid to accept abortion if they hope for our help? Many, if not most, of the countries that would most benefit from the health plan proposed by the government either restrict or outlaw abortion. It is Mr. Ignatieff's case that any Canadian aid plan must include abortion, defying the sovereign right of those countries to make their own laws and adhere to their own values. Why is he willing to force his opinions on those countries, but not on Liberal MPs?
Weirdest of all, the Liberal leader then cites Hillary Clinton as justification for his position, since the U.S. secretary of state lectured Ottawa on the need to promote abortion. As Simon Fraser professor Alexander Moens argues, Clinton probably wouldn't be able to get a resolution making that claim approved by her own Congress. And isn't it just a bit weird that the party that spent years spouting anti-American jibes at any hint the Conservatives might be sympathetic to the White House, is now promoting the validity of its views on abortion based on the fact someone in the U.S. agrees with them?
Wrapping things up, Mr. Ignatieff returns to his need to show flexibility when it comes to issues of conscience.
"I cannot silence a person who comes to me, looks me in the eye and says, as a matter of conscience: 'I cannot go with you on the abortion debate.' "
But he can force that policy on mothers and infants in impoverished countries, or threaten to bar them from the assistance Canada can give.
Not very convincing, Mr. Ignatieff. In future you'd be better off leaving this puppy alone.
Whether Michael Ignatieff is fit to run the country or not will be proven come election day.
Whether there is division over that issue in the Liberal camp again will be seen on the
coming up election.
What Michael Ignatieff does or say, the coming up election will settle that score, pro or against.
Two things Ignatieff’s position on any thing will not affect is #1 the history of politics in Canada on who has ruled the most affectively will not change, which is the Liberals.
And #2 should the Conservatives stay in office for one more term. Harper will not see a majority, again proof that the Canadian voter is leery of the Harper reform party of Canada (Secretive Conservatives). The rest is self serving propaganda bait.
I have already explained that, Wulfie. Several times.
Dion or Iggy would have continued the Chrétien/Martin practice of running healthy surpluses. They would have gone into the Bush meltdown with perhaps a surplus of 12 billion dollars. As a result the deficit would be much lower today compared to what we currently have.
Harper’s mistake was that he frittered away all the surplus on tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich.
Russia is a developing country, and is a different model altogether. And how do you win against the top ten countries when you have the biggest deficit?
When Obama came to office, the world was staring down the abyss of depression and it was necessary to stimulate the economy to get the credit freely flowing again. That is why Bush also brought forth the stimulus package.
I don’t blame Obama for running huge deficit; he did what had to be done to avoid a depression. Same as I don’t blame Harper entirely for running the deficit (I do blame him for getting rid of the Liberal surplus on crazy, nonsensical tax cuts, but I don’t blame him entirely for the deficit)
Governments of all stripe, whether of the right or left are running a deficit all over developed world.
And anyway, when Obama came to office, Bush was running a deficit in excess of 550 billion $. So 1/3rd of the deficit is Republican deficit.
Regardless of who racked up the deficit (and both parties are responsible), and regardless of now necessary it was (and it was absolutely necessary), you people have horrendous problem with deficit and debt, and you people better start addressing it as soon as the economy picks up.
Socrates
You have missed one very important fact - When you have a dog barking that disrupts the neighbors - you can have a barking collar for your dog - it give the dog a mild shock so as to train the dog to stop barking -
I believe the electorate - praise God - Like myself prefer to keep these mother fukers on a sharp and short leash - perhaps over time they will learn to play in the sandbox in a constructive manner -
Though I think the dog will and would learn at a faster pace than the useless backbenchers who waste air, food and tax dollars occupying their seats and repeating the party mantra - Generally they are what we would say in the Army - a Waste of Skin.
Would you agree?
Hey SJP I get a laugh with the latest, not even an announcement from the Conservatives, just a brief massage on a stupid Con web site, on the Home improvement program stopped before its set date. No balls to make a public announcement bad for the optics.
Harper's carrot on the stick during election time. I saw a guy on the news saying that is nor fair with broken English, too bad I could not talk to him in person, I would tell him, Don't bich now because Harper did not let you eat the whole carrot, he doesn’t give a rats ass about you the vote is all he wanted. SO stop wining and vote wisely next time.
Liberals have been governing Canada for a long time now, ironsides. The recent Conservative rule represents the short period of Conservative governance which happen from time to time.
Canada has done extremely well under Liberals. 13 years of liberal rule during Chrétien/Martin was positively a golden age in Canada, Canada advanced on all fronts in those 13 years. While your beloved Republicans and Bush were racking up deficits, in excess of 550 billion $, Liberals in Canada were running health surpluses here in Canada.
And Liberals will ruin Canada? That is funny coming from a conservative. You conservatives have been doing your best to ruin both Canada and USA for 30 years now. Your standard mantra these days is borrow and spend. Whether in USA (Reagan, 1st Bush, 2nd Bush) or here in Canada (Mulroney, Harper, Mike Harris), the only thing you conservatives know is borrow and spend. And tax cuts. That is your solution to any economic problem. Deficit and debt bother you people, not in the least.
Liberals have a proven track record of getting rid of the deficit. Whether in USA (Bill Clinton) or in Canada (Chrétien/Martin or McGuinty here in Ontario) Liberals have shown time and again that they can balance the budget, something which conservatives have never done in the past 30 years.
If that is ruining the country, I hope Liberals ruin the country much more in the years to come. If 12 billion surplus (or 100 billion surplus in USA) is ruining the country, I will take that in preference to any borrow and spend conservative leader.
Last edited:
Agree or not the score is settled on election day, as for wasted skin, the Canadian political history since confederation shows that in the past the Conservatives 6 times made an attempt to rule but poor credentials did not allow them to stay.
Can a question never get answered without a Billie did this or Timmy did that?
Deference between Liberals and Conservative (Tories) in Canada, Liberals are looking to fix things and Conservatives are looking to stop fixing and damage some more.
Liberals, & Tories trade shots over carbon tax 2008
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080609/carbon_plan_080609?s_name=&no_ads=
Don't let the truth slip by you in the name of bias, just be honest to your self's, not to any one else. If you choose to lie to your self you are in trouble.........
Harper's inconvenient truth,
cap-and-trade
The problem is with the American centrepiece plan -- creating a U.S. cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions into which Canada will be sucked, along with the rest of the world.
This is the wrong policy for a resource-rich, energy-exporting country, like Canada. Cap-and-trade will cost Canadians jobs. It will make Canadians poorer. It will slow our recovery.
It will hike not just the cost of electricity far beyond what governments are already doing under the guise of "going green," but the cost of everything.
It will give speculators and giant energy corporations undeserved profits.
It will create the potential for destabilizing financial bubbles, because the price of a "carbon credit," the stock on which cap-and-trade is built, is vulnerable to corruption and fraud.
Finally, cap-and-trade will do nothing for the environment.
This isn't speculation. It's the reality of Europe's five-year-old cap-and-trade system.
Harper knows all this. Back when he was opposition leader, he correctly denounced the Kyoto accord, the political deal that is driving cap-and-trade, as a socialist, money-sucking, wealth-redistribution scheme.
LIP SERVICE
But Conservatives have convinced themselves if they talk honestly about this folly it will cost them at the polls, leaving them vulnerable to charges from the left they don't care about the planet.
Sadly, many Conservative voters have bought into this logic -- arguing Harper has to pay lip service to what he doesn't believe in to win a majority government -- and then try to minimize the economic damage.
But while Harper and the Tories refuse to get off a bandwagon they know is a sham, ordinary citizens are increasingly realizing everything they needed to know about global warming they didn't learn from Al Gore's doomsday rhetoric in An Inconvenient Truth.
The "scientific consensus" Gore and the UN have been peddling -- that we know precisely what causes so-called "unnatural" global warming (us), when we must act (now -- in a panic) and what we must do (pay ever more punishing prices for energy) is unravelling.
People are realizing our understanding of climate -- a new science -- is limited and that many natural factors, like ocean currents, have a profound influence on climate.
Even scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are now theorizing, as more becomes known, that there may be a decades-long pause in global warming, unforeseen by early computer models.
Media that led the global hysteria, like the BBC, are beginning to acknowledge there has been no global warming for a decade despite carbon dioxide concentrations continuing to rise and that there are legitimate, competing theories about warming, not a "consensus" with which, unless you agree, you're a "denier."
Liberals, & Tories trade shots over carbon tax 2008
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080609/carbon_plan_080609?s_name=&no_ads=
Don't let the truth slip by you in the name of bias, just be honest to your self's, not to any one else. If you choose to lie to your self you are in trouble.........
Harper's inconvenient truth,
cap-and-trade
The problem is with the American centrepiece plan -- creating a U.S. cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions into which Canada will be sucked, along with the rest of the world.
This is the wrong policy for a resource-rich, energy-exporting country, like Canada. Cap-and-trade will cost Canadians jobs. It will make Canadians poorer. It will slow our recovery.
It will hike not just the cost of electricity far beyond what governments are already doing under the guise of "going green," but the cost of everything.
It will give speculators and giant energy corporations undeserved profits.
It will create the potential for destabilizing financial bubbles, because the price of a "carbon credit," the stock on which cap-and-trade is built, is vulnerable to corruption and fraud.
Finally, cap-and-trade will do nothing for the environment.
This isn't speculation. It's the reality of Europe's five-year-old cap-and-trade system.
Harper knows all this. Back when he was opposition leader, he correctly denounced the Kyoto accord, the political deal that is driving cap-and-trade, as a socialist, money-sucking, wealth-redistribution scheme.
LIP SERVICE
But Conservatives have convinced themselves if they talk honestly about this folly it will cost them at the polls, leaving them vulnerable to charges from the left they don't care about the planet.
Sadly, many Conservative voters have bought into this logic -- arguing Harper has to pay lip service to what he doesn't believe in to win a majority government -- and then try to minimize the economic damage.
But while Harper and the Tories refuse to get off a bandwagon they know is a sham, ordinary citizens are increasingly realizing everything they needed to know about global warming they didn't learn from Al Gore's doomsday rhetoric in An Inconvenient Truth.
The "scientific consensus" Gore and the UN have been peddling -- that we know precisely what causes so-called "unnatural" global warming (us), when we must act (now -- in a panic) and what we must do (pay ever more punishing prices for energy) is unravelling.
People are realizing our understanding of climate -- a new science -- is limited and that many natural factors, like ocean currents, have a profound influence on climate.
Even scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are now theorizing, as more becomes known, that there may be a decades-long pause in global warming, unforeseen by early computer models.
Media that led the global hysteria, like the BBC, are beginning to acknowledge there has been no global warming for a decade despite carbon dioxide concentrations continuing to rise and that there are legitimate, competing theories about warming, not a "consensus" with which, unless you agree, you're a "denier."
The Liberals will fix the federal debt, will create jobs, will insure prosperity not disparity the likes of Conservatism.
Dodge says governments must balance books in four years
Dodge says governments must balance books in four years