25 years of health care cuts....mental health being hit the hardest. Judging by all the dories parked out side the union halls in SK, things must be really bad for squeezing anymore healthcare funding from the Atlantic taxpayers and it shows.
The Coalition Strikes!!!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
You're first and biggest problem is that you let them know what you had. They can't come and confiscate what they don't know about. If they want to take my beat-up old .22 or my WW2 lee-enfield (f*ckin thing don't shoot straight anyway) they are welcome and according to their records that is all I have. ;-)
You gotta be kidding with this statement right?
If anything the country has moved into a centerist position under the Libs (they are far from left wing) and has now shifted dramatically to the right under Harper and although this has been mitigated by his minority position we will move even further to the right if he were to achieve a majority. Under a Harper majority we can fully expect the following changes in the next 5 years....
Privatization of all healthcare
Min wages dropped or removed
Corporate taxes dropped to less than 10%
Corporate subsidies increased
Personal taxes increased (more sales taxes, license fees etc, that money has to come from somewhere)
Enhanced gun registry and control (sorry Colpy, they are blowing smoke to ya, none of them want you and me to be armed)
Military spending tripled or more (no troops coming home, more deployments)
Possible mandatory conscription
Removal of the senate (I am actually ok with this)
Removal of the multi-party system (CPC and LIbs only)
Restructuring of electoral boundaries (to favor the CPC of course)
SPP (american police & military given jusidiction within our borders)
Establishment of the NA Union.
Free trade agreements with China, India, the EU and the African union (wave goodbye to your job)
Disbandment of the EPA.
The list of negatives goes on and on. The CPC supports globalization and corporate control of government and WILL make major moves towards this.
Completely ludicrous!
You forget....the CPC wants to be re-elected......
From the top;
The CPC has promised to continue yearly increases in health transfers to the provinces.
Wage legislation is PROVINCIAL not federal.
It would be political suicide to drop the corporate tax rates any further than 15%...........
Subsidies? Perhaps, but I don't see how when committed to spending reduction...
If meant to pay down debt, I can live with some increase in taxation, but that is NOT the CPC way
Baloney. Core members would leave the party in droves if they were to increase gun control
Good. Military spending needs to be increased. Deployments? Maybe, I have no crystal ball.
CONSCRIPTION!?!? Read a little Canadian history. Impossible, even in the two world wars.
No. Senate removal requires constitutional change. Only reform is possible.
How do you think Harper can kill the NDP and Bloc? Ridiculous. If ONLY!!!!
Gerrymandering is an ancient and dishonourable Canadian tradition....possible.
Americans given jurisdiction? Ludicrous!
North American Union? Ludicrous.
Free trade with China? HA! You think the Chinese are stupid?
The EPA is American, not Canadian.
So, out of 15 supposed results of a CPC majority...
Three are impossible because of Constitutional restrictions.
One is impossible because the entity concerned is part of the US gov't
Four are extremely unlikely because they would lead inevitably to defeat in the next election.
One is extremely unlikely because Quebec would immediately separate.
One is extremely unlikely because the CPC does not LIKE China, and China is not stupid.
One is completely ludicrous (two party system) although I wish! No more BQ.
One is kinda unlikely because of a lack of funds.
One is possible because every gov't does it.
Two are damned good ideas.
I was just beginning to think maybe you knew what you were talking about....
OOPSY on my part!
A couple of quick points for you to consider,
Harper has increased trasfer payments by less than half of what the annual rise in costs. Hardly increasing funding for healthcare is it?
The CPC way, proven by the evidence, is to run up the deficit and the debt and transfer the tax burden from business to individuals.
Corporate taxes have already dropped from over 20% to 15% and we will see more, put money on it!
Gun control, if the US republicans can try to sell it what makes you think the CPC will act any different, Harpo will follow the US lead as usual.
Do you not think part of the plan in removing the per-vote subsidy is aimed at removing the smaler parties...hello?
Take a good look at some of the SPP websites, quite clear about allowing US police and government jurisdiction within Canada, this means you are subject to the Patriot Act. The US Marshalls have already claimed extended jurisdiction into Canada to apprehend suspected terorists and the definition of 'terrorist' has been expanded to include anyone who openly protests against the govt. I don't know about you but this would sure include me.
I mention the EPA because we are required in BC to have EPA rated woodstoves and that is one of the things my local CPC candidate has mentioned they would remove.
Don't worry though, in my latest email to Harper I let him know he has your full support to let his corporate buddies f*ck the country. He told me to thank you.
That's right, and all politicians are experts at it. Don't expect anything more than lies and you won't be disappointed with the result.;-)
Ahhh Health care is a provincial responsibility, shared by agreement with the Feds.....if Harper is increasing transfer payments by close to 50% of the increased costs, he has completely fulfilled his obligations on the matter. BTW, the Liberals promise EXACTLY the same thing.
Individuals pay ALL the tax, as taxes on corporations are simply passed on down the line. So it is irrelevant in the first place. In the second, it would be a political mistake to lower them too far.....and the CPC want to be ELECTED again.......
What the HELL are you talking about? The US Republicans have rolled gun control back radically in the USA, bringing forth right to carry legislation, killing the Democrats' Assault Weapons Ban, and nominating to the Supreme Court justices that have cemented the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. You are WAY off base here. And the CPC relies on a core vote that not only hates registration, but VOTES on the issue.......get real!!!!
Damaging them, yes, and rightfully so. If your supporters as individuals are not willing to step up to the plate and donate 40 or 50 bucks a couple of times a year....well, they aren't serious, are they?
But make them disappear? Not going to happen.
Paranoid foolishness. The definition of terrorist has not been expanded, except in the mind of the paranoid. Military forces (probably air) violating the territory of a close ally and mutual defense treaty signatory is NOT giving US authorities extended jurisdiction, nor can US Marshalls operate in Canada. Absolute Bull ****.
I'm so tired of hearing that foolishness. Isn't it the customers and shareholders of the corporation who pay the taxes?
Why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill so that our foreign owned corporations can sell our resources overseas and pay no taxes?
Perhaps instead of sitting in front of the computer all day you should work a bit harder.
If you think I am for the libs you are mistaken.
Do you understand economics at all? have you ever heard of 'supply and demand"? you need to increase demand to create jobs, not make a business more profitable. If individuals cannot afford to buy stuff no business will create jobs because there is no demand for what they produce. It is only through giving individuals more spendable income you increase demand that then requires increased supply. If there is an increased demand companies will be there to service it as long as there is profit to be made whether it is $500 million/yr or $50 million a year.
Hmmm, so because CPC supporters are mostly the wealthiest of Canadians they should have an advantage over parties that represent the working poor.
[/QUOTE]
No BS bud. You need to look not at what the politicians say about the changes to laws but look at what is possible under them. It is possible for me to be classified as a terrorist and it is possible for the US military to march into Canada under the SPP in the case of a civil emergency (they fail to tell you what a civil emergency is though). Of course they will all tell you it won't happen but we know how much politicians tell the truth too. We have US coast guard ships in BC waters already. The US marshalls have openly declared they will 'cross any national or international border' to apprehend terrorists or enemies of the state.
He p*sses you off too!??????????:lol: Of course that avatar isn't exactly designed to win friends and influence people! :lol:
The Liberal party has the distinction of having the two longest minority parliamentary sessions on record. Each of them nearly three hundred days longer than the next closest session. The Liberals seem to be able to last much longer on average as a minority and get the most legislation passed through the house for Canadians. Probably because they have lots of similar thinking MP's in the house as allies. The Conservatives have the destinction of having the three shortest minority parliamentary sessions in Canadian history and a not so good record of passing legislation on behalf of Canadians. before losing the confidence of the house. When in a minority governing situation the Conservatives are truly in the minority as far as common view point is concerned. Passing legislation often comes down to having all votes being confidence votes, which of course is not democratic, lumping their unpopular bills in with a more popular one to ram it through and playing the part of the victim if it doesn't pass, or just perouging the house under the pretense that parliament gets more done when it is not sitting. For the Conservatives to get their work done unimpeded, they have to trick a lot of people on election day. Question is, can they do it?
Incorrect.
The Liberals had a long stretch of minority gov;t 1921-25, under that complete idiot, William Lyon Mackenzie-King. But due to seat fluctuations, it was not a minority throughout the entire Parliament....
Stephen Harper has held the two longest minority governments, election to election.
You should really google before you babble.
On election day it was a minority government in both 21 and 26. You are correct Mr. Harper's elections were much smaller minorities. His parties ability to work with the majority interests of the house is not well proven to date, and like you acknowledge, he has had awhile. Canadians did push the Mackenzie-King government to majority through bi-elections when Conservatives quit. You don't have to like it. Both these parliaments were near 300 and 400 days longer than Steven Harpers two smaller minorities on election day. The fact Mr. Harper did not do as well after his election days seems to be a source of pride for some however. We should let them have that I suppose.
I've been listening to the apologists rationalizing their party leaders' positions and statements, and I noticed a pattern.
Spokesmen for Harper do the same thing he does, which is make blatant, unabashed statements of falsehood, without a blink, such that it almost sounds like they believe it themselves.
For example, a Harper apologist says, "Canada's international reputation is the best it's very been. Canada was invited to participate against Gaddafi ..."
Anybody who reads knows that Canada's international reputation is the worst it's ever been, and anybody who is anybody knows that Canada was not "invited" to work against Gaddafi... it was *told* it had *better* participate because it was Loyd Axworthy who pushed so hard for the change to the UN mandate allowing for the UN to get involved in internal affairs if a government is killing its own people, therefore since the UN was going against Gaddafi because of a change in mandate pushed for by Canada, Canada had better be there (it used to be that the UN mandate did not allow for that, which was why the genocide in Rwanda was allowed to happen).
At first I thought, "Oh yeah, another case of the Reformacons pulling that stunt of knowing you can't fool people with small lies, but you can get them with big lies", but then something occurred to me.
Most Reformacons would be coming from a business background, especially of the checkered-suit used-car-salesmen variety, and a vital tool in the business belt is sales and marketing, and everyone knows that sales and marketing is 99% all-out unabashed BS, such that it's "let the buyer beware".
Business people can get so accustomed to tossing around the bulloney of sales and marketing that half the time they themselves forget that what they're saying is BS. In fact, they get so desensitized to the difference between facts versus hype that, ironically, they themselves, with all their marketing BS, get *taken* by the the BS of suppliers. It's bizarre, but that's the fact of it. They fling BS in their sales and marketing, which means they should be able to recognize when a supplier is using it on them, but they don't.
So I'm wondering... what if Harper and his apologists are so inured to the distinction between fact versus hype because of business backgrounds involving lots of sales and marketing, that they're not really conscious of when they're making false statements?
Spokesmen for Harper do the same thing he does, which is make blatant, unabashed statements of falsehood, without a blink, such that it almost sounds like they believe it themselves.
For example, a Harper apologist says, "Canada's international reputation is the best it's very been. Canada was invited to participate against Gaddafi ..."
Anybody who reads knows that Canada's international reputation is the worst it's ever been, and anybody who is anybody knows that Canada was not "invited" to work against Gaddafi... it was *told* it had *better* participate because it was Loyd Axworthy who pushed so hard for the change to the UN mandate allowing for the UN to get involved in internal affairs if a government is killing its own people, therefore since the UN was going against Gaddafi because of a change in mandate pushed for by Canada, Canada had better be there (it used to be that the UN mandate did not allow for that, which was why the genocide in Rwanda was allowed to happen).
At first I thought, "Oh yeah, another case of the Reformacons pulling that stunt of knowing you can't fool people with small lies, but you can get them with big lies", but then something occurred to me.
Most Reformacons would be coming from a business background, especially of the checkered-suit used-car-salesmen variety, and a vital tool in the business belt is sales and marketing, and everyone knows that sales and marketing is 99% all-out unabashed BS, such that it's "let the buyer beware".
Business people can get so accustomed to tossing around the bulloney of sales and marketing that half the time they themselves forget that what they're saying is BS. In fact, they get so desensitized to the difference between facts versus hype that, ironically, they themselves, with all their marketing BS, get *taken* by the the BS of suppliers. It's bizarre, but that's the fact of it. They fling BS in their sales and marketing, which means they should be able to recognize when a supplier is using it on them, but they don't.
So I'm wondering... what if Harper and his apologists are so inured to the distinction between fact versus hype because of business backgrounds involving lots of sales and marketing, that they're not really conscious of when they're making false statements?
Last edited:
Oh, Mr. Ignatieff is confirming his Liberal tendencies..........what he says in French about a coalition is markedly different than what he says in English......
Graeme Hamilton: Harper the target in both languages | Full Comment | National Post
That is NOT the same as what he said in English:
Ignatieff swears off coalition - Canada - CBC News
I took him at his word, damn fool that I can be.........but I do believe he is distorting the truth....which is that he and the other parties will vote against the budget, causing the gov't to fall, and then he will take power with a coalition by another name.......
And the BQ will wind up as back seat driver of the gov't of Canada.
Harper, like him or hate him, needs a majority for the good of the country.
Graeme Hamilton: Harper the target in both languages | Full Comment | National Post
That is NOT the same as what he said in English:
Ignatieff swears off coalition - Canada - CBC News
I took him at his word, damn fool that I can be.........but I do believe he is distorting the truth....which is that he and the other parties will vote against the budget, causing the gov't to fall, and then he will take power with a coalition by another name.......
And the BQ will wind up as back seat driver of the gov't of Canada.
Harper, like him or hate him, needs a majority for the good of the country.
I've been saying that for weeks. He was very careful to focus on the word "coalition". One of his advisors, Rae, used an "accord", to over throw the elected minority gov't.
You don't suppose Rae forgot about that trick do you?
Wording is important.