High Ho it's off to the polls we go.

[TenPenny]

Ontario, you know I've seen
The place I'd rather be
Your scummy lakes and the City of Toronto
Don't do a damn thing for me
I'd rather live by the sea...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Chretien did a stellar job? You have got to be kidding! How quickly we forget the Sponsorship Scandal!! You might think he did a stellar job. Not a lot of people agree. Like every other politician he lied. That's all Ignatieff is doing right now too.
Ignatieff is forcing an expensive un-needed election right now. Really really bad timing on his part.
How many of you took a hit on your gas prices today??? Ours is at $1.12.9 Like I would vote for a Liberal!:angryfire:

Sure Chrétien did a stellar job, VanIsle. And some in the West may not agree, but by and large, Canadians do agree, they gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberals were on track to win another majority until the sponsorship scandal came along.

In case you don’t remember Mulroney’s Canada, the economy was in the tank under Mulroney. Deficit was more than 40 billion dollars, red ink as far as the eye could see. Unemployment was high.

I remember when Liberals came to power and Martin said that they were going to get rid of the deficits, the press was frankly skeptical; they were used to Mulroney promises. But the Liberals did turn the economy around, turned Canada from a basket case into a prosperous country once more.

Indeed, a while ago I posted a detailed post (on canada.com forum), comparing Canada when liberals came to power and when they left power 13 years later. I pulled out statistics for several factors, life expectancy, infant mortality, child poverty, per capita income etc. Canada was better in each and every respect. At the end of liberal rule, Canadians were wealthier, healthier, more prosperous and living longer compared to when Liberals came to power. Child poverty was down. Liberal rule was truly the Golden Age in Canada.

To ignore the stellar job liberals did in fixing the economy and to concentrate solely on sponsorship scandal is political partisanship, nothing more. There are scandals in almost every government.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ignatieff is forcing an expensive un-needed election right now.

VanIsle I don’t’ know if we will have a fall election, I assume we might. But you accusing Ignatieff of forcing an expensive election is pot calling the kettle black. Conservatives forced elections the last two times when there was no reason for it, when Canadians did not want an election. I assume you were OK with that, because the first time Liberals lost power and the second time Harper had a chance of getting a majority.

So you are mad at Ignatieff because he is a Liberal, forcing an early election has nothing to do with it. When your party forced an early election, twice (without any reason), I assume you were OK with that.

How many of you took a hit on your gas prices today??? Ours is at $1.12.9 Like I would vote for a Liberal

If you don’t want to vote Liberal, that is your business. But gas prices are Ignatieff’s fault? Did he perhaps manipulate gas prices from opposition? Does he have that much power, Harper is powerless? You sound like far right Republican base, which started blaming Obama for the economic meltdown even before he took office (before that they were blaming Clinton and Carter, anybody but Bush).

In case nobody told you, Conservatives are in power. If you think gas prices are too high (I don’t think they are) it is the fault of your Messiah. But then no doubt you also think that the current meltdown is the fault of the Liberals.

Or are you saying that you won’t vote Liberal provincially? Provincially you don’t have a choice, are you going to vote NDP?

 

[CDNBear]

Sure Chrétien did a stellar job, VanIsle. And some in the West may not agree, but by and large, Canadians do agree, they gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberals were on track to win another majority until the sponsorship scandal came along.

:lol: You have to love that logic. Cretin did a stellar job, and was all set to be re-elected, until one of the not so stellar things he did bit him in the ass!!!

In case you don’t remember Mulroney’s Canada, the economy was in the tank under Mulroney. Deficit was more than 40 billion dollars, red ink as far as the eye could see. Unemployment was high.

I love how you Lieberals dump that whole mess on Mulrooney, never giving any credit to Trudeau's flawed policies, that in fact caused said issues.

I remember when Liberals came to power and Martin said that they were going to get rid of the deficits, the press was frankly skeptical; they were used to Mulroney promises. But the Liberals did turn the economy around, turned Canada from a basket case into a prosperous country once more.

That's not hard to do, when you ride the frame work left by the privious Gov't...ie NAFTA.

Indeed, a while ago I posted a detailed post (on canada.com forum), comparing Canada when liberals came to power and when they left power 13 years later. I pulled out statistics for several factors, life expectancy, infant mortality, child poverty, per capita income etc. Canada was better in each and every respect. At the end of liberal rule, Canadians were wealthier, healthier, more prosperous and living longer compared to when Liberals came to power. Child poverty was down. Liberal rule was truly the Golden Age in Canada.

I'ld love to see that BS.

To ignore the stellar job liberals did in fixing the economy and to concentrate solely on sponsorship scandal is political partisanship, nothing more. There are scandals in almost every government.

Really? Not according to you, you have continously dismissed Liberal lies and criminality.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ontario, you know I've seen
The place I'd rather be
Your scummy lakes and the City of Toronto
Don't do a damn thing for me
I'd rather live by the sea...

Tenpenny, what you and others have said about Ontario really reinforces what our Premier, David Peterson said a few years ago.

Everybody in Canada hates Ontario, everybody in Ontario hates Toronto, everybody in Toronto, hates Bay Street.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll go along with that. Any idiot that forces an election before spring wants me to vote for a different bunch.

You Conservatives are amazing, Anna. You guys are going to vote for the Messiah no matter what, why not just say so? Why give phony excuses, like Liberals are calling an unwanted election (Conservatives did that the last two times, I assume you had no complaints about that, and it did not hurt them any at the polls)?

If you want to vote for the Messiah, that is your right, you don’t need to give any phony reasons for it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That'd be fine with me as long as the maritimes and territories are with us. I am pretty sure the rest of us could survive quite nicely without ON and QC. Boy would they squawk. lol

Are you kidding? Ontario and Québec can exist quite well on their own. Perhaps they may form some loose federation (with trade agreements), perhaps they may not. But they both have the population and resources to make it on their own. Countries with comparable populations (Sweden etc.) are doing quite well.

But the West and the Maritimes get together? A more motley bunch cannot be imagined. There is animosity between the West and Maritimes; Harper has called Maritimers a lazy bunch.

In addition, the Western provinces have very little in common with each other. Alberta hates BC, because BC is much bigger and much more liberal than Alberta. There is no love lost between Alberta and Saskatchewan either, Saskatchewan routinely elects NDP governments, NDP is really not much different from Communists to Alberta.

And the two parts will be separated by thousands of kilometers (like East and West Pakistan were). I would give the deformed, misshapen entity perhaps three years before it breaks up.

Maritimes will slowly be swallowed up by USA, one by one. Alberta of course will be swallowed up by USA, they want Alberta’s oil. As to others, USA probably won’t want them, especially the Republicans. They will be happy to have Alberta, but they wouldn’t want other three provinces, which elect NDP (Communist to Republicans) governments.

Ontario and Quebec will do just fine, as a loose federation or on their own. But the West and Maritimes existing together in one country? What a joke.

 

[TenPenny]

Tenpenny, what you and others have said about Ontario really reinforces what our Premier, David Peterson said a few years ago.

Everybody in Canada hates Ontario, everybody in Ontario hates Toronto, everybody in Toronto, hates Bay Street.

That was a quote from an Ontario folksinger, in case you didn't recognize it.
It was written in response to Bill Davis. In case you remember him.
I lived in Ontario in those days.

I don't hate Ontario; I dislike the type of Ontarians who constantly claim they are so much better, smarter, and faster than everyone else in Canada.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That was a quote from an Ontario folksinger, in case you didn't recognize it.
It was written in response to Bill Davis. In case you remember him.
I lived in Ontario in those days.

I don't hate Ontario; I dislike the type of Ontarians who constantly claim they are so much better, smarter, and faster than everyone else in Canada.

Was it really? I didn't know, I saw David Peterson quote it once. I am not that familiar with Bill Davis, we lived in Britain at that time. We returned to Canada in 1986.

 

[AnnaG]

Sure Chrétien did a stellar job, VanIsle. And some in the West may not agree, but by and large, Canadians do agree, they gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberals were on track to win another majority until the sponsorship scandal came along.

:roll:To put it in Les's words, that's argumentum ad populum. Just because most people think something is right, doesn't make it right. If he isn't an outright crook he has the attitude of one. "Perhaps there were a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process. But how many millions of dollars have we saved because we have re-established the stability of Canada by keeping it a united country? " And when questioned about the theft, he replied, "We are government. That is what we do". So you go right ahead and stick up for the guy. It just shows what sort of principles you stand by.

In case you don’t remember Mulroney’s Canada, the economy was in the tank under Mulroney. Deficit was more than 40 billion dollars, red ink as far as the eye could see. Unemployment was high.

And Bullroney's screw ups makes ChRETIeN and aPAULing Martin into angels. I see. :roll:

I remember when Liberals came to power and Martin said that they were going to get rid of the deficits, the press was frankly skeptical; they were used to Mulroney promises. But the Liberals did turn the economy around, turned Canada from a basket case into a prosperous country once more.

Indeed, a while ago I posted a detailed post (on canada.com forum), comparing Canada when liberals came to power and when they left power 13 years later. I pulled out statistics for several factors, life expectancy, infant mortality, child poverty, per capita income etc. Canada was better in each and every respect. At the end of liberal rule, Canadians were wealthier, healthier, more prosperous and living longer compared to when Liberals came to power. Child poverty was down. Liberal rule was truly the Golden Age in Canada.

To ignore the stellar job liberals did in fixing the economy and to concentrate solely on sponsorship scandal is political partisanship, nothing more. There are scandals in almost every government.

Yeah, what's a few million here or there?:roll:
So you spent all your research in one forum and now can only post unsubstantiated opinion?
Did you read any of the stuff I posted about Martin (while he was ChRETIeN's finance minister)? Stellar job at fixing the economy alright. What's a few seniors here or there?

 

[AnnaG]

You Conservatives are amazing, Anna. You guys are going to vote for the Messiah no matter what, why not just say so? Why give phony excuses, like Liberals are calling an unwanted election (Conservatives did that the last two times, I assume you had no complaints about that, and it did not hurt them any at the polls)?

If you want to vote for the Messiah, that is your right, you don’t need to give any phony reasons for it.

:roll: I'm conservative like you are the Pope, you pint-sized ponce. You are the one that gives excuses for things. Don't brush off your character flaws onto me. I don't want them.

 

[AnnaG]

Are you kidding? Ontario and Québec can exist quite well on their own. Perhaps they may form some loose federation (with trade agreements), perhaps they may not. But they both have the population and resources to make it on their own. Countries with comparable populations (Sweden etc.) are doing quite well.

But the West and the Maritimes get together? A more motley bunch cannot be imagined. There is animosity between the West and Maritimes; Harper has called Maritimers a lazy bunch.

In addition, the Western provinces have very little in common with each other. Alberta hates BC, because BC is much bigger and much more liberal than Alberta. There is no love lost between Alberta and Saskatchewan either, Saskatchewan routinely elects NDP governments, NDP is really not much different from Communists to Alberta.

And the two parts will be separated by thousands of kilometers (like East and West Pakistan were). I would give the deformed, misshapen entity perhaps three years before it breaks up.

Maritimes will slowly be swallowed up by USA, one by one. Alberta of course will be swallowed up by USA, they want Alberta’s oil. As to others, USA probably won’t want them, especially the Republicans. They will be happy to have Alberta, but they wouldn’t want other three provinces, which elect NDP (Communist to Republicans) governments.

Ontario and Quebec will do just fine, as a loose federation or on their own. But the West and Maritimes existing together in one country? What a joke.

lmao Sure can tell you are a TOan; you haven't a clue about what the rest of the people are like.

 

[earth_as_one]

I believe that government has a role in our lives, don't misunderstand me. However, to take your points one by one:

Yes, government funds should be used to build infrastructure, including roads.

For Health Care, I believe in some funding, but I also believe that the health care system we have now is far from what Tommy Douglas had in mind. I have no problem at all with private health care, in fact, we have a lot of it now (dentist, eye doctors, physiotherapists, etc), that is covered in a lot of cases by private insurance. I believe that no one should be denied health care, but I also have serious problems with people using ambulances as private vehicles and emerg wards as doctors. To finish, our dogs and cats get quicker health care than we do. That is simply wrong.

I have no problem with private schools, why not? If someone works their ass off to make a lot of money to afford things like this, why not? There will always be a public school system, and unfortunately, the left wing bias of teachers is being passed down to our kids, whether on purpose, or by osmosis. Again, there should be choices, something I realize socialists and leftists despise.

Basically, what you are almost suggesting is that old joke about your tax return:

Line 1: what is your income?
Line 2: send it in.

As you may guess, I think that is not only not funny, but damned scary.

I agree abuses of the system exist, but I think they are often exaggerated. The solution to these problems aren't getting rid of the services but dealing with the abusers and improving the system so that services are difficult to abuse.

Sure wealthy people can get first class medical services for their pets. Meanwhile many poor people can't afford to take their pets to the vet. Pet's typically don't earn a living or generate wealth. Pets are a luxury, not a necessity and I'm ok with a two tier health care system for animals.

I would only support the option of private health care for wealthy people if it is heavily taxed in order to increase subsidies for the public health care system. But more likely what would happen is the public system would end up underfunded as wealthy people no longer have any stake in improving public health care.

I'd hate to see Canada become like the US, where you only have decent health care if you work or are extremely wealthy. When you get sick in the US, you can lose your job, which causes you to loose your work related health benefits and finally your home when you go bankrupt. Eventually you end up with people who can't work because they can't afford treatment which would make them healthy enough to return to work. The system is inefficient as well as unfair.

If wealthy people want to send their children to private schools, then that luxury should also be heavily taxed and the benefits go to the public education system. But again, what would happen is that since wealthy people have no stake in the public system, it would eventually become underfunded and ineffective. Then you end up in a situation where only children born into wealthy families qualify to enter universities.

I'm not in favor of an unjust society, where children born into poverty have little to no hope of climbing out of poverty or poor people don't have basic health care. In the long term that leads to instability and revolution. In order for Canada to remain a just society, wealthy people are going to have to pay more taxes in order to fund basic services for poor people.

I don't see a problem with paying taxes as long as that money is well administered. I'm in favor of eliminating waste, inefficiency and corruption as a way to decrease taxes, not cutting basic services which make Canada a just society.

The right wing conservative agenda would lead Canada down a path where we would be more like the US. Eventually we'd have the same problems regarding extreme poverty and crime, while the wealthy elite surround themselves with walls. There is a reason why Canada's worst neighborhoods are far safer than the worst neighborhoods in the US. It all comes back to higher taxes, better services and as a result fewer desperately poor people.

 

[taxslave]

Sure Chrétien did a stellar job, VanIsle. And some in the West may not agree, but by and large, Canadians do agree, they gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberals were on track to win another majority until the sponsorship scandal came along.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Sir Joe, Canadians did not give Creten back to back majorities. Ontario and Quebec did. Look at how few seats the liberals got in most of Canada. We couldn't wait to get rid of the lying thief. It is only because our electorial system is rigged on population instead of area that there are so many seats in Quebec and Ontario

 

[Liberalman]

I conducted a poll in Alberta last night and out of twenty-five people the majority of them said that the Conservatives is not their choice because they never kept their promises

 

[AnnaG]

I conducted a poll in Alberta last night and out of twenty-five people the majority of them said that the Conservatives is not their choice because they never kept their promises

roflmao
If promises are what those people hinge their voting on, then they must be constantly disappointed by politics in this country.

 

[GreenFish66]

There is no need for an election as much as politicians try to stir one up.!..It would be useless ..

 

[Goober]

Blessed be the peacemaker – or in this case Show me the money would be appropriate for Taliban Jack, AKA The Mustache that grew an ass. Would that qualify as a new species I wonder – If so I claim naming rights as per custom.
NDP Leader ratchets down election rhetoric with soothing words about making Parliament work
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/layton-strikes-conciliatory-tone-amid-looming-showdown/article1285726/

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Just because most people think something is right, doesn't make it right.

It does in a democracy when it comes to politics, Anna. In politics, if people think that somebody is a good leader, then he is a good leader. People expressed their opinion of Chrétien by giving him three back to back majorities. They expressed their opinion of Mulroney when they gave PC party two seats.

If he isn't an outright crook he has the attitude of one.

Now here you may have something, he was a mean street fighter. He fought dirty and he fought to win. Harper has some of that, without possessing the charisma and peoples skill that Chrétien possessed.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So you spent all your research in one forum and now can only post unsubstantiated opinion?

There is no need to reproduce it here Anna, it is easy enough to do the research. Scan the web for anything, life expectancy, personal income, infant mortality, child poverty etc., compare the numbers for 1993 and 2005 (beginning and end of Liberal rule). You will see a substantial improvement in almost every indicator.