Tories keep chugging along?

[crit13]

The Conservatives – under Stephen Harper – would form a minority government, ending more than 12 years of Liberal rule.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/conservativeparty/

Yeah. He sure knows his stuff.

 

[BitWhys]

Are you kidding me? What happened during the 10 plus years the Liberals had a majority government?...

Martin put a lot of **** on hold long enough for our economy to pull our asses out of the fiscal can and caught nothing but grief out the minimalist official opposition for not doing anything. The shallowness of the victory is overshadowed mostly by the irony of the criticism.

update
34 C -31 L -15 NDP-11G-7 BQ
plus or minus 3.1
today, its a horse race
you're move, Steve.

 

[crit13]

Ahh yes. Play the victim card for a party that had 10 years of majority rule plus another 2 plus years of minority.
As for the election, I say bring it.
The Liberals had a 5 point lead going into the last election and still lost. Now they are at the starting line 3 to 9 points behind depending on which poll you read last.
Dion is a weak leader.
The LP of C is just over broke.
Liberal MP's are scurrying to get off the sinking ship.
Adscam is front page news again.
Ziccardeli was Chretiens buddy.
The Liberal party has already conceded ridings in NS as a lost cause.
Dion has to allign himself with others in a desperate attempt to grab votes.


I can't wait to see the backstabbing that will go on within Liberal quarters during the next election.

 

[Tonington]

The liberals conceded one seat in NS, where they have been historical no shows, as far back as I can remember anyways. Some older posters here might be able to clarify that further back before my time. The Liberal party does quite well in the Atlantic Provinces.

And Bit wasn't playing the victim card, just using a shade of grey lost in these black and white Lib-Con threads.

 

[BitWhys]

...And Bit wasn't playing the victim card, just using a shade of grey lost in these black and white Lib-Con threads.

awww that's ok. his crack about backstabbing has me in stitches.

 

[ottawa224]

Go to elections Canada!
You stated that the liberals had a majority in the house for 13 years. Now you are trying to correct yourself by saying they ruled for 13 years. There is a difference!
You do not know the difference between a minority and majority in the house of commons or you are illiterate.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html

The Conservatives – under Stephen Harper – would form a minority government, ending more than 12 years of Liberal rule.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/conservativeparty/

Yeah. He sure knows his stuff.

 

[crit13]

This is getting tiring. Read my posts more carefully.
The Liberals were in power for almost 13 years of which 10 of them were as a majority.
For anyone to claim that they didn't get a chance to get things done because of the opposition is nothing short of insanity.

 

[ottawa224]

This is getting tiring. Read my posts more carefully.
The Liberals were in power for almost 13 years of which 10 of them were as a majority.
For anyone to claim that they didn't get a chance to get things done because of the opposition is nothing short of insanity.

I do not think thats what Gengap is stating. The last 3 years of the house, the opposition delayed many bills in the house out of pettiness and not looking out for the best interests of all Canadians. I watched CPAC has Members of the opposition, answered questions with questions and screamed and name called and the chair had to call them to order. It is the role of the opposition to oppose, not to make false accusations, name call, and speak off topic while bills are trying to heard on in the house. I think they should be fined out of their MP salaries and the money go back to the tax payers.

 

[ottawa224]

Yes, Under the Chretein Government, Martin was great.

Martin put a lot of **** on hold long enough for our economy to pull our asses out of the fiscal can and caught nothing but grief out the minimalist official opposition for not doing anything. The shallowness of the victory is overshadowed mostly by the irony of the criticism.

update
34 C -31 L -15 NDP-11G-7 BQ
plus or minus 3.1
today, its a horse race
you're move, Steve.

 

[crit13]

I do not think thats what Gengap is stating. The last 3 years of the house, the opposition delayed many bills in the house out of pettiness and not looking out for the best interests of all Canadians. I watched CPAC has Members of the opposition, answered questions with questions and screamed and name called and the chair had to call them to order. It is the role of the opposition to oppose, not to make false accusations, name call, and speak off topic while bills are trying to heard on in the house. I think they should be fined out of their MP salaries and the money go back to the tax payers.

Even if that were true. (Don't forget the Conservatives have a minority) That still does not refute my list of points.

The Liberals promised many things during their MAJORITY that never materialized.
Health Care
Child Care
GST
Fiscal Imbalance
All of the above were not issues that came up durin their last 2 years in power. These were things they were working on for over a decade as a majority!
Child care for instance was promised in 4 different federal elections by the Liberals, yet nothing.

 

[BitWhys]

Yes, Under the Chretein Government, Martin was great.

I also got the impression he was also pretty good at handling the international scene. At least he didn't have to fax Washington to get his policy proofread every time the Middle East turned a new twist. He definitely needed to poke more opponents in the eye domestically, though. That was part of the crocodile's charm.

 

[SVMc]

I think like a growing number of Canadian I am hoping for another minority government. Beyond that I'm hoping for a new voting system. MMP would be the preferred system I'd like to see as it maintains constitual candidates while allowing for a proportional balance, and allows for open viewing of the lists by the electorate.

We are electing our politicians to represent each of us, as the entire Canadian public, not to have one minority segment of the population shove it's viewpoints down the throats of the majority who voted for another party. I find it increasingly hard to unilaterally support any one party based on their platform, and even harder based on their actions. If government is forced to work together as they are in a minority government, sure no one brand gets to run away with thier own branded vision, but in exchange they should be using our tax dollars to reach real decisions that are representative of multiple views. After all shouldn't professional politicians have negotiating as one of their top skill sets?

 

[Niflmir]

Even if that were true. (Don't forget the Conservatives have a minority) That still does not refute my list of points.

The Liberals promised many things during their MAJORITY that never materialized.
Health Care
Child Care
GST
Fiscal Imbalance
All of the above were not issues that came up durin their last 2 years in power. These were things they were working on for over a decade as a majority!
Child care for instance was promised in 4 different federal elections by the Liberals, yet nothing.

That's a really vacuous statement. They promised to give us health care? We already had it. What exactly did they promise and not deliver on? Seems to me they increased the rebates I received on the GST. They were also running a surplus majority of the years they were in power, so by fiscal imbalance do you mean the debt? Because I seem to recall it shrinking for the past decade. Or do you mean what the current government means:

QUOTE]There’s been a lot of talk about fiscal balance...But what is it really all about? It’s about better roads and renewed public transit. Better health care. Better-equipped universities. Cleaner oceans, rivers, lakes and air. Training to help Canadians get the skills they need. It’s about building a better future for our country. And that means getting adequate funding to provincial and territorial governments…[/QUOTE] Flaherty

Which isn't at all what I think when I hear the words "fiscal balance." Of course, I am all for a certain amount of decentralization. How about less vagueness and more information?

Currently, the Conservative government has slated a flat decrease in corporate tax rates (from 21% to 19%). Meanwhile, ordinary citizens get handouts only if they have some specific family status deemed to make them worthy. The senate reform bill has stalled in the senate where they "embrace change, but not in this piecemeal fashion."

On the environment:

The Liberal green plan was a huge public policy initiative and it took great effort and concentration to ensure that it was structured properly.

Meanwhile,

The Harper government cancelled the Project Green initiatives, which were determined to be very efficient, far more efficient than the famous transit bus pass initiative. The new government had no basis upon which to make its assessment of these plans and to conclude that nothing was done. I had the opportunity to question in committee the former Minister of the Environment in the Harper government, Ms. Ambrose. She stated that the green plan was cancelled because it was inefficient.

So presumably she contacted some environmentalists and studied the Green plan to determine that, right?

Ms. Ambrose's answer to me in a public forum was revealing. She began her answer in the standard Conservative way, that is, to attack, and one of her conclusions was that the Liberals had done nothing. She then finished her statements, and this probably contributed to the finishing of her career in that portfolio, by saying that 'I have to tell you that there has not been a single review, not a single study, of any environmental program in this government ever.' There was a huge thud.

Ouch. Keep in mind that Dion "consulted with businesses and the provinces, so that when the plan materialized, it would have some fundamental credibility." Things shouldn't be cancelled just because of ideological bias.


On the other hand, the government voluntarily passed legislation outlining their own behaviour. The accountability act. It is unfortunate that the same bill creates even more bureaucracy in the forms of extra departments and more red tape. It remains to be seen how well adding extra departments will increase the overall transparency of the government, which is the intent of the bill. That at least is noble.

They increased the age of consent, which at 14, was a little too low in my opinion. Unfortunately they also increased the minimum sentence on some drug related charges, which all the current trends point to as being regressive. Prohibition was responsible for the creation and the strength of the mafia, the current criminalisation of marijuana is responsible for the continuing power of many criminal organizations.

I voted for the conservatives, even though I am a rights proponent. They promised to do some things which I thought were steps in the right direction, even though I knew they were harbouring some views that I did not approve of. However, I knew they would have a minority government and I knew that the combined efforts of the Liberal party, the New Democrat party and the Bloc Quebecois would keep them in check. I am a huge fan of the representational government that minority governments achieve, as opposed to the elected oligarchy of a majority government. Next time around I will probably vote for some underdogs, thus showing my support for independent voices. To those who say I am throwing away my vote, the abilene paradox proves that you are throwing away yours!

 

[Tonington]

Meanwhile, on the 'fiscal imbalance' issue, there was lots made of the new formulae for equalization. The Federal Government maintains that the new formulae, whichever the provinces choose will bring more money to the provinces. Here in Nova Scotia, one of the provinces angry with the PM's position, an independant study by an Economics professor at Acadia University has released the conclusions of his calculations on the new system. The result is that by accepting the system we've been offered now, a $1 Billion loss over the next ten years as the new formula claws back at future offshore dollars. Harper actually supported the Atlantic Accord as the opposition and this is a direct contradiction to that accord. So we will get more money now, but the result over the next decade is a net loss. Meanwhile votes are bought with the juicy new dollars sent to Quebec. Seems more like a contribution to future imbalance for the sake of current political favour. Oh Canada.....

 

[crit13]

Tonington.

It is to my understanding that your province has the choice as to which pay scheme they would prefer.

Thus, there would be no loss.

 

[crit13]

They promised to give us health care? We already had it. What exactly did they promise and not deliver on?

They promised to fix health care for a generation. Have you forgotten already?

Fiscal imbalance was created when Martin decided to download billions of the federal governments expenses down onto the provinces such as health care costs. On the surface, creating a surplus looks good, but it doesn't take a genious to balance the books by simply passing on your expenses down to others. Once the defecit was gone, the Liberals continued to pass all those expenses down onto the provinces without compensation. That's why we have a federal government is awash in cash and every province except Alberta drowning in debt.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/patrbe.html

Currently, the Conservative government has slated a flat decrease in corporate tax rates (from 21% to 19%). Meanwhile, ordinary citizens get handouts only if they have some specific family status deemed to make them worthy.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/patrbe.html
I would disagree. For starters, parents with kids are usually the ones that need the assistance the most. I have 2 young children and the costs are enormous. Secondly, they also reduced the GST plus gave seniors the ability to income split which is a huge savings for the elderly.

Ouch. Keep in mind that Dion "consulted with businesses and the provinces, so that when the plan materialized, it would have some fundamental credibility." Things shouldn't be cancelled just because of ideological bias.

The Liberals have zero credibility on the environment no matter what Dion calls his dog. Signing onto Kyoto and then watching our green house gas emmissions rise by 36% over the time frame they were supposed to be reduced is nothing short of an embarrassment. The Liberals should not even be allowed to be in the same room as those that are discussing green initiatives.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.

Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.

They increased the age of consent, which at 14, was a little too low in my opinion. Unfortunately they also increased the minimum sentence on some drug related charges, which all the current trends point to as being regressive. Prohibition was responsible for the creation and the strength of the mafia, the current criminalisation of marijuana is responsible for the continuing power of many criminal organizations.

Pot smokers do get pissed when their illegal habit gets targeted. Pot is an illegal substance. As with any illegal substance, it's subject to our laws.

Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.

 

[Niflmir]

So I ask for less vagueness, provide facts and you respond with more vagueness? Let me outline more clearly what I meant.

They promised to fix health care for a generation. Have you forgotten already?

What did they promise to fix? What exactly is broken about it? Your statement has zero information content and 100% attack content, you even go so far as to attack my memory. I cetainly forgot nothing. For the longest time I have felt that people like to drum up some issue out of nothing on this. Certainly the state of health care can be improved, but it is anything but broken.

Fiscal imbalance was created when Martin decided to download billions of the federal governments expenses down onto the provinces such as health care costs. On the surface, creating a surplus looks good, but it doesn't take a genious to balance the books by simply passing on your expenses down to others. Once the defecit was gone, the Liberals continued to pass all those expenses down onto the provinces without compensation. That's why we have a federal government is awash in cash and every province except Alberta drowning in debt.

How exactly do you back up these claims? A quick look at Budget 2003 shows that $9.5 billion was slated for the province over 3 years. And budget 2006 clearly states that: "The Government is committed to implementing the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care." Which is, you know, a liberal promise. Also they promise $5.5billion to reduce wait times provided from 2004–05 to 2013–14. That was just a quick look.

I would disagree. For starters, parents with kids are usually the ones that need the assistance the most. I have 2 young children and the costs are enormous. Secondly, they also reduced the GST plus gave seniors the ability to income split which is a huge savings for the elderly.

You are aware you are disagreeing with a fact right? Read the budget, I provided the link. I was talking about income tax. Sure it might be that parents with kids (is there another kind) and the elderly are deemed to be the most needy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they aren't really adjusting the federal income tax at all, just fiddling with how the child deductions and age deductions are evaluated. So the fact remains: flat decrease in corporate income tax rates, handouts on an eligibility basis for ordinary citizens. The whole point of that is to entice businesses to set up shop in Canada by giving them tax breaks, which is the conservative view on corporate tax rates.

As for GST, if they forced the taxes to be included in the actual price of goods we purchase it would do far more to satisfy people. Plus a goods and service tax is a far fairer way of the government collecting money than through income tax. I would gladly accept a higher GST for the elimination of the income tax, so long as they don't tax necessities.

The Liberals have zero credibility on the environment no matter what Dion calls his dog. Signing onto Kyoto and then watching our green house gas emmissions rise by 36% over the time frame they were supposed to be reduced is nothing short of an embarrassment. The Liberals should not even be allowed to be in the same room as those that are discussing green initiatives.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.

Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.

The above is a good example of the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. As well as some normal Ad Hominem as well. Also, where are you getting your numbers from, since the official numbers state a 24% raise in Canada and a 13% raise in the USA. Furthermore, as the lesson of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is supposed to teach people, the failure of the liberal government to achieve the Kyoto targets long before the target date says nothing about the plausibility or the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal government's action surely wasn't commendable during that time frame, but they were implementing steps to at least try to meet the Kyoto targets, even if it was a last minute effort. That goes far beyond our current government's disappointing flat out rejection of Kyoto on ideological grounds.

Pot smokers do get pissed when their illegal habit gets targeted. Pot is an illegal substance. As with any illegal substance, it's subject to our laws.

Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.

I don't smoke marijuana as I am one of the small percentage of people that suffer from acute psychotic onset from intake. I think prohibiting marijuana is about as effective as prohibition of alcohol was, and the side effects are showing to be exactly the same. Higher organized crime levels, citizens not respecting the law, police brutality as they are forced to "discipline" people who aren't really hurting anyone, exportation of social problems. It is far better to deal with addiction as a social problem than as a criminal problem. Also, the law can only be used as a tool for reducing the crime rate when it seeks to reduce recidivism. Increasing the minimum sentences accross the board, giving judges less leeway is a move which forces the justice system into a punitive role as opposed to a punitive/rehabilitive one. This will greatly reduce their ability to decrease recidivism and subsequently lead to an increase in crime rates, or an end to the current decrease.

I have shown that your numbers are wrong in one instance. I have asked for less vagueness in your statements and less attacks. I have also asked for more citations on your part. The whole point of citations and clarity is for me, and other readers, to see that you are aware of the contents of things like the budget, that you are aware that the media is a poor source of information for the factual content of government documents and that you at least have some sort of respect for us. Go out, read Budget 2007 and the previous ones if you want to make comparisons. I would look forward to conversing economic policy if you were more likely to make actual references.

 

[crit13]

What did they promise to fix? What exactly is broken about it? Your statement has zero information content and 100% attack content, you even go so far as to attack my memory. I cetainly forgot nothing. For the longest time I have felt that people like to drum up some issue out of nothing on this. Certainly the state of health care can be improved, but it is anything but broken.

I will continue to challenge your memory because it appears that you have either short term or selective memory. "Fixing healthcare for a generation" is not my mantra, but that of the Liberal party. Allow me to jog your memory..........

OTTAWA – Liberal leader Stephane Dion told a town hall meeting in Edmonton last night that Canada's health care system faces a crisis in the next few years (Broadcast News, January 12, 2007). But wait, didn’t Paul Martin and the Liberals claim that they had ‘fixed health care for a generation’ only two years ago?:

• "We're finished with the year-to-year scramble for short-term solutions," he said. "We will provide a fix for a generation." – Paul Martin (Ottawa Citizen, April 17, 2004)
• "Health care is this government's No. 1 priority. We will come to an agreement with the provinces, because we must. We will implement a long-term plan, because we must. And because we must, we will provide a fix for a generation.'' – Paul Martin (Winnipeg Free Press, April 18, 2004)
• “I'm very proud of this reform, and I am going to fight for this reform, and I believe that this is the reform that is going to give us the fix for a generation” – Paul Martin (CBC, The National, May 25, 2004)
• "I believe that this reform is going to give us the fix for a generation," – Paul Martin (Ottawa Sun, May 26, 2004)

Is Stephane Dion saying that Paul Martin wasn’t telling Canadians the truth when he claimed that he had fixed health care “for a generation?
So which is it Niflmir? If it wasn't broken, then how did the Liberals claim to fix it?

How exactly do you back up these claims? A quick look at Budget 2003 shows that $9.5 billion was slated for the province over 3 years. And budget 2006 clearly states that: "The Government is committed to implementing the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care." Which is, you know, a liberal promise. Also they promise $5.5billion to reduce wait times provided from 2004–05 to 2013–14. That was just a quick look.

So what you're saying is that the fiscal imbalance is a myth and that every province in Canada is out to lunch?
Ministers demanded a meeting with federal Finance Minister John Manley to discuss equalization renewal
(06.26.03)

The ministers, during the news conference, painted a verbal picture of a distant and tight-fisted federal government; one that is reluctant to share the wealth and is oblivious to their needs.
http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/vertical_fiscal_imbalance/fiscal_imbalance.html

You are aware you are disagreeing with a fact right? Read the budget, I provided the link. I was talking about income tax. Sure it might be that parents with kids (is there another kind) and the elderly are deemed to be the most needy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they aren't really adjusting the federal income tax at all

As a Liberal I would think that targeted tax cuts to those that need it most would appeal to you as broad based tax cuts would benefit the rich more since they get taxed more. You claim to prefer paying higher GST but fail to recognize that a third of Canadians pay no tax at all whicj means the only way the bottom third of Canadians can get a tax break, would be through the GST.
BTW, there are parents without kids. They would be called adults.

The above is a good example of the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. As well as some normal Ad Hominem as well. Also, where are you getting your numbers from, since the official numbers state a 24% raise in Canada and a 13% raise in the USA. Furthermore, as the lesson of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is supposed to teach people, the failure of the liberal government to achieve the Kyoto targets long before the target date says nothing about the plausibility or the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal government's action surely wasn't commendable during that time frame, but they were implementing steps to at least try to meet the Kyoto targets, even if it was a last minute effort. That goes far beyond our current government's disappointing flat out rejection of Kyoto on ideological grounds.

Excuse me for not having hours to spend researching exact numbers for your convenience. The bottom line is that the Liberals having 13 years of rule did the opposite of helping the environment. Ironically, the country that Liberals love to villify when it comes to everything including the environment did a much better job at reducing GHG. How embarrassing it must be to Liberal supporters that the great Satan Bush turns out to be more green than the Liberal party of Canada.
And don't feed me the old line of the Liberals were getting around to it. That's all they were really good at. Going around talking about "stuff" and signing agreements but when it came to actually doing ANYTHING, they were AWOL.
​

 

[Niflmir]

Honestly Crit, you need to relax. A parent by definition is somebody with a child. You continue to bash my memory even though I never denied that the liberal party promised to "fix health care" and failed, I simply asked you to be less vague about what they actually promised. Saying, "We will fix health care," is something you say to the media because you don't have eight hours to explain all of your policy ideas. I point out that I disagree with the idea that our health care system faces a crisis, I consider every statement involving things like "health care crisis" or "fix health care" to be nothing more than propaganda meant to buy votes. However, I will point out that they did implement a long term plan to, as your quote shows they promised,

"We're finished with the year-to-year scramble for short-term solutions," he said. "We will provide a fix for a generation." – Paul Martin (Ottawa Citizen, April 17, 2004)
"Health care is this government's No. 1 priority. We will come to an agreement with the provinces, because we must. We will implement a long-term plan, because we must. And because we must, we will provide a fix for a generation.'' – Paul Martin (Winnipeg Free Press, April 18, 2004)

then as my quote shows they implements (the conservatives are doing little more than continuing the liberal 10 year plan).

As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."

Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.

Ah, here we are some honesty:

Excuse me for not having hours to spend researching exact numbers for your convenience.

That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best." You readily admit that you don't do research to find out the truth on the claims that you make. I see that you are sticking to your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument in regards to the environment.

Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.

 

[GenGap]

Thats why I made my point and left. It seems he too confrontational and assumes alot of things.

Honestly Crit, you need to relax. A parent by definition is somebody with a child. You continue to bash my memory even though I never denied that the liberal party promised to "fix health care" and failed, I simply asked you to be less vague about what they actually promised. Saying, "We will fix health care," is something you say to the media because you don't have eight hours to explain all of your policy ideas. I point out that I disagree with the idea that our health care system faces a crisis, I consider every statement involving things like "health care crisis" or "fix health care" to be nothing more than propaganda meant to buy votes. However, I will point out that they did implement a long term plan to, as your quote shows they promised,

then as my quote shows they implements (the conservatives are doing little more than continuing the liberal 10 year plan).

As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."

Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.

Ah, here we are some honesty:



That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best." You readily admit that you don't do research to find out the truth on the claims that you make. I see that you are sticking to your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument in regards to the environment.

Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.