PunBB

Sam Wrote:Harper won't be able to attend a barbeque without being blamed for global warming, mad cow and the hideous practice of wearing of socks with sandals.

Haha, that one's my favourite.

a man that wears socks with sandals is not fit to lead the nation...

Stephen Harper wears sandals.

With socks.

At barbecues.

In our cities.

We're not making this up. We're not allowed to make stuff up.

Especially about socks and sandals.

Choose your Canada.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Stephen Harper wears sandals.

With socks.

At barbecues.

In our cities.

We're not making this up. We're not allowed to make stuff up.

Especially about socks and sandals.

Choose your Canada.

love it!! :thumb:

speaking of socks, i think Ed The Sock should run for PM.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Stephen Harper wears sandals.

With socks.

At barbecues.

In our cities.

We're not making this up. We're not allowed to make stuff up.

Especially about socks and sandals.

Choose your Canada.

Because socks with sandals makes George Bush smile. Do you want to make George Bush smile? We didn't think so.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

das_hips Wrote:While not as drastic a deficit as the NDP would provide....

Considering that the Conservative platform, as released so far, is more expensive than the NDP platform, I don't know whether you pulled that out of your ass or out of thin air.

Gotta love people who decide how to vote based on fabrications and prejudice ... three cheers for democracy!

Can you show me where you got the numbers to show that the Conservative platform is more expensive?

It's opposite from what I've read.

Quote:NDP: tax cuts $40.8 billion ($17.3 billion of that is its proposed new child-tax credit) and $30.8 billion in promised spending for a total of $71.6 billion over five years.

Conservatives: tax cuts $58.4 billion (at least $31.7 billion of that is the promise to cut the GST by one and ultimately two percentage points within five years) and $7.1 billion in spending for a total of $65.5 billion.

Liberals: tax cuts $33.4 billion and $26 billion in spending for a total of $59.4 billion. (This total doesn't yet include the just promised 50/50 sharing of some undergrad tuition to kick in a few years down the road; the party hasn't fully explained yet whether this is new money or a repackaging of what was promised in November.)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/taxcuts.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/taxcuts.html</a><!-- m -->

My post was based on an older comparison, which had the Conservatives leading the pack.

Be that as it may, the difference is pretty small. Hardly "drastic."

I didn't state that the $6 Billion difference between the NDP and Conservative platforms is drastic. The NDP putting the country into a deficit of $17 Billion over five years is a fairly hefty chunk of change to throw on top of the already existing $500 Billion dollar debt and should be considered the wrong approach to take when the Liberals have made successive payments towards national debt of about $71 Billion since 1996.

das_hips Wrote:The Conservative ads to date have been nothing but recycled headline negativity. One ad by the Conservatives even includes the punch-line: 'PM plans Negative Campaign'...

As far as I can tell, all of the Liberal ads up to date have been extremely positive, with a few pointing out the differences between the Conservatives and Liberals values with a minor shot at Jack Layton by the Health Minister, but ALL Conservative and NDP ads have been negative towards the Liberals.

And Paul Martin was exonerated from the adscam, yet the Conservatives have several ads painting him as a mastermind criminal. They claim Canadians are saving less, which isn't due to any Liberal influence, and that we are paying higher taxes, which isn't true either...

On top of their piss-poor TV spots which are just irritating at best, they point out supposed Liberal flaws in industries that they have no intention of repairing... but instead destroying...

I was hoping for another Liberal minority government, or better, but in light of recent polls, I'll give the Conservatives six months in power before they fall. Their only hope to completely restructure Canada's social policy and align it with a true Conservative agenda is to win a majority government, which is seemingly unlikely...

The Liberals mismanaged $100 Million of taxpayers money in the Sponsor Ship Scandal, but good ol' Harper just cost taxpayers $400 Million by calling an election that will provide a short lived government.

The Conservatives criticize Paul Martin for cutting transfers to health care, but realistically paying down the debt saved the government billions per year in interest payments. It doesn't take an economical genius to understand that paying off your debt is better than investment after a cost/benefit analysis.

And Stephen Harper's proposals are just ridiculous. Based on his proposals, this country will again dive into a deficit. While not as drastic a deficit as the NDP would provide, the Conservatives will overcome Canada's expected surpluses by about $10 Billion in five years. Most of that, of course, is due to his GST reduction ($32 Billion), which really does benefit the higher income demographic in this country. Even you Conservative supporters have to agree with that. The Liberals would essentially meet the expected surpluses, while putting about $19 Billion more into social causes, while offering a more broad tax cut.

But to coin some phrases from previous posts by Conservative supporters (most of which were lost in the forum crash), I'm only voting for the Liberals because I'm scared of Stephen Harper, I've been brainwashed by the Liberals, and a vote for the Liberals is a vote for corruption...

If you think the Liberals' campaign has been "extremely positive"... then I guess you haven't seen the new batch of attack ads, which are puerile, vicious, and attempt to do little more then smear Stephen Harper. And Paul Martin said in the debates he wanted to see more civility injected into the campaign? Puh-leeze.

The Conservative ads, while definitely on the amateurish side in terms of production values, point out the positive things the Conservatives will do, and where they criticize the Liberals, it is based on facts (i.e. their various scandals, negative campaigning, etc.).

I'd like to know which industries the Conservatives are intent on destroying, because I've heard absolutely NOTHING about anything of the sort. Methinks you've pulled that out of your, uh, posterior... kind of like Martin did with that ridiculous notwithstanding clause thing.

Also, should let you know the Liberals wasted MUCH more than $100M on the sponsorship scandal. Nevermind how much they've wasted on their various other scandals (Options Canada, HRDC $1B boondoggle from some years back, etc.).

And I seriously disagree with your notion that the Conservative proposals will put Canada into deficit. You're drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid on that one. The Liberals are fudging the numbers... they are laying their own fiscal platform on top of the Tories to make it look like a deficit will result... this has been refuted by the Tories, and the numbers have been confirmed by the Conference Board of Canada. And in regards to the GST, perhaps in dollar terms it benefits the rich... but in terms of percentage of income it benefits the poor much more, and this is important because the poor spend more of their total income than the rich do, so a GST cut puts real money in the hands of the poor that the Liberals refuse to do.

Finally... I'm sure the majority of Liberal supporters don't plan to vote for them thinking, "Yes, I support corruption and enjoy being brainwashed by my Liberal masters" (though I will argue that a large number of people planning to vote Liberal really are scared of Stephen Harper, which is ridiculous). However, that is EXACTLY what the end result will be. The fact is (to use a Martin-ism), the Liberals are tired, corrupt, and have failed to deliver on their promises for the last 12-13 years (I love how Martin says that so many things are his highest priorities... well geez, what the hell have you guys been doing the last 12 years that you didn't do this stuff before????). Now that they realize they will likely lose, they are unleashing hell with these vicious attack ads, living down once again to the Liberals' unofficial slogan... "Get power at all costs, keep power at all costs".

j-monster Wrote:If you think the Liberals' campaign has been "extremely positive"... then I guess you haven't seen the new batch of attack ads, which are puerile, vicious, and attempt to do little more then smear Stephen Harper. And Paul Martin said in the debates he wanted to see more civility injected into the campaign? Puh-leeze.

The Conservative ads, while definitely on the amateurish side in terms of production values, point out the positive things the Conservatives will do, and where they criticize the Liberals, it is based on facts (i.e. their various scandals, negative campaigning, etc.).

I did say 'up-to-date', implying that everything up to the current negative ads had been positive. The Conservatives ads are based on facts? Well, as far as I can tell, factually, of course, Paul Martin was exonerated by Judge Gomery, yet several ads paint the Prime Minister as a criminal master-mind who developed the entire scandal for personal gains. While it did benefit the Liberal party, Paul Martin was not at all involved. He allocates funds to various departments, if they're spent inappropriately it doesn't fall on his back. We're talking about 0.20% of the Finance Minister's budget.

I can point you to a few Conservative ads which are based on either inaccuracy, blatant lies, or actual truths that are in no way the result of the Liberals. And the current Liberal ads are definitely part of a smear campaign, but all are based on actual quotes. Although many of them occurred ten years ago, Stephen Harper still spoke the words, and even if I supported the Conservatives, I would still be disgusted at the things he said.

j-monster Wrote:I'd like to know which industries the Conservatives are intent on destroying, because I've heard absolutely NOTHING about anything of the sort. Methinks you've pulled that out of your, uh, posterior... kind of like Martin did with that ridiculous notwithstanding clause thing.

Stephen Harper's platform will destory public child-care. He's made it quite clear himself that he will not endorse the current child-care system that has been implemented by the Liberals, and he's shown little or no interest in the environment. While health care isn't a big topic in this election, Harper provides that their is a definitive role for private health care. Paul Martin has made similar acknowledgements, but on the basis of private health clinics acting as a contingency plan.

j-monster Wrote:Also, should let you know the Liberals wasted MUCH more than $100M on the sponsorship scandal. Nevermind how much they've wasted on their various other scandals (Options Canada, HRDC $1B boondoggle from some years back, etc.).

Actually, the Liberals put $100 million towards Liberal friendly firms. While more was spent on the end cause, the majority of the funds were used appropriately. The Options Canada scandal is (to steal a Duceppe line) not directly related to the Liberal party, the Conservatives were involved too.

j-monster Wrote:And I seriously disagree with your notion that the Conservative proposals will put Canada into deficit. You're drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid on that one. The Liberals are fudging the numbers... they are laying their own fiscal platform on top of the Tories to make it look like a deficit will result... this has been refuted by the Tories, and the numbers have been confirmed by the Conference Board of Canada. And in regards to the GST, perhaps in dollar terms it benefits the rich... but in terms of percentage of income it benefits the poor much more, and this is important because the poor spend more of their total income than the rich do, so a GST cut puts real money in the hands of the poor that the Liberals refuse to do.

The Federal Finance Department, as well as most economists agree that Canada's expected surpluses will total $55 Billion over the next five years. If the Conservatives spend more than that they will create a deficit, with a progressive effect. Just like my credit card balance, the country's debt is subject to interest. And while the GST cut will benefit more people than any Liberal tax cut on the basis that everybody is subject to GST and pays it at some time in a fiscal year, the Liberal tax cuts will undoubtedly benefit people in the lower-middle income tax bracket more. Somebody with a low income who pays their residential rent, buys basic groceries, and pays for their prescription drugs will not see any benefit, as these basic necessities we associate with every Canadian citizen aren't subject to the GST anyways. Somebody with $50,000 in disposable income will see a much greater benefit from a GST cut than the Liberals' tax cuts. Somebody, like myself, with about $15,000 in income and tuition to pay will benefit more greatly from a Basic Exemption amount increase of $500, and the lowest income tax bracket dropping by 1% (in which about half my income falls).

j-monster Wrote:Finally... I'm sure the majority of Liberal supporters don't plan to vote for them thinking, "Yes, I support corruption and enjoy being brainwashed by my Liberal masters" (though I will argue that a large number of people planning to vote Liberal really are scared of Stephen Harper, which is ridiculous). However, that is EXACTLY what the end result will be. The fact is (to use a Martin-ism), the Liberals are tired, corrupt, and have failed to deliver on their promises for the last 12-13 years (I love how Martin says that so many things are his highest priorities... well geez, what the hell have you guys been doing the last 12 years that you didn't do this stuff before????). Now that they realize they will likely lose, they are unleashing hell with these vicious attack ads, living down once again to the Liberals' unofficial slogan... "Get power at all costs, keep power at all costs".

I find it ridiculous that you think Liberal supporters have to be nieve, forgiving of corruption, or terrified of Stephen Harper. Not only does Stephen Harper come across as a monotonous and rhetorical mistake for Prime Minister, his policies don't appeal to me at all. The sudden shift of support for the Conservatives is not because of their appeal in any sense, it's because of the consistently negative headlines that bash the Liberals. The Liberals have made mistakes, there has been corruption within their party and Canadians feel there is a need for change. While I accept that, and am moderately tolerant to the 'new' centrist Conservative government, I ultimately feel that the Liberals are the party with the best vision. But Conservative governments of past have racked of deficit, and broken more promises than Paul Martin as the Prime Minister has. As long as the Conservatives only win a minority, I'm comfortable with them staying in power for the next six months.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Stephen Harper wears sandals.

With socks.

At barbecues.

In our cities.

We're not making this up. We're not allowed to make stuff up.

Especially about socks and sandals.

Choose your Canada.

:lol: , can't believe all the negative adds lately. They are getting personal. The only problem is that you can't attack Harper personally because he doesn't have one...

das_hips Wrote:The Conservatives ads are based on facts? Well, as far as I can tell, factually, of course, Paul Martin was exonerated by Judge Gomery,

Factually speaking, he set the terms of reference for the inquiry so that looking into his own contracting with Earnscliffe was out of scope.

I mean, if we want to stick with facts.

das_hips Wrote:He allocates funds to various departments, if they're spent inappropriately it doesn't fall on his back. We're talking about 0.20% of the Finance Minister's budget.

He was the Finance Minister. His responsibilities include making sure that controls are in place. He failed to do so.

Factually speaking.

das_hips Wrote:And the current Liberal ads are definitely part of a smear campaign, but all are based on actual quotes.

Would you care to comment on the ad that suggests Harper's leadership bid was funded by American conservatives, and the evidence on which it was based? That was an actual quote?

das_hips Wrote:Paul Martin has made similar acknowledgements, but on the basis of private health clinics acting as a contingency plan.

Paul Martin's platform, as released, explicitly allows room for the growth of private health care as more than a contingency plan. Perhaps you should read it.

das_hips Wrote:Not only does Stephen Harper come across as a monotonous and rhetorical mistake for Prime Minister....

Stephen Harper is a rhetorical mistake? What does that mean? That his parents debated using a condom, and his birth was the result of a bad line of argument?

das_hips Wrote:I ultimately feel that the Liberals are the party with the best vision.

What vision is that?

Would that be protecting public health care by gutting its funding, refusing to enforce the Canada Health Act, and refusing to shut the door on creeping privatization?

Would that be supporting, and then opposing, the invasion of Iraq?

Would that be supporting, and then opposing, ballistic missile defence?

Would that be opposing, and then supporting same sex marriage?

Would that be supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect minority rights, and then proposing to scrap it?

I'm sorry, the vision was what, again?

Paul Martin is so bereft of vision that he needs a whole pack of seeing eye dogs just to find his way to the bathroom each morning.

Paul Martin's sole vision is to balance the books. He's a glorified accountant.

das_hips Wrote:The NDP putting the country into a deficit of $17 Billion over five years is a fairly hefty chunk of change.....

Source? Please note that NDP promises do not exceed Liberal promises by that figure. Are the Liberals planning to run a deficit?

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Factually speaking, he set the terms of reference for the inquiry so that looking into his own contracting with Earnscliffe was out of scope.
I mean, if we want to stick with facts.

Factually speaking, the Earnscliffe contracting was part of the inquiry. Kinsella is a Chretien devout filled with hatrid towards Martin. He also spoke at the Gomery inquiry and couldn't provide any evidence whatsoever that anything inappropriate happened with Earnscliffe. When called upon by Gomery, he bailed, and later claimed that Gomery lied about testimony and created false evidence to exonerate Martin.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:He was the Finance Minister. His responsibilities include making sure that controls are in place. He failed to do so. Factually speaking.

So it's the Finance Minister's job to babysit every department under the Government of Canada to ensure that no funding is being misused? Paul Martin may have allocated $250 million to promote federalism in Quebec, but if that money is wasted by members of parliament with a different agenda, I fail to see how it is the fault of the Finance Minister. There is no tangible result from promoting federalism in Quebec, money is spent and services are expected to be provided.
Do you honestly believe Paul Martin knew about the the abuse of Federal Funds?

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Would you care to comment on the ad that suggests Harper's leadership bid was funded by American conservatives, and the evidence on which it was based? That was an actual quote?

I don't fully understand that Liberal ad. I'm not entirely sure how the Canada Elections Act works for registered parties, as opposed to candidates. Under the CEA, candidates have to reveal donor information; Stephen Harper received $50,000 in contributions for his riding of Calgary South-West in 2004. I'm unsure if donations have to be revealed for registered parties as a whole, but either way I admit it's a bit absurd to insinuate that right-wing American organizations contributed to his campaign, but the Bloc, Liberals and NDP are all under the impression that he hasn't released his list of donors.

While the 'contribution' ad is a bit controversial, I was more amused by comments like:
"Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status",
"The Western ridings that Liberals hold are dominated by either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada... people who live in ghettos", and
"Your (U.S.) conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world"

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Paul Martin's platform, as released, explicitly allows room for the growth of private health care as more than a contingency plan. Perhaps you should read it.

Impeding the progress of private health clinics in Canada is a waste of effort. These clinics already operate in Quebec, Toronto and Vancouver (with one expected to open in Ottawa this summer), the Liberal party won't fund private health clinics.

das_hips Wrote:Not only does Stephen Harper come across as a monotonous and rhetorical mistake for Prime Minister....

Skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Stephen Harper is a rhetorical mistake? What does that mean? That his parents debated using a condom, and his birth was the result of a bad line of argument?

Perhaps...

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:What vision is that?
Would that be protecting public health care by gutting its funding, refusing to enforce the Canada Health Act, and refusing to shut the door on creeping privatization?
Would that be supporting, and then opposing, the invasion of Iraq?
Would that be supporting, and then opposing, ballistic missile defence?
Would that be opposing, and then supporting same sex marriage?
Would that be supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect minority rights, and then proposing to scrap it?
I'm sorry, the vision was what, again?

Paul Martin is so bereft of vision that he needs a whole pack of seeing eye dogs just to find his way to the bathroom each morning.

Martin did flip-flop on the same-sex marriage issue in the late '90s, but sided with it's acceptance last year, as many Canadians did as well. Martin always opposed the invasion of Iraq, and claiming he supported ballistic missile defence is a bit misleading. He opened up the possibility of discussion after becoming Prime Minister, but the general consensus from the Canadian public was to decline involvement. And thats what he did. Does that make him a bad leader?

The Liberals vision is just as accessible as any of the other parties. Unless you received a story-book outline from the NDP, analyzing the parties platforms is as much of vision as you'll get.

The Liberals have paid off debt. The Liberals will invest more in social programs than the Conservatives. Everything thats happened in this country has been nothing but positive in the last ten years. The value of our dollar, the low inflation, the unemployment, our expansion in trade with South-East Asia. Only health care has suffered in this country, and while I acknowledge that, I'd much rather prefer the Liberals to apply their approach than the Conservatives.

I really don't want a change, and I can't completely understand why most Canadians do.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Paul Martin's sole vision is to balance the books. He's a glorified accountant.

I'm not sure if that's a shot at Paul Martin, but either way Canada has reduced it's debt more substantially than any other country in the world. I suppose thats a bad thing?