If the Conservatives continue the momentum........

[neilson]

......and win the Election with a sizable Minority;

What will you do?

Will you be on here complaining that an Albertan by nature got elected PM?

That the Cons are in power in Ottawa?

That your nation will be GWB's new best friend and we'll see the best Canadian-American Relations in 20 years?

Come on; I've been waiting since May 2004 for a Conservative Gov't; and honestly if this election is the one; then I want to be the 1st to say I finally saw the win I hoped for.

[neilson]

Tories jump into clear lead
Jan. 5, 2006. 05:49 AM
SEAN GORDON
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—The election campaign has taken a dramatic turn, with the opposition Conservatives jumping into their first real lead over the governing Liberals, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Star and La Presse, found that 36.2 per cent of decided voters say they will support the Conservatives, while 30.4 per cent favoured the Liberals.

The NDP is supported by 17.9 per cent of voters, while the Bloc is at 10.4 per cent nationally and the Green party is at 4.7 per cent.

If the numbers hold up, it would mean a Tory minority government.

However, the electorate is still volatile, with 40 per cent of respondents saying they could still change their minds.

Until now, polls have shown the Liberals in the lead or, more recently, the two parties in a virtual tie. The EKOS poll came on the same day an SES poll was released showing the Conservatives leading the Liberals 36 to 33 per cent.

The EKOS poll shows that an effective campaign by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has combined with a renewed focus on Liberal ethics to reverse the position of the two parties.


Results for Ontario and Quebec are eye-catching. In Ontario, where the Liberals have always enjoyed a big lead, a real dogfight has now emerged, with the Liberals at 38.5 per cent support and the Tories at 35.3.

In Quebec, where Harper has spent an unusual amount of time, the two parties are in almost a dead heat with the Liberals at 21.9 per cent and the Conservatives at 20.2. The Bloc Québécois is well ahead at 43.8, but the increased Tory support has come at the Bloc's expense. The shift shows Quebec voters are eyeing a federalist alternative other than the Liberals.

The poll will be a dispiriting blow to the Liberals, who have to rally their troops for the final push to the Jan. 23 vote.

But it will also hold dangers for the Tories, making them a target in a way they've escaped so far.

Many Tories are privately cringing at the prospect of peaking too early, as seemed to be the case in the 2004 campaign.

"It would be better not to be the target this early," said one senior Tory.

That danger was illustrated last night when NDP Leader Jack Layton lashed out at Harper, saying a Harper government would wreak havoc on the Canadian federation and team with Quebec separatists in a destabilizing move for the country.

"The Conservatives want to dismantle the Canadian state. So does the Bloc," Layton told reporters on his campaign plane.

The poll suggests that Canadians are looking at Harper in a new light, said Frank Graves, president of EKOS.

The trend is so bad for the Liberals that Harper has overtaken Prime Minister Paul Martin — 28 per cent to 25 per cent — as the leader respondents say is doing the best job of articulating a positive vision for Canada.

"I think we're seeing the lagged effects of a continued set of announcements that say `Here's exactly what I'm going to do. There's no hidden agenda here. Here it is. You may not agree with it, but there's nothing hidden about it,'" Graves said. "And so he's gone from having a major disadvantage with Martin on who has a positive vision for the country to actually having a modest advantage."

The Tory campaign has tried hard to strike a measured tone and shed the image from the 2004 campaign that Harper is a shrill ideologue who isn't ready for the country's highest office.

Graves said part of the explanation for the Tory resurgence lies in the renewed focus on ethics after revelations the RCMP is probing opposition allegations of insider trading resulting from information leaks from government officials.

"I think it's really produced some fertile ground for (the opposition) ... not only do people want a change, now they're willing to consider Harper in terms of what specifically change would mean with him," said Graves, who cautioned there remains "a lot of fluidity" in the electorate and "this thing is still very much up in the air."

The survey includes results from two days of polling, and is considered accurate to plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Ten per cent of respondents said they are still undecided.

The results suggest that Harper's largely positive press in the early going — driven by daily policy announcements and largely reactive Liberal and NDP campaigns — is beginning to sink in with voters.

Support has melted away from the governing Liberals over the last 10 days, and in a way that is likely to demoralize the Liberal campaign.

The RCMP probe also risks tarnishing the reputation of Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, the one cabinet minister who was praised by Justice John Gomery in his initial report into the sponsorship scandal.

The NDP's numbers, meanwhile, have stalled and the idea that many of its voters could migrate to the Liberals if a Tory victory seems apparent is a paramount concern.

While the party is seeing gains in some parts of the country, the NDP vote is fragmenting in British Columbia, and voters are showing a "fragile" attachment to Layton.

The poll showed that the NDP risks being squeezed out by the dogfight between the Liberals and Tories, and getting noticed is exactly the aim of two bold ads the NDP started running on television last night.

"There's lots of noise in election campaigns," said NDP strategist Brad Lavigne. "And to be effective in getting your message to the electorate you've got to punch through."

In one ad, a money-filled bag, marked Liberal, drops from the sky. The ad goes on to highlight the NDP's familiar accusations of Liberal corruption and large corporate "tax giveaways."

The poll's regional breakdowns, which have a higher margin of error, offer a glimpse into a shifting situation in British Columbia and Quebec.

In B.C., the Tories, at 46.5 per cent, are gaining at the expense of both the Liberals and the NDP, who both have around 23 per cent support.

And in Quebec, the poll showed a startling rise in fortunes for Harper, who has been busily announcing a series of Quebec-friendly policies in recent weeks while playing down his opposition to same-sex marriage and to the Kyoto accord on climate change, both of which draw support in the province.

If the numbers hold, they would suggest that Bloc support is soft and that Harper is succeeding in convincing Quebecers his party is a worthwhile federalist alternative.

The poll also revealed that women are increasingly supporting the Tories, and that older voters are leaning Conservative while younger voters simply aren't paying attention.

"The under-45 population, by opting out, may well inherit a government that will have an agenda, values, interests on issues from same-sex (marriage) to pluralism, to the military, to health care versus education and so forth, that may not be particularly resonant with their values and interests," Graves said.

with files from Andrew Mills and Bruce Campion-Smith

[mattpiloto]

The conservatives are certainly sticking it to old Paulie and his gang. While it seems eerily like last election, the CPC is putting on a real good show this time. I don't think they'll be screwing around like last time. And with scandal after scandal being released, the Liberals are in very hot water indeed. If they get in again, we'll be the laughing stock of the world...

[Ziggy007]

My god I don't even want to think about worst case scenario. I would rather have the guy from my local Mac's milk be PM before Harper...

[SergesPlace]

My god I don't even want to think about worst case scenario. I would rather have the guy from my local Mac's milk be PM before Harper...
Harper makes Mulruney look good :lol:

[tigrbalm]

I would pack my bags and leave this country

I dont want to live in a Country ruled by a party that wants us to become like the evil ones down south.

Give Harper and his minions 3 years and we will have a police state.

[devious9191]

I would pack my bags and leave this country

I dont want to live in a Country ruled by a party that wants us to become like the evil ones down south.

Give Harper and his minions 3 years and we will have a police state.

Mr. and Mrs. Creba might prefer that.

[rdtx2002]

the Cons have taken the 'Liberal-lite' approach...

[Freak]

Mr. and Mrs. Creba might prefer that.
That is probbaly true. Although that will not bring back their daugther. Anyways, we all know what is going to happen...no matter what the opinion polls say we know that the Liberals will win a minority government.

I was reading the paper today and I was laughing at how ALL of the parties are trying to win votes at the moment by introducing a "tough on crime" policy...what a joke? Do any of you buy it? They are just saying what they think the people want to hear in order to get voted in...then they do whatever the f*** they want...

P.S. I'm still voting NDP...I certainly don't want to be a person who voted Liberal or Conservative 6 months from now when everyone is complaining about who "we" elected.

Freak

[Shaner]

For the first time in a long time, I care greatly about which party gets elected. I usually don't care as they are all the same, but if I have to endure another 4 years of Liberal uselessness, I think I will puke.

I find it pathetic that the Liberals are throwing out all these promises to fix healthcare, fix education, get tough on crime, provide day care funding, etc, etc, etc. The Liberals have been in power for the past 12 years, why haven't they done those things already?

Do they need to wait until they have serious competition before they start taking their position seriously?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who votes Liberal doesn't give a damn about this country. The Liberals have destroyed the foundation of this country over the last 12 years, and now they expect to be re-elected so they can fix it? That's not right. Maybe they shouldn't have let the healthcare system fall apart in the first place and we wouldn't have spend billions fixing it up.

[gman]

If C does not do anything really stupid, I will vote for them. That is if Harper can keep his mouth shut (not saying something stupid), he will have my vote.

Liberals is doing all sort of small stupid things like C did in the previous elections.

[devious9191]

That is probbaly true. Although that will not bring back their daugther. Anyways, we all know what is going to happen...no matter what the opinion polls say we know that the Liberals will win a minority government.

I was reading the paper today and I was laughing at how ALL of the parties are trying to win votes at the moment by introducing a "tough on crime" policy...what a joke? Do any of you buy it? They are just saying what they think the people want to hear in order to get voted in...then they do whatever the f*** they want...

P.S. I'm still voting NDP...I certainly don't want to be a person who voted Liberal or Conservative 6 months from now when everyone is complaining about who "we" elected.

Freak

'Tough on crime' is a right way stance on the issue. Reform and save the children is historically the opinion of the left..

[Shifty]

Stephen Harper will eat your children!

[gigilover]

I believe that Stephen Harper should get a chance to run a government. With this election, if he does win, it is most definitely a minority government and if people want change, a minority Conservative government should be the best way to bring about that change. Under a Conservative minority, one can really evalulate Stephen Harper as PM and his ability to lead the government. If he does a bad job, i think by then the Liberals will have a new leader and a new direction.

[Bordello]

Anyone is better than Martin. Anyone.

[ephemera]

vote for harper and he will buy you a 30 inch dell LCD!

[vladislav]

This is a tough one, Martin is a liar and a flaky leader, Harper is a doorknob, Layton is better than both of them but he is still not the best leader plus has no chance. I might actually not vote this election. Just like in last US election where I would vote none of the above I would vote the same now in Canada but sadly we do need some form of government. Good luck to you all and your political parties :)

[pfdude]

How about instead of voting for who will be the leader, you go and question everybody running in your riding and see who you like best. That's the best way to get your issues raised in the govt.

If you vote for Harper and an NDP'er wins your riding, do you really think the NDP'er will listen to your issues? hell no.. you probably won't have the same ideals..

Will this guarantee that your issues will be raised? No.. but it does give you a greater chance.

So if you really care about this country, vote based on your riding.

[asim99]

For the first time in a long time, I care greatly about which party gets elected. I usually don't care as they are all the same, but if I have to endure another 4 years of Liberal uselessness, I think I will puke.

I find it pathetic that the Liberals are throwing out all these promises to fix healthcare, fix education, get tough on crime, provide day care funding, etc, etc, etc. The Liberals have been in power for the past 12 years, why haven't they done those things already?

Do they need to wait until they have serious competition before they start taking their position seriously?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who votes Liberal doesn't give a damn about this country. The Liberals have destroyed the foundation of this country over the last 12 years, and now they expect to be re-elected so they can fix it? That's not right. Maybe they shouldn't have let the healthcare system fall apart in the first place and we wouldn't have spend billions fixing it up.


weren't you whining about how you could not express political opinion starting jan.1?

[ephemera]

Why waste a vote on NDP, the will NEVER win ever. They are too left wing even for Canadians.

My suggestion for harpers first task in office, sell the CBC and their liberal windbags!

[Haris]

I would pack my bags and leave this country

I dont want to live in a Country ruled by a party that wants us to become like the evil ones down south.

Give Harper and his minions 3 years and we will have a police state.

amen 2 that.. if harper wins, then we'll have a new canada, that is a direct reflection of the US.. which we do not want. choose the lesser of 2 evils here guyz. I wish it were Manley versus McKay here. it would be evry different and more exciting 2 watch. mayb next time i guess.. if it's a minority government.

[pfdude]

weren't you whining about how you could not express political opinion starting jan.1?

I've noticed that Shaner flip-flops more than.. well.. flip-flops I guess :)

[danfromwaterloo]

......and win the Election with a sizable Minority;

What will you do?

Move to Holland.


Will you be on here complaining that an Albertan by nature got elected PM?


No, I'll be laughing. While I love his economics, his social policies are horrendous.


That the Cons are in power in Ottawa?

Don't flatter the Conservatives. They would have just finished last in the "more awful" race.


That your nation will be GWB's new best friend and we'll see the best Canadian-American Relations in 20 years?


I personally love Americans. I'd love to have great CanAm relations. What I have is Church-State relations, which will also be as close as they've been in 50 years.


Come on; I've been waiting since May 2004 for a Conservative Gov't; and honestly if this election is the one; then I want to be the 1st to say I finally saw the win I hoped for.

You probably don't remember the last conservative government we had, or you'd never vote for them again.

[Shifty]

'Why waste a vote on NDP, the will NEVER win ever. They are too left wing even for Canadians.'

How is it a wasted vote? The NDP held the balance of power in the last election, and used it to further their agenda quite a bit. If they didn't get enough votes to elect MP's, they wouldn't have been able to do that.

To the crybabies who will leave if Harper wins...good riddance, the country doesn't need people like you anyways, who run away if they don't like the result of their democracy. If you don't like it, stay and work for change, live to vote again for whatever party you like next time.

Finally, even in Harper wins, it will be a minority, which means all the bleating about the destruction of the country are just bunk...they won't have enough power, even with a Bloc alliance, to do anything very drastic. Every other party is left leaning to some degree, a minority Conservative government will be very limited in power.

[Bordello]

I've noticed that Shaner flip-flops more than.. well.. flip-flops I guess :)
Martin out flip-flops them both.

[pfdude]

Finally, even in Harper wins, it will be a minority, which means all the bleating about the destruction of the country are just bunk...they won't have enough power, even with a Bloc alliance, to do anything very drastic. Every other party is left leaning to some degree, a minority Conservative government will be very limited in power.

I'm not too concerned about it. It will be about 4 years of covering my ears every time Harper speaks but I'll put up with it ;) His minority govt won't be able to get much done as it will have no allies. When it comes to the next election, people will look back and see that the Conservative govt did nothing for Canada.

[poedua]

I believe that Stephen Harper should get a chance to run a government. With this election, if he does win, it is most definitely a minority government and if people want change, a minority Conservative government should be the best way to bring about that change. Under a Conservative minority, one can really evalulate Stephen Harper as PM and his ability to lead the government. If he does a bad job, i think by then the Liberals will have a new leader and a new direction.

What type of " change " exactly ?

And please dont' refer to corruption....people are naive to believe there is any such thing as an honest politician IMO ..and that once the Tories get a smell of the public trough ...they'll won't be in it to the "snoot full". So, lets assume they're all crooks and scums.

that aside...for example, what economic polcies will the Tories introduce to allow us to outperform our economic record on deficit and debt over the last 10 years ? Is that where you see we need change ?

Immigration ? health care ? when are the glaring "weaknesses " in Canada scial and economic report card that only the PC's can fix ? And would you call these changes we need "fine tuning" or more like "triage" ?

[Bordello]

I'm not too concerned about it. It will be about 4 years of covering my ears everything Harper speaks but I'll put up with it ;) His minority govt won't be able to get much done as it will have no allies. When it comes to the next election, people will look back and see that the Conservative govt did nothing for Canada.
How is that any different from the current and potential future Liberal government? Like being an NDP lapdog is any better.

[hagbard]

I would pack my bags and leave this country

I dont want to live in a Country ruled by a party that wants us to become like the evil ones down south.

Give Harper and his minions 3 years and we will have a police state.

Same here. We may move to Freedom...err...I mean...France.

[pfdude]

How is that any different from the current and potential future Liberal government? Like being an NDP lapdog is any better.

Why does it matter? At least things got accomplished in the house of commons. There is no other party who shares the same vision of Canada that the Conservatives have. I seriously doubt using your "NDP lapdog" analogy will convince voters. You should be targetting those who still don't buy the whole "The Liberal party is corrupted" BS.

[Bordello]

What type of " change " exactly ?
Have you not being paying any attention to the Conservative's platforms? They've stated what their plans are. Other than those, I doubt anyone here has the clairvoyant abilities to predict what they'll do once in power.

The Liberals have been in office for the last 12 years. Other than the economic progress that they've claimed that they've been a monumental part of, there are many aspects that they've failed at. They didn't do much about it when they were in office, yet Martin waits for election time to make all sorts of promises that he will do to bring about change? The time has come and gone IMO. It's time for someone else to take his spot. Like I've said before, anyone else is better than Martin.

[Bordello]

Why does it matter? At least things got accomplished in the house of commons.
Yeah, why give health care and education a second glance when there are homosexuals that want to be married?

[poedua]

I'm not too concerned about it. It will be about 4 years of covering my ears everything Harper speaks but I'll put up with it ;) His minority govt won't be able to get much done as it will have no allies. When it comes to the next election, people will look back and see that the Conservative govt did nothing for Canada.

Decided to look up some of Nostradamus' to see what scourges and pestilence will befall we Canadians over the next decade...there it was in black and white.....HARPER !

But I think Nostradamus made reference to him with the ancient interpretation of his name .... " Harpo "... similarities to one of the Marx brothers is purely coincidental, I'm sure.

As we all know, Harpo Marx trademarks were that he never talked in any of the Marx brothers films and had to use props in sight gags to get any attention or laughs...hmmmmm.....seems popular, acts like a bufoon and yet says nothing ....sounds very Harper - like to me ! :)

[pfdude]

Yeah, why give health care and education a second glance when there are homosexuals that want to be married?

Hah, well I'm glad you exposed your true self. Now I know you have absolutely no credit to what you say.

[Bordello]

Hah, well I'm glad you exposed your true self. Now I know you have absolutely no credit to what you say.
And how did I expose my true self? You can't be any more wrong if you think that I'm a homophobe. Anyways, I guess anyone that values the essentials over same-sex marriage is anti-homosexual to you? Way to draw conclusions.

[poedua]

Yeah, why give health care and education a second glance when there are homosexuals that want to be married?

Earth calling Harper......earth calling Harper !

Just in !!!!

Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in Canada!!!!!!

And in case he's stunned by the news - though his 'stunned ' look is likely due to other things - I suggest there's a neat little tome he should pick up and read some time.......it's called the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

[Bordello]

Decided to look up some of Nostradamus' to see what scourges and pestilence will befall we Canadians over the next decade...there it was in black and white.....HARPER !

But I think Nostradamus made reference to him with the ancient interpretation of his name .... " Harpo "... similarities to one of the Marx brothers is purely coincidental, I'm sure.

As we all know, Harpo Marx trademarks were that he never talked in any of the Marx brothers films and had to use props in sight gags to get any attention or laughs...hmmmmm.....seems popular, acts like a bufoon and yet says nothing ....sounds very Harper - like to me ! :)
Maybe you should send that to the Liberal party. They need any dirt they can get on Harper. Desperate time calls for desperate measures.

[poedua]

Maybe you should send that to the Liberal party. They need any dirt they can get on Harper. Desperate time calls for desperate measures.

By desperate measures - it needn't mean allowing stupidity to take over by voting in someone who doesn't viewsgays as equals when it comes to marriage.

We don't need that kind of stupidity in a PM...if our PM can't even embrace basic fundamental human rights...we're in real trouble ...Harper as PM ????...you're bang on ...desperation personified !!!

[poedua]

And how did I expose my true self? You can't be any more wrong if you think that I'm a homophobe. Anyways, I guess anyone that values the essentials over same-sex marriage is anti-homosexual to you? Way to draw conclusions.

Do you think homosexuals have all the SAME rights as anyone else in Canada ?

Only need a one word answer, as that is all it requires ...YES or NO ?

[Bordello]

By desperate measures - it needn't mean allowing stupidity to take over by voting in someone who doesn't viewsgays as equals when it comes to marriage.

We don't need that kind of stupidity in a PM...if our PM can't even embrace basic fundamental human rights...we're in real trouble ...Harper as PM ????...you're bang on ...desperation personified !!!
We don't know what Harper's intentions are, but I can guarantee you that Martin is only pushing this because it's a popular issue. It shows that he's pro-Charter and gets the homosexual votes as well. On top of that, he can condemn Harper as someone willing to infringe on human rights, which is untrue. Harper wants to put it up to a popular vote. If it passes that, then he won't touch it. This is an issue that's major enough to warrant public attention, and should be brought forth to the public instead of leaving it to Martin and his yuppies so they can make heroes of themselves.


Do you think homosexuals have all the SAME rights as anyone else in Canada ?
Of course. Every human is equal.

Before you people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot. You're dead wrong. My previous posts in the religious threads speak for themselves. I'm a firm believer in science, and my B.Sc. degree confirms that.

[poedua]

Of course. Every human is equal.

Before you people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot. You're dead wrong. My previous posts in the religious threads speak for themselves. I'm a firm believer in science, and my B.Sc. degree confirms that.

You have a degree..this should be easy for you to explain.

Why do you think there sems to be this lasting impression, to quote you...." that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot " ?

Some people might suggest that perhaps your posts speak for themselves...but why do YOU think "people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot."

[Bordello]

You have a degree..this should be easy for you to explain.

Why do you think there sems to be this lasting impression, to quote you...." that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot " ?

Some people might suggest that perhaps your posts speak for themselves...but why do YOU think "people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot."
I don't understand what you're getting at. I only got that impression from pfdude's post. Maybe you should clarify your point to me.

[poedua]

I don't understand what you're getting at. I only got that impression from pfdude's post. Maybe you should clarify your point to me.

You said.....

"people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot."

so, where do you think people got this impression from ?

[Bordello]

You said.....

"people mistakingly think that I'm some sort of anti-gay, religious zealot."

so, where do you think people got this impression from ?
I can't speak for all people, but like I said, I only got that impression from pfdude's post. I simply commented on how Martin decided to tackle the same-sex marriage issue when there are more important matters out there. Does that make me a homophobe?

[Audiogenic]

The so called momentum is simply political propaganda so that the race appears closer than it really is. They aren't fooling anyone.

The majority of the voting populus are NOT behind putting an ex-Reformer hic in a majority government.

The only way to get the Conservatives back in power for the next election is the following:

1) Assign John Tory as federal Conservative party leader

2) Assign a female federal party leader for the Liberals

3) Dissolve the "Bloc" party for not having any seats or representation outside of 1 province making then a non Federal entity

[Samir]

Stephen Harper winning this election is now very possible. I would place the odds of it happening at 60/40.

As a long time Liberal supporter, I think that this would be wonderful. Firstly, it would start force much needed changes at the top of the Liberal party. Paul Martin is almost an embarassment as a leader. The guy can't hold Chretien's jock.

Secondly, Harper's platform is pretty decent this time around. With a minority & a liberal senate, I don't think he can pull off all of his right wing ideas, but he should be able to get the Bloc and the NDP to vote in favor of some much needed legislation (federal accountability, lowering immigration barriers, money to parents with children, lowering of taxes for low income canadians).

Harper has also immensely improved his French to the point where he can take on Paul Martin in French. People are starting to respond to it in Quebec. At this point I don't see how anyone can do worse for unity than the tag team of Martin/Lapierre.

I'm not going to vote Con or anything, but I'm really not opposed to the idea of a Harper government now that he has developed into a pretty decent politician. The only thing that scares me is giving the floor to all of his whacko buddies like Jason Kenney and Stockwell day :s

[pfdude]

I can't speak for all people, but like I said, I only got that impression from pfdude's post. I simply commented on how Martin decided to tackle the same-sex marriage issue when there are more important matters out there. Does that make me a homophobe?

Since when is human rights not an important issue? Again, no credit.

[Bordello]

Since when is human rights not an important issue? Again, no credit.
If it's that important, then put it up for popular vote.

No credit from you? I'll definitely lose sleep tonight.

[pfdude]

Stephen Harper winning this election is now very possible. I would place the odds of it happening at 60/40.

As a long time Liberal supporter, I think that this would be wonderful. Firstly, it would start force much needed changes at the top of the Liberal party. Paul Martin is almost an embarassment as a leader. The guy can't hold Chretien's jock.

Regardless of this outcome short of a Liberal majority, I think Martin's time as the leader is coming to an end. So you don't need to think that Harper as PM will be wonderful. The only reason why he's doing so well this time around is because he's hooked up to an electroshock device that will zap him everytime he says the wrong thing :)

[pfdude]

If it's that important, then put it up for popular vote.

No credit from you? I'll definitely lose sleep tonight.

When was the last time anything was put up for popular vote?

You also won't get any credit from minorities who suffer from human rights issues but you won't care right? You're so damn elite and above us all aren't you?

[Tiberius]

You guys are having a silly argument right now.

In particular - stating that Martin chose to tackle a "non important" issue like gay marriage instead of "important" issues like health care and education - just clearly shows clouded judgement and bias.

First - they are mutually exclusive issues and events. One should NOT be linked to the other in any way, shape or form.

Second - protecting the rights of ALL Canadians is ALWAYS a priority for any government. The courts had already ruled on same-sex rights and the government actually was just playing catch up and backing the legal rights same-sex couples were entitled too by law and by being in a free, secular government country.

Third - The Liberals never neglected health care and education - they made the tough choices that had to be made to balance the budget. The Liberal government of the last dozen years did not create the current national debt which causes a large percentage of our tax dollars to immediately evaporate towards interest payments - they just stepped up to the plate and took a stand against it - to not contribute further to it and to start paying it down. This hurt us all because the government had less $$$ to spend. There were cuts across the board.

Living beyond our means is NOT a sustainable option - if you are going to die within a decade and want to live a charmed life with perfect, free health care, etc. and demand that spending right now, it will cripple the country for future generations and I don't agree with it in principle (spending and living beyond our means).

Don't link un-related issues.

If you don't support same-sex marriage - that is one issue you can make a stance on (if anyone is that much of a bigot - and clearly, many people are... and sadly, they tend to be "religious"...)

If you don't approve of the way health care and education have been handled. Fair enough! That is valid and you can judge based on that.

If you don't like how military spending has been handled. Fair enough. You can make your decisions based on that also.

If you want to have closer ties with the U.S. and don't care that they bully us and treat us like crap under the current administration... fair enough.

All I would hope is that you - or anyone - would make an INFORMED decision.

PLEASE at least understand that there are always CHOICES and TRADE OFFS. Sure, EVERYONE would love to see more spending on health care and education. We would all love for both to be top-notch and free. But... people in this country want a lot of things - including tax CUTS - and there is only so much $$$$ to go around.

Sometimes the choice to live within our means and not live off of debt is the right choice - as hard as it is to make!

[Bordello]

Blah blah blah...you also won't get any credit from minorities who suffer from human rights issues but you won't care right? You're so damn elite and above us all aren't you?
Yeah, I'm against human rights, pro-slavery, and anti-homosexual. You caught me. Good job figuring that out despite everything I've said. You deserve an award for good reading comprehension and conclusion-drawing skills. Here's a cookie.

[Shifty]

Samir - great post, even though I'm not a Liberal supporter! I wish all voters would be so thoughtful.

[devious9191]

Earth calling Harper......earth calling Harper !

Just in !!!!

Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in Canada!!!!!!

And in case he's stunned by the news - though his 'stunned ' look is likely due to other things - I suggest there's a neat little tome he should pick up and read some time.......it's called the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

They had the same rights as everyone else before. I'm waiting for the next protest at parliament to change the definition of heterosexual so they can join that club as well.

[devious9191]

Why does it matter? At least things got accomplished in the house of commons. There is no other party who shares the same vision of Canada that the Conservatives have. I seriously doubt using your "NDP lapdog" analogy will convince voters. You should be targetting those who still don't buy the whole "The Liberal party is corrupted" BS.

What vision of Canada do you imagine the conservatives are trying to alter? Allowing Canadians to vote on issues that concern all Canadians? Wait a minute.. we do do that.. our MPs are elected to represent the views of their constituents, not vote based on a political agenda. Welcome to democracy.

[redflagdeals4u]

I'm not really suprised there are a few people out there to spread mis-information about Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. These people that are so afraid of Harper are truly Communists. They want government to do absolutely everything for them. They want to sit on their fat ass all day while we hard-working Conservatives pay high taxes courtesy of the Liberals to pay for these so-called social programs.

Check the website below for some good commentary on the Liberal Communisty party.

[pfdude]

Yeah, I'm against human rights, pro-slavery, and anti-homosexual. You caught me. Good job figuring that out despite everything I've said.

You haven't said anything other than "that godamn Martin should have been looking at education and health care instead of giving homosexuals rights".

[pfdude]

What vision of Canada do you imagine the conservatives are trying to alter? Allowing Canadians to vote on issues that concern all Canadians? Wait a minute.. we do do that.. our MPs are elected to represent the views of their constituents, not vote based on a political agenda. Welcome to democracy.

Not sure where you came up with that. I never said they were trying to alter the vision of Canada. I said they had a DIFFERENT vision COMPARED to the OTHER parties.

[Bordello]

You haven't said anything other than "that godamn Martin should have been looking at education and health care instead of giving homosexuals rights".
Go read my post again. Repeat if you have to. Don't put words in my mouth.

[pfdude]

Go read my post again. Repeat if you have to. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yeah, why give health care and education a second glance when there are homosexuals that want to be married?

Perhaps you could explain in great detail what was suggested by this sentence because I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought it meant "that godamn Martin should have been looking at education and health care instead of giving homosexuals rights".

[Bordello]

Perhaps you could explain in great detail what was suggested by this sentence because I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought it meant "that godamn Martin should have been looking at education and health care instead of giving homosexuals rights".
Godamn Martin? Read my post carefully. Where did I say that I was against homosexual rights or same-sex marriage in that post? Marriage is not a right. I simply said that the other issues are more important. Is that concept that hard to grasp?

[Tiberius]

I'm not really suprised there are a few people out there to spread mis-information about Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. These people that are so afraid of Harper are truly Communists. They want government to do absolutely everything for them. They want to sit on their fat ass all day while we hard-working Conservatives pay high taxes courtesy of the Liberals to pay for these so-called social programs.

Check the website below for some good commentary on the Liberal Communisty party.

WOW! Your post is just about 100% backwards to what most people would say is the "reality"... (the real reality is somewhere in between)

The Conservative party is the one wanting to spend way more money on social programs!! If they truly intend to spend like that - WE will pay for it (through taxes or whatever... we will pay). I also don't get how it is that "Conservatives" are working hard and paying taxes while "Liberals" are sitting on their asses and enjoying the good life? Please get a clue instead of buying in to pure propoganda B.S. (know matter what your political stance may be)

Besides, if any party is "communist" in nature and agenda... it's the NDP... ;) :twisted: :lol:

[pfdude]

Godamn Martin? Read my post carefully. Where did I say that I was against homosexual rights or same-sex marriage in that post? Marriage is not a right. I simply said that the other issues are more important. Is that concept that hard to grasp?

Perhaps you should re-read my posts as well. Not once have I suggested you were homophobic or anything else like that. You assumed it all. All I was saying was human rights is a more important issue and that only somebody who could be an elitist could see otherwise.

[Bordello]

Perhaps you should re-read my posts as well. Not once have I suggested you were homophobic or anything else like that. You assumed it all. All I was saying was human rights is a more important issue and that only somebody who could be an elitist could see otherwise.
Did I say that human rights weren't important?

When you compare the other issues with same-sex marriage, which one do you think has more priority? Issues like health care and education affect the general population, whereas same-sex marriage only affect a small number of individuals. Plus, which do you think is more pressing? Getting a marriage license or decreasing the wait times for surgery? Martin clearly answered that question.

[gman]

Did I say that human rights weren't important?

When you compare the other issues with same-sex marriage, which one do you think has more priority? Issues like health care and education affect the general population, whereas same-sex marriage only affect a small number of individuals. Plus, which do you think is more pressing? Getting a marriage license or decreasing the wait times for surgery? Martin clearly answered that question.

All these can be done in parallel.

The same sex marriage was late for years already. That is it was delay and delay. There is always something "more important" tomorrow. There will be another health care, education, military problems tomorrow even if you 'solve' these 'more important' problems today.

[Shaner]

The gay marriage debate is far less important than healthcare and education and I can't even believe anyone thinks different.

Homosexuals had the right to be joined together legally, just like heterosexual couples do. For whatever reason, some people in this country feel that's not good enough, that gays should be allowed to use the word marriage as well.

So it's not about a human rights issue as well, as gays could always join together in a civil union anyway. Their rights weren't being infringed upon, it was just a different term for gay couples than it was for heterosexual couples. What next, all women in this country are going to demand that referring to them as "women" instead of "men" is infringing upon their rights? Just because something is different doesn't mean it's inferior.

And I find it pretty sad that the only thing Liberals can talk about is the gay marriage issue. Every time the word Conservative is even mentioned, it turns into a gay marriage debate and all Conservatives are labelled as bigots. Seriously, it's a dead issue, get over it already.

There are far more important issues to discuss than whether a word applies to gays or not. Either way, gays have the same rights as married couples do, it's just a different word applies to them instead of marriage.

[pfdude]

Did I say that human rights weren't important?

Again, I said human rights were MORE important and I never said that you said they weren't important.

[Tiberius]

Did I say that human rights weren't important?

When you compare the other issues with same-sex marriage, which one do you think has more priority? Issues like health care and education affect the general population, whereas same-sex marriage only affect a small number of individuals. Plus, which do you think is more pressing? Getting a marriage license or decreasing the wait times for surgery? Martin clearly answered that question.

Did you read my prior posts? :lol:

Stop linking those issues! It does NOT make sense!

One is about basic human rights and freedoms and DOES NOT COST $$$$$$.

The others are about spending many billions of dollars... our tax dollars (and most people seem to want LOWER taxes resulting is less tax dollars to spend)... and while you can centre out a couple areas you want money spent - I don't see you asking the question (or proposing the answer) as to WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?? Where would you cut the billions from? Or, do you want the Cons to run a deficit and increase the national debt?

[Shaner]

All these can be done in parallel.

The same sex marriage was late for years already. That is it was delay and delay. There is always something "more important" tomorrow. There will be another health care, education, military problems tomorrow even if you 'solve' these 'more important' problems today.

Maybe the Liberals shouldn't have let the healthcare system crumble in the past and we wouldn't have to address the "healthcare problem" today.

The military is another example. We don't need a military the size of the US, but we are a huge nation with a ton of valuable resources and our relationship with the US is failing quickly, so we better get off our high horse and develop a military that is powerful enough to defend against an attack. All the Liberals had to do was just leave the military alone and it wouldn't have been fine. It's not like they would have had to pump all kinds of extra money into it, but no, they felt the need to make such drastic cutbacks that the military is now being describe as being "beyond repair" by many experts.

It's fallen so hard that it's going to take too much money to bring it back to where it should be.

[Tiberius]

Homosexuals had the right to be joined together legally, just like heterosexual couples do. For whatever reason, some people in this country feel that's not good enough, that gays should be allowed to use the word marriage as well.


If you really believe that Shaner - then they did their job well!

Those who oppose same-sex marriage knew they could not oppose it on religious grounds - so they hinged their fight in symantics like the word "marriage". They are fighting over symantics now, but they will NOT stop fighting! That seems to be some deep rooted religious fundamentalism - or some deep rooted bigotry driving the CONTINUED fight... why else would they keep doing it?

If you are so sensitive to the word "marriage" being used for same-sex couples - a couple things should be noted. First, marriage is not a word owned/pattented/whatever by religions... ALSO, and more importantly, SOME RELIGIONS PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. If it's a "religious thing" to either call it marriage or not call it marriage - it seems some religions will perform a "religious marriage" for same-sex couples. Get over it!

FOR ANYONE HERE LAYING IN TO THE LIBERALS ABOUT HOW THEY PASSED A BILL FOR SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" AND CALLING THAT A SILLY USE OF GOVERNMENT TIME, ETC... WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE ISSUE BEING RE-ADDRESSED (GOVERNMENT TIME WASTED) BY ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY WHEN ALL THE FIGHT WOULD BE ABOUT NOW IS A "WORD"?????????

[Bordello]

The others are about spending many billions of dollars... our tax dollars (and most people seem to want LOWER taxes resulting is less tax dollars to spend)... and while you can centre out a couple areas you want money spent - I don't see you asking the question (or proposing the answer) as to WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?? Where would you cut the billions from? Or, do you want the Cons to run a deficit and increase the national debt?
We're getting off topic now, but throwing billions and billions of money isn't the only solution to those problems. It takes a little more thought than that. (Plus, don't forget that many of those problems are a result of cuts made by the Liberal government in the past 12 years). If you're worried about a deficit, then it isn't the Conservatives that you should fear, it's the NDP (who, by the way, are proping up the Liberal government in exchange for getting their budget passed).

[poedua]

The gay marriage debate is far less important than healthcare and education and I can't even believe anyone thinks different.

Homosexuals had the right to be joined together legally, just like heterosexual couples do. For whatever reason, some people in this country feel that's not good enough, that gays should be allowed to use the word marriage as well.

So it's not about a human rights issue as well, as gays could always join together in a civil union anyway. Their rights weren't being infringed upon, it was just a different term for gay couples than it was for heterosexual couples. What next, all women in this country are going to demand that referring to them as "women" instead of "men" is infringing upon their rights? Just because something is different doesn't mean it's inferior.

And I find it pretty sad that the only thing Liberals can talk about is the gay marriage issue. Every time the word Conservative is even mentioned, it turns into a gay marriage debate and all Conservatives are labelled as bigots. Seriously, it's a dead issue, get over it already.
There are far more important issues to discuss than whether a word applies to gays or not. Either way, gays have the same rights as married couples do, it's just a different word applies to them instead of marriage.

Well said.

"Seriously, it's a dead issue, get over it already."- most of us just wish Harper would take your advice and forget this riduculous notion of re-opening a settled issue - an issue almost half of Canadians support.

His attempt to mix religion ( i.e that "marriage"" is some sort of religious term - is a union between a man and a woman ) with the state's business by means of re-opening this debate with a free vote is what rankles most Canadians that support the Charter - and the separation of Church & state.

Have him focus on taxes instead ..and other such things that have a true impact on ALL Canadians each day we leave our house...health care, our air, energy prices, day care etc. etc.

[poedua]

If you really believe that Shaner - then they did their job well!

Those who oppose same-sex marriage knew they could not oppose it on religious grounds - so they hinged their fight in symantics like the word "marriage". They are fighting over symantics now, but they will NOT stop fighting! That seems to be some deep rooted religious fundamentalism - or some deep rooted bigotry driving the CONTINUED fight... why else would they keep doing it?

If you are so sensitive to the word "marriage" being used for same-sex couples - a couple things should be noted. First, marriage is not a word owned/pattented/whatever by religions... ALSO, and more importantly, SOME RELIGIONS PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. If it's a "religious thing" to either call it marriage or not call it marriage - it seems some religions will perform a "religious marriage" for same-sex couples. Get over it!

FOR ANYONE HERE LAYING IN TO THE LIBERALS ABOUT HOW THEY PASSED A BILL FOR SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" AND CALLING THAT A SILLY USE OF GOVERNMENT TIME, ETC... WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE ISSUE BEING RE-ADDRESSED (GOVERNMENT TIME WASTED) BY ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY WHEN ALL THE FIGHT WOULD BE ABOUT NOW IS A "WORD"?????????

Well said. Great post.

[Shaner]

If you really believe that Shaner - then they did their job well!

Those who oppose same-sex marriage knew they could not oppose it on religious grounds - so they hinged their fight in symantics like the word "marriage". They are fighting over symantics now, but they will NOT stop fighting! That seems to be some deep rooted religious fundamentalism - or some deep rooted bigotry driving the CONTINUED fight... why else would they keep doing it?

If you are so sensitive to the word "marriage" being used for same-sex couples - a couple things should be noted. First, marriage is not a word owned/pattented/whatever by religions... ALSO, and more importantly, SOME RELIGIONS PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. If it's a "religious thing" to either call it marriage or not call it marriage - it seems some religions will perform a "religious marriage" for same-sex couples. Get over it!

FOR ANYONE HERE LAYING IN TO THE LIBERALS ABOUT HOW THEY PASSED A BILL FOR SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" AND CALLING THAT A SILLY USE OF GOVERNMENT TIME, ETC... WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE ISSUE BEING RE-ADDRESSED (GOVERNMENT TIME WASTED) BY ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY WHEN ALL THE FIGHT WOULD BE ABOUT NOW IS A "WORD"?????????


I am NOT against the word marriage being applied to gays as well. I really could care less to be honest with you. I don't even care if they abolish the word marriage altogether and bring in some new word for everyone. I am not fighting it one bit, what I am saying is that making this big of a deal about it is rediculous.
I am not in favour of Harper addressing the issue again, but I'm not against it either. If he wants to have a vote on gay marriage, go ahead and do it, that isn't going to affect how I vote.

I vote based on which party is better for the foundation of this nation. Martin and the Liberals had 12 years to improve things like healthcare, education, pollution issues, energy issues, military, etc. Not only did they not improve those things, the Liberals didn't even sustain them. All of those things have gotten much worse over the last 12 years.

My grandfather died as a direct result of a lack of funding to our healthcare system. He needed an angioplasty (heart operation) immediately according to his doctor who gave him a stress test, but he was forced to wait a few months as there were no openings to get him in for the surgery. Guess what? He didn't make it those few months and now my grandma has gone down hill since as the stress of losing him has gotten to her. Those are just two lives the Liberals have destroyed.

I understand the important of paying down the debt as I'm in debt myself. But I don't cut everything else out of my life just so I can pay debt. I still need to live while I pay down my debt, the same applies to the nation. We still need a healthcare system while the debt is being paid down, it's not acceptable to take from the healthcare system while having a surplus every year. I don't know where the money will come from and I dont' care, that's not my job. But I want the PM (whoever that is) to fix the healthcare system in this country and fix it soon! Nothing is more important in this country than healthcare. Most of us can't afford private care because our taxes are too high, yet the public care that we are given is crap. That's unacceptable.

[pfdude]

Well said.

"Seriously, it's a dead issue, get over it already."- most of us just wish Harper would take your advice and forget this riduculous notion of re-opening a settled issue - an issue almost half of Canadians support.

Yes, Harper, lets please get over it and move on to other things like health care and education so we can please Bordello.

Hey Bordello, don't you think it's funny that Harper's first election statement was about same-sex marriage? I guess he must have thought it was a higher-priority than health care and eduction as well.

[Tiberius]

We're getting off topic now, but throwing billions and billions of money isn't the only solution to those problems. It takes a little more thought than that. (Plus, don't forget that many of those problems are a result of cuts made by the Liberal government in the past 12 years). If you're worried about a deficit, then it isn't the Conservatives that you should fear, it's the NDP (who, by the way, are proping up the Liberal government in exchange for getting their budget passed).

Yes, the NDP would be worse - they would spend heavily and would spread the spending to more social programs, etc. than just the core "issues". I'm all for funding programs and whatnot - if there are "extra" funds to afford such programs once the priority areas are covered, or they can pay for themselves by the "return" they generate back to the government... and not be running a deficit.

If you feel throwing money at the problem is not the only solution, then the other factos is how that money is used!! If you disagree with "how" the money is spent once it is allocated to education and health care or think it is used inefficiently - you have similar concerns and thoughts to what I USED to have! (well... mostly in the past... I still think there is waste, etc... but less than before)

But, I think you are placing the blame in the wrong place if you blame the Liberals for "how" money is spent once it is allocated to education, health care, etc. Yes, the Liberals did make cuts (to balance the budget)... and as a result (this is where you and I seem to agree in our general thoughts) it forced by education and health care to cut waste and fat from their systems and become more cost conscious and efficient. Obviously they either failed to make all of the possible cost savings, or the cuts were too deep to maintain their prior levels of "service" (levels that we likely could not afford in the first place, as we only had those levels during times when governments were running massive deficits and running up our current debt... resulting in us now having way less $$ to spend within a balanced budget currently). The big question is: would it have been possible to make the cuts smaller and still not run a deficit??? What other spending would they have had to sacrifice in doing so? etc.

It is never as cut-and-dry as most people make it out to be. Most people I know tend to be this simple (and un-informed... and they usually admit it - that they don't follow or care for politics) - they simply say.. "I'm voting for whoever cuts taxes"... or "I'm voting for the Cons because they are giving me $600 per kid I have!"... or "The Liberals passed that same-sex marriage bill so I'm voting against them"... or whatever... it comes down to simple thinking on some issue that "grabs" them personally... *shrug*... such is democracy when you have a public that is generally disinterested, yet feels incredibly "entitled"...

[poedua]

We're getting off topic now, but throwing billions and billions of money isn't the only solution to those problems. It takes a little more thought than that. (Plus, don't forget that many of those problems are a result of cuts made by the Liberal government in the past 12 years). If you're worried about a deficit, then it isn't the Conservatives that you should fear, it's the NDP (who, by the way, are proping up the Liberal government in exchange for getting their budget passed).

Cuts like what ?

The PC's want to cut the GST, cut personal & coporate income taxes, reduce the debt...sounds a lot like Mkie Harris in Ontario to me.

If your cash inflows are reduced as a result of these PC policies, aren't yoiu also forced to cut expenditures as well in order to balance spending against these reduced revenues ?

Where do you think the PC's will make the cuts to balance shortfalls in revenue ? In programs - just like Harris did.

[poedua]

Yes, Harper, lets please get over it and move on to other things like health care and education so we can please Bordello.

Hey Bordello, don't you think it's funny that Harper's first election statement was about same-sex marriage? I guess he must have thought it was a higher-priority than health care and eduction as well.

Agreed :)

[gman]

Yes, Harper, lets please get over it and move on to other things like health care and education so we can please Bordello.

Hey Bordello, don't you think it's funny that Harper's first election statement was about same-sex marriage? I guess he must have thought it was a higher-priority than health care and eduction as well.
Yes, Harper, you better do not repeat Martin's "mistakes". ;)

[Tiberius]

I am not in favour of Harper addressing the issue again, but I'm not against it either. If he wants to have a vote on gay marriage, go ahead and do it, that isn't going to affect how I vote.

Fair enough that you personally don't care about the same-sex "marriage" issue. However, to not care that Harper wants to put it to a vote (especially a national referundum) does not make sense. Do you know how much holding a national referendum costs??? It is wasted money. I think we would all prefer that money go towards something like.. oh... health care??

I vote based on which party is better for the foundation of this nation. Martin and the Liberals had 12 years to improve things like healthcare, education, pollution issues, energy issues, military, etc. Not only did they not improve those things, the Liberals didn't even sustain them. All of those things have gotten much worse over the last 12 years.

I understand where you are coming from on this, and I'm sorry to hear about your loss - I have lost 3 grandparents in the last decade, and my mother a year ago. All obviously got their medical care within the Canadian health care system with all the benefits it provides, and bumps along the way.

I don't think the Liberals really felt they could sustain the health care system, education, etc. at the levels they were at when they were elected. They looked at the financial picture for the country as a whole with the current state of the national debt - and they made hard choices. The real surprise is that they were able to stay in office so long with a platform that primarily seemed to be about balancing the budget and making the hard cuts. Normally a government gets thrown out quickly when they make such cuts! Why? Because nobody ever likes to see anything downgraded, if anything, they want things to improve over time. Sadly, past governments put us in the situation we find ourselves in now. That debt is the culprit.