Stop the presses….“it doesn’t appear that Canadians are getting too excited about this election when compared to previous elections.” Again, I’m just completely stunned by this entirely unexpected development.
You might very well think that…
You might very well think that…
Stop the presses….“it doesn’t appear that Canadians are getting too excited about this election when compared to previous elections.” Again, I’m just completely stunned by this entirely unexpected development.
Red Tory v.3.0.3 
Just a day full of shocking revelations eh Red?
😉
I’m not surprised either. I suspect that Canadians don’t want excitement, but rather prudence. And Dion’s platform is obviously lacking for these times.
I suspect that Canadians don’t want excitement, but rather prudence.
Oh, really? How do you know that? And what “prudence” is being offered by the right wing radicals and social-re-engineering ideologues you currently favour?
I certainly want prudence and that certainly doesn’t mean electing a bunch ignorant and loopy Conservatives who’ll wreck everything…as they always, always do.
Harper doesn’t have a problem with that.
Mike — The unfolding obviousness of everything never ceases to bore me.
Barkman — I suspect Canadians don’t really want an election. Maybe they’ll punish Harper for foisting one off on us with no good reason — that is, other than trying to get a majority for himself.
Oh, really? How do you know that?
Well, Dion Borat himself said that Canadians were’t ready for an election. Or wait, he said after that they were excited; no, “hungry” for one. Then he backed off and questioned the need for one when it was called. Hmmm, I simply cannot for the life of me see why Canadians are so utterly, dismally bored with this election.
Prudence? Funding and equipping our military after years of Liberal incompetence, and not coddling criminals is a start. Shriiekkkkkkk! I’m such a right wing idealogue!
What “social re-enginerring”? Promising to have a free vote on gay marriage. Gee, beam me up Scotty. What “right-wing radicals”? Look around the world, and actually examine history, fool. You have no idea what you are talking about.
And how did they “wreck everything as they always, always do,” in light of Liberal boondoggles amounting in the billions? Or when millions of dollars were stolen from the people for their benifit alone?
Right wingers, and idelagoues, and radicals. *Snort*. Such wonderfully beautiful assertions you clutch on and snuggle. 😀
Well, Dion Borat himself said that Canadians were’t ready for an election.
Ooh…look…cultural references. You must be edjumacated and er-ee-you-dite.
Sorry, keep your twaddle to one sentence. I can only deal with one lie or unsubstantiated assertion at once. And since you started off so badlly, I couldn’t possibly continue.
By the way, why doesn’t Peter ever mentor/challenge these people? Doesn’t it dismay him how stupid his fellow Conservatives are? Or does he get a thrill out of watching these primitives tear into his hated liberals and lefties because he himself is too well-mannered and temperate to do so himself?
Damien Penny shot in my esteem a couple of weeks ago when he told Richard Evans to STFU over at Dawg’s Blawg.
More of that, Connies and faster, please.
Red, the voters *might* punish Harper for having the audacity to call one now. But the way its going thus far, there appears to be no indication of that.
And if calling an election in the third year of a majority mandate when it certainly was not necessary (and for obviously non-altrustic motives) never hurt le petit gar, it isn’t likely to hurt Harper for having likewise ambitious and quite understandable leanings towards a majority government for his party.
Barkman — True enough. Chrétien was very opportunistic, there’s no denying that. I suppose that could be justified on some basis but it would be a rationalization… much as the explanation for this election will be.
But the way its going thus far, there appears to be no indication of that.
What were more likely to see is yet another decline in voter turn-out. Which will suit the Stephen “fix the democratic deficit” Harper as well, I’m sure.
But you don’t care…with your lips locked around Harper’s shaft, you’ve stopped thinking.
Before giving Harper a majority, the citizens may have some demands to make of him in that regard.
Wowow Ti-Guy! That hasty, incoherent, spelling challenged blather was enlightening. M0rz libzst00fs pl0x!!!
You’re an interesting pet, Ti-Guy. You’re certainly well heeled enough for the liblogging well-to-do. But your handlers have been negligent in your training – too much drooling. Do try to remedy that, ok boy?
“Or when millions of dollars were stolen from the people for their benifit alone?”
Oh you mean like the $1.1 million the Conservative tried to defraud the taxpayers out of with forged advertising invoices?
Shorter Conservatard “Cons are better than Liberals because they steal less money.”
Right…
You’re an interesting pet, Ti-Guy. You’re certainly well heeled enough for the liblogging well-to-do. But your handlers have been negligent in your training – too much drooling. Do try to remedy that, ok boy?
Oh, shut up, Conservatard.
Before giving Harper a majority, the citizens may have some demands to make of him in that regard.
Well Red, I think they’ve already done that. The electorate certainly exercised caution in regards to Harper so far. They reduced Martin’s mandate to a minority, gave Harper a subsequent minority mandate after, and are now, it appears, ready to give him his shot at a majority.
Incremental steps. After Mulroney and his party’s subsequent destruction, I cannot say I blame them. But Harper has earned his shot, and it looks like the people are going to give it to him. All this talk of Harper and the Tories destroying the country is just blathering non-sense. If the Liberals screwed up as bad and as often as they did, (without taking away from a lot of good they did) with all their scandals and boondoggles, then Harper and the Tories can hardly do worse. And hey, if they do, they can always be crushed down again by voters. We will all have the opportunity in four years to tell them to fuck off again.
Barkman – what a class act, just bloody charming. My dad’s bigger than your dad and my dog’s bigger than your dog and I’m going to pick on you.
…when are the CPC adults coming out?
Oily has a new friend: Flippy the Argument
Globe And Mail.com
September 23, 2008
Robert Silver, today at 10:32 AM EDT
John Ivison absolutely obliterates the Liberal platform in the National Post this morning…if by obliterate you mean contradict every Tory attack line on the Green Shift from the last three months.
Observe:
Stephane Dion said the Liberal platform he released yesterday is built on “very solid numbers,” but the claim was made more in hope than expectation.
So John starts out by laying the frame for his critique: The Liberals claim of a balanced platform is garbage. That’s a claim that lots of Tory mouthpieces – a title for which Ivison certainly qualifies – have made. After discussing the $55-billion over four years in tax cuts and new investments that Liberals made in the platform, he points out, correctly, that $40-billion needs to be “found.” Then he concedes:
The biggest problem for Mr. Dion is not that he won’t be able to raise $40-billion within four years from the carbon tax…
And in fact, Ivison has the audacity to quote – get this – an economist to back up that the revenue projections are accurate:
Professor (Jack) Mintz said yesterday….that the Liberal number is not “out of range.”
Um, I’m confused John…haven’t you just conceded that the Liberal plan is balanced? Of course not:
The question is, what happens next…If the carbon tax works as the Liberal leader hopes, emissions will tumble as people substitute away from carbon. But if they tumble, so will tax revenue.
Let me make sure that I get this straight. For three months, the Tories’ main attack line against the Green Shift is it is a tax on everything that won’t reduce emissions at all. In fact, Stephen Harper said “it’s not even really an environmental plan.” Now that every economist (other than PMSH) and environmentalist have refuted that argument, the new criticism is it is going to work too well.
I mean, we all know that, don’t we? That’s what the Tories have been saying all along, isn’t it? That the Green Shift will work TOO well – and then what will you do? Come on, Liberals, what then? And look at poor Stephane – what a loser. I mean, sure his plan for the years 2009-2013 is fully balanced – Ivison has conceded that – but what the heck is he gonna do between 2013-2017 after emissions have tumbled and therefore revenue from the Green Shift starts going down?
So to repeat, John’s argument is not that THIS Liberal platform is unbalanced; it’s that the NEXT Liberal platform will be unbalanced, and how can you vote for a guy who fails to present a balanced platform one, maybe two elections from now? Stephane Dion: He may be up to the job for one four-year mandate. But don’t give him an eight-year blank check – he’s not up to that job.
But Ivison’s not finished:
A number of European countries have already gone down this route by introducing a carbon tax, spending the proceeds and then being forced to find new revenue sources, such as employment insurance or mandatory pension fund premiums, when the tax dried up.
Gee, for a “risky scheme” that is “just a theory” that has “never worked anywhere” (all Stephen Harper’s words, not mine), that doesn’t sound right at all. So parse the sentence above: A number of European countries have introduced green shifts; the green shifts worked; emissions went down thanks to the carbon tax and they “spent” the carbon tax on, get this, tax cuts on income and investment. But, at a certain point, because the carbon tax worked so well, they had to, amazingly, “adjust” their policies.
So – and here is a big concession on my part, Tim, rev up your engines and get ready to pounce – in 2013, as he prepares for likely his third election campaign, Stephane Dion MAY need to announce a new policy – either lower spending or new revenue sources. How this is in any way an argument against the current Liberal platform is beyond me.
Two final notes:
1. It should be noted that a number of the European countries that have implemented carbon taxes did not need to raise ANY new taxes as emissions fell. Why? Because their economies grew so much (with the carbon tax in place) that tax revenues from income and spending were more than sufficient to withstand a declining carbon tax intake. (Of course in Canada, we will slip into a deep recession if we even try doing this.)
2. I thought neo-cons were supposed to be supply-siders. Anyone see the contradiction between John’s argument and basic supply-side economic theory? Now, I think trickle down theories are bunk but then again, I’m not a neo-con.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.WBSilverPowers20080923103214/WBStory/WBSilverPowers
Whatever, Sandi. I’ve tried to have a decent conversation with Red without the requisite unpleasantry. And it was going that way. Then that thing, stumbled along and ruined it, as he usually does.
Die dulci freure, Red.
Leave it to The Nazi Post to attempt to delude Canadians about economics with disinformation, while remaining, as usual, silent about the fact that the paper has never made money and that CanWest’s stocks are almost worthless.
I’ve tried to have a decent conversation with Red without the requisite unpleasantry.
Who’s stopping you? You and Red can continue your conversation and if the rest of us are ruining your conserva-trolling…er…delightful salon…just ignore us.
Anyway, it’s a little late in the game to claim that you and your cohort are ever interested in pleasant conversation, what with all the richly-documented defamation, vilification and outright lying.
Ti-Guy:
Ya, it’d almost be laughable if it weren’t so “God” damn sad.
Now will this make a big splash?
Unfortunately, I doubt it
Barkman – RT’s not responsible for that other guy’s comments – lame excuse.
Besides, I like a little spice in the comments and I’m not going to bring my big brother’s baseball bat the hit him.
That’s kids stuff.
Barkman — I don’t police the comments. If you want to address something specifically to me, then I’ll try to respond to it, but I’m not one of these busybodies that monitors everything, puts stick about and chides people for their commentary.
Who’s stopping you?
No one, least of all you. All the same, I’ll just ignore your distracting and blithering idiocy from this point on.
Barkman – RT’s not responsible for that other guy’s comments.
I’m not one of these busybodies that monitors everything, puts stick about and chides people for their commentary.
Sandi, Red, you’re right, of course; Red shouldn’t be expected to. I’ll just ignore stupid trolls like Ti-Guy. Its easy to ignore him when he just lies, constantly.
Its easy to ignore him when he just lies, constantly
Lies? How dare you cast aspersions upon my integrity?
Anyway, we all know its the Conservatives who lie. All the time, day in and day out. I don’t even think they know what the truth is anymore.
“I’ll just ignore your distracting and blithering idiocy from this point on.”
how can i get in on some of that?
KEvron