Another reason not to vote Conservative.

[I Think]

Nab, has it occurred to you that you spend a lot of your time here making excuses for harpy's incompetence?

Another point regarding your harpy hero, is that when he took office, he removed all portraits of past conservative leaders, and replaced them with pictures of himself, in the conservative's Parliamentary Offices.
Do you really want to vote for that sort of egocentric person?.

[Urbane]

Nab, has it occurred to you that you spend a lot of your time here making excuses for harpy's incompetence?

Another point regarding your harpy hero, is that when he took office, he removed all portraits of past conservative leaders, and replaced them with pictures of himself, in the conservative's Parliamentary Offices.
Do you really want to vote for that sort of egocentric person?.

It's sad to think that some people cast their votes based on the pictures that the leader displays. I sure hope most people vote after studying the party platforms. If they do they'll realize what this letter writer to the Kelowna Capital News explains about those corporate taxes that some people want raised:

Published: April 22, 2011 5:00 AM

To the editor:

Who pays corporate taxes? You do!

Many people like corporate taxes because it seems a cost-free way to finance government programs. It isn’t.

No corporation has ever paid a tax nor can they. Corporations are simply legal fictions that facilitate workers, investors and customers in producing and consuming goods and services. When a corporation is taxed, the money comes out of the pockets of one or more of these three groups. If a corporation is in a monopoly or semi-monopoly position, its customers pay the tax through higher prices.

Those who work for corporations may pay corporate taxes through lower wages.

Finally, the real targets of the advocates of higher corporate taxes, investors (including your pension plan or RRSP), might pay through reduced profits or dividends.

Of the three, investors are the least likely to pay because multi-national corporations can easily move profits from high tax jurisdictions to low tax ones.

In Canada, we benefit from the taxes collected on profits moved to their subsidiaries here by corporations in high tax jurisdictions such as the US.

Who pays then?

A C.D. Howe Institute study shows that, for the most part, a corporation’s employees pay corporate taxes through lower wages directly and also through lowered productivity caused by reductions in productivity enhancing investments.

So, why do Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton want to raise corporate taxes? Because you don’t know you’re paying them. After all, you won’t be seeing a deduction from your wages on your T4 for corporate taxes. Your utility bill won’t show how much lower your rates would be were it not for corporate taxes.

Mr. Ignatieff wants to finance his promises by lowering your wages and raising your utility bills by an amount you won’t be told.

Peter Neville,

Kelowna

[NAB]

Nab, has it occurred to you that you spend a lot of your time here making excuses for harpy's incompetence?

Another point regarding your harpy hero, is that when he took office, he removed all portraits of past conservative leaders, and replaced them with pictures of himself, in the conservative's Parliamentary Offices.
Do you really want to vote for that sort of egocentric person?.

Since I consider the man far from being incompetent nibs, my rebutals of your assertions are not excuses, but fact..

...But then, I consider most of the things (like this picture issue you allude to among others) rather petty and insignificant in the big scheme of things, much like your ABC campaign mimicking Danny Williams is. You may not recognize it, but as the saying goes "you are cutting off your nose to spite your face". I really have no idea what you expect to personally gain from that approach, but it must be something I would think because IMO it makes no sense in the current situation at all.

You rant about the environment a lot, and accuse Harper of not "caring" about it. The following article demonstrates that you obviously are so close minded about the issue, that you wouldn't see the environmental advancements under the Harper Conservative government if they walked up and held them in front of your face (you would just close your eyes IMO). One thing is sure, more has been done in a practical sense concerning the environment under Harper than was ever accomplished in the previous 12 years under the Liberals. All the Liberals and the NDP and the Greens do is talk about it. Harper's government has been DOING something about it.

Why it isn't easy being Green during this election

In 2011, to paraphrase Kermit, it’s not easy being green. One of the interesting sub-plots in this election is the question of what will become of the Green Party.

Among the troubles that beset the Liberal Party in the 2008 campaign was the 941,000 votes that ended up in the Green Party column. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was campaigning heavily on his Green Shift policies, and he could scarcely afford that failure to bring environmentally focused voters over to his side.

It may seem like the 2008 campaign was just a short time ago, but much has changed when it comes to the environment as an election issue.
Obviously, the world economy has gone through a wrenching upheaval – financial markets have collapsed, unemployment’s gone up, and bread and butter have become the priority. The economy may have improved in Canada but that hasn’t produced a renaissance in populist environmentalism, for several reasons.

First, lots of voters see more evidence all the time of individuals, companies and governments making green strides:

- The shift towards fuel-efficient and hybrid-type vehicles by North American auto manufacturers is just one example, but very visible one

- Greener packaging and more organic produce in shopping centres and grocery stores

- More recycling, new waste-to-energy technologies and investments in solar, wind, and other lower-impact energy solutions

- Corporations taking up sustainability policies, aiming to be more careful with resources, energy and water

- Commercial real estate and residential projects emphasizing lower-impact living and working

I’m not making an argument as to whether these efforts are enough. But if voters used to think almost nothing was being done to help the environment, its pretty near impossible for them to think that anymore.

Second, environmentalism in 2008 was heavily influenced by the contrails of the Kyoto Accord and the anticipation of the next round of talks towards a global climate agreement, with the prospect of carbon trading becoming a major economic influence as well. The decibel level of this debate is so low right now, it’s almost inaudible.

Third, support for the Green Party last election was partly about frustration with all the other alternatives. But the amount of frustration is down, and the direction of what remains is different. Today, both the Conservative and Liberal brands aren’t in peak condition, but hostility levels are relatively low compared to 2008.

And the biggest game-changer in 2011? Jack Layton as a magnet for voters looking for something else. Voting NDP didn’t strike many people as sensible when global financial markets seemed headed for ruin – but that was then, this is now.

Finally, the growth of the Green Party in the run-up to 2008 was a news story, one that propelled Elizabeth May onto the televised leaders debates. The last few years have seen little change in Green Party support – and arguably some evidence of softening – contributing to less news coverage, and no podium with the other leaders.

All of these headwinds are facing the Green Party in this election, and it’s hard to identify any countervailing favourable influences. Ms. May is an effective spokesperson and a tenacious campaigner, but conditions this time around are a far cry from 2008.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1996518/

Edit to add: If you really care about our environment as much as you would have us believe you do, then I humbly ask you to seriously consider voting for your local Conservative candidate. I'm assuming of course you are a qualified voter in Canada and intend to vote in this election at all. That would be the most positive contribution you could make to improvement of the environment, as well as the new enterprises and jobs that will be part of it.

Edit further. You say you are retired and live in a converted bus and spend a lot of time "down south", so I realize you probably don't want a satisfying and well paying job in Canada, green or otherwise. But our younger folk do!

Nab

[NAB]

Nab, has it occurred to you that you spend a lot of your time here making excuses for harpy's incompetence?

Another point regarding your harpy hero, is that when he took office, he removed all portraits of past conservative leaders, and replaced them with pictures of himself, in the conservative's Parliamentary Offices.
Do you really want to vote for that sort of egocentric person?.

It's sad to think that some people cast their votes based on the pictures that the leader displays. I sure hope most people vote after studying the party platforms. If they do they'll realize what this letter writer to the Kelowna Capital News explains about those corporate taxes that some people want raised:

Published: April 22, 2011 5:00 AM

To the editor:

Who pays corporate taxes? You do!

Many people like corporate taxes because it seems a cost-free way to finance government programs. It isn’t.

No corporation has ever paid a tax nor can they. Corporations are simply legal fictions that facilitate workers, investors and customers in producing and consuming goods and services. When a corporation is taxed, the money comes out of the pockets of one or more of these three groups. If a corporation is in a monopoly or semi-monopoly position, its customers pay the tax through higher prices.

Those who work for corporations may pay corporate taxes through lower wages.

Finally, the real targets of the advocates of higher corporate taxes, investors (including your pension plan or RRSP), might pay through reduced profits or dividends.

Of the three, investors are the least likely to pay because multi-national corporations can easily move profits from high tax jurisdictions to low tax ones.

In Canada, we benefit from the taxes collected on profits moved to their subsidiaries here by corporations in high tax jurisdictions such as the US.

Who pays then?

A C.D. Howe Institute study shows that, for the most part, a corporation’s employees pay corporate taxes through lower wages directly and also through lowered productivity caused by reductions in productivity enhancing investments.

So, why do Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton want to raise corporate taxes? Because you don’t know you’re paying them. After all, you won’t be seeing a deduction from your wages on your T4 for corporate taxes. Your utility bill won’t show how much lower your rates would be were it not for corporate taxes.

Mr. Ignatieff wants to finance his promises by lowering your wages and raising your utility bills by an amount you won’t be told.

Peter Neville,

Kelowna

Thanks for that Urbane. Finally someone who fleshes out the concept in a realistic way, and acknowledges that the "who pays" part is very reliant on the size of the business or corporation, and the degree of competition it faces in its specific marketplace. Only the big corps, and particularly the multinationals and others with monopolies or oligopolies, get to pass on all their costs to their customers through raising prices. "Big Oil" as a prime example, or things like utility companies or government ferry system corporations.

But the private companies that are more generally classified as "small - medium size business" are the ones who provide most of the jobs and operate in a competitive environment where they cannot so easily pass all of their ever increasing costs on to their customers through raising prices (unless of course they get involved in price fixing within a sector, which, although illegal, some do anyway). In fact, the pressure on them is usually the reverse over time, - they are forced to continually find ways to REDUCE (or at least hold) their prices, as I said due to competition and the free enterprise open borders system.

So how do all those smaller businesses in competitive environments do it if they want to stay in business? They cut costs in other areas, most notably through payroll and benefits reductions, poor infrastructure and working conditions, and/or lowering the QUALITY of their product. In addition of course to making sure they keep their prices as high as they can possibly be, without "pricing themselves out of the market", ....and going bankrupt in the process (or at least failing to grow their business to new heights if that is their ambition).

Small to medium sized business face the same pressures imposed by the "big monopolistic and oligopolistic corporations" (and government taxation and fees at all levels of course) that we do as individuals. Their costs keep rising, but they cannot always easily "pass them on" in the form of raising selling prices. Just as we cannot get a raise from the boss or find a new better paying job every time our personal costs go up. That (IMO) is what is wrong with a government that uses a blanket (rather than a targeted) approach to business taxation and related reductions or increases. Personally, I think the "big guys" get away with too much already, or that there was and is a need to reduce their taxes, (and essentially subsidize them from taxpayers pockets as well), while they already have shipped a lot of their jobs offshore into lower cost jurisdictions - usually as a result of lower labour and facilities costs, not the taxes involved).

If they get tax relief, let it be against jobs they produce and keep in Canada, expenditures they spend in Canada with Canadians, and revenues / profits (extracted from Canadians) they retain in Canada. And no tax relief for those who import and export, while at the same time exporting jobs, and export the profits they make as well. But then, I know a number of small businesses who import goods from their "home" country in repeating business cycles, sell them and make profits here, and send a large part of their profits "back home" to keep their family "supply side" going. Other than the minor contribution to our tax revenues they make as individuals operating here (as "employees") , the business itself doesn't contribute much if anything in the way of taxes to Canada at all compared to what it contributes to business and government at the other end of their supply chain.

Edit to add: An intersting exercise one can do is to take inventory on everything you have (I won't say own because so much of it these days is the result of borrowed money that is still being paid on). Make two lists, one containing everything that originates in Canada and the money it cost (or most of it anyway) stays in Canada, and the other that does not. Right down the framing and flooring of your home and the equipment and utilities it uses, even the food and utensils in your kitchen.

Nab

[Urbane]

Nab, your analysis looks sound to me and I too would prefer the "targeted" tax cuts. Tax relief for those creating and maintaining jobs in Canada is the way to go. Of the plans out there I would still pick the Conservative one with the hope that adjustments, along the lines that you propose, are made in the future.

[NAB]

Here's another reason TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE (or at least anything but Liberal)

This is an interesting development, considering all the noise Iganatieff and his Liberals have been making about the F-35 jet purchase and the need to explore competitive aircraft (there are none unless one wants to suddenly shift paths and do business with Russia or the Brits to plan for the replacement of the F-18's at the end of their life I suppose, and that would make little sense with the Lockheed-Martin factory right next door to us).

Apparently, the F-35 was a development project to design and build the next generation of NATO fighters, a project financed by various governments in partnership. When that stage was finished, it became a competition to see who would build it, and Lockheed - Martin was chosen over Boeing. They have now passed the flying prototype stage.

Seems fine to me, but what the truth is is that Canada started contributing financially to the multi-nation new gen fighter development program about 12 years ago (1999). Now unless I have miscalculated, that was under the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien, with none other than Paul Martin as Finance Minister, and subsequently Prime Minister, and not a squeek out of any of them that the development program was anything but on track. The initital contribution as I understand it was something like 150 MILLION dollars.

Now why would the current Liberals want to flush the program, when they started it in the first place (and perpetuated it over at least 5 or 6 years when they were still in government), and were obviously fully in agreement with the process by which the next gen replacement for the F-18 would be designed and built? And then rattle on after they got kicked out of power about the Harper Government simply continuing with the program as designed? We all know nothing can be fully costed until the design reaches production volume stages anyway, which it has not yet, and will not for at lesat another 4 or 5 years - and we will not replace our fleet all at once anyway.

Liberals, = busted as hypocrites once more LOL. And they knew "the numbers" and the program all along! They helped design it!!! Not only that, but IMO they are lying to the Canadian Public when they talk about how the decision to purchase the F-35 was reached (criticizing the Harper Government for it). They in effect made that decision themselves the last time they had a majority government.

Edit to add: Perhpas Boeing "got to someone" in the Liberal Party in the hope they can steal the production contract ;-)
Nab

[steven lloyd]

I was going to go vote early this weekend but found I’m still not 100% comfortable with a decision. As I said elsewhere I had been planning on Voting Conservative until I attended our All-Candidates Meeting and found our local Conservative candidate to be less than impressive. On the other hand, our incumbent NDP candidate has worked hard for this region but really blew it when he insanely introduced a bill to ban tanker traffic to our coast - thus eliminating the opportunity for one of the biggest economic booms in our history and the chance to become a global energy superpower (adding an estimated $270 BILLION to our annual GDP). In spite of that the incumbent will likely win easily in this riding so a vote for him will essentially be wasted anyway. Perhaps I will still vote Conservative just to strengthen the message that not everyone up here wants to grow their own food and live in wood-heated cabins or converted buses.

[NAB]

One vote at a time wins the day for Canada steven, one vote at a time

Cheers
Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

Nab and SL:

This article kind of jives with what I've been saying - in that now that the NDP is enjoying a surge in the polls (peaking way too early in my opinion) they also are now being scrutinized a lot closer, and so therefore, Layton is not able to get away with his usual "say anything" politics he plays. He actually has to be held to some kind of standard if wants to be taken seriously, and this is why I've been saying that the NDP is doomed to fail. I predict a lot of ABC'ers will end up back in the Screeching Owl camp by May 2nd, as they grow tired of the Braying Jack-Ass and still can't listen to Iggy without getting nauseous. We will see.

NDP arrival in political big leagues means larger crowds, but also more scrutiny

OTTAWA - After decades of waiting, the NDP is getting a rare taste of the political big leagues — where the crowds are larger, the media glare is brighter, and the opponents hit harder.

New Democrats held what was billed as their largest-ever Quebec campaign rally, drawing more than 1,000 supporters to an orange-themed love-in in a riding where they once finished fifth.

That show of strength occured in Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe's downtown Montreal riding, where the NDP finished a distant fifth behind the Marijuana and Green parties a decade ago.

There were other signs of an NDP spike Saturday.

The party platform went from being ignored as a well-meaning opposition wish list to being rushed under the microscope of media scrutiny and opposition attack.

Jack Layton was forced to defend his platform against the accusation that it was a fiscal fairy tale, full of promises that could never possibly be paid for in a real-world federal budget.

He was also accused of making promises, willy-nilly, in some regions like Quebec which might surprise voters in other places.

And despite his longstanding friendly relationship with Duceppe, Layton was suddenly being cast by his Bloc rival as hostile to the aspirations of the Quebec people.

It was all a drastic change from earlier in the campaign, when it looked like Layton might struggle to hold onto his existing seats and he was hardly mentioned by other parties or the media.

A surge in the polls is now fuelling NDP dreams of dozens of new seats and the once-unimaginable prospects of eclipsing the Bloc in Quebec and the Liberals on the opposition benches.

The burst of attention washing over the NDP has even swept some of the spotlight's glare away from Stephen Harper. The prime minister quietly continued his quest for a majority Saturday in the 905 belt around Toronto, where he hopes to steal seats from the Liberals.

All this has led to another knock against Layton: that the rise of his left-wing party will guarantee a right-wing Conservative majority thanks to new splits in the opposition vote.

"This is not the first time people have put a target on my back," Layton told reporters at a crowded Montreal news conference.

"But I can bob and weave as well as anybody else. . . I take it as a compliment."

He may find some of the attacks less flattering than others.

The NDP's newfound status proved jarring enough for Duceppe to make a strident, emotional appeal to his base Saturday:

"This election is a battle between... Canada and Quebec," said a message Saturday from the Bloc leader's Twitter account.

He later erased that note and replaced it with a toned-down appeal for all sovereigntists to back his party. The message is a clear departure from previous campaigns that saw Duceppe work to broaden his appeal beyond sovereigntist voters.

"This election is not a left-right battle, but a battle between federalists and sovereigntists," said the later message from Duceppe's account. "Between the parties of the Canadian majority and Quebec."

There are even anti-NDP attack ads, including a new one from the Liberals featuring a yellow traffic light and the message, "Not so fast, Jack."

The Liberals are pointing out a series of alleged exaggerations in the NDP platform, saying the promises are based on invented revenues like a supposed $3.6 billion that would come in the first year of a climate cap-and-trade system. The Liberals call it, "fantasy money."

The Liberals also heaped ridicule on the NDP promise to hire 1,200 new doctors and 6,000 nurses for the bargain-basement rate of $25 million.

They said the NDP promise to save $2 billion by slashing subsidies to the oil sands overstates the possible savings by four times, and that the math is similarly wonky on the NDP's pledge to crack down on foreign tax havens.

"It's time to take a close look at what Jack Layton's saying to the Canadian people. The numbers add up and up and up," Ignatieff said.

"Mr. Layton has got a platform that when you look at it closely has . . . $30 billion of spending, which we think is not going to be good for the economy and he derives it from sources we just don't think are credible.

"He's got a cap-and-trade system that's going to deliver $3.5 billion in the first year. We don't even have a cap and trade system. It's science fiction."

Layton is also facing more pointed questions about just how much he is promising people — especially Quebec nationalists — in order to gain their support.

He underwent a grilling in a CBC radio interview over his promise to let B.C. drop the Harmonized Sales Tax but keep the federal compensation money anyway.

He was also forced to defend the logic of giving Quebec additional seats in the House of Commons, whenever the chamber expands, to ensure it continues to have about one-quarter of the seats in the country.

Asked for examples of how he would create the so-called "winning conditions" for Quebec to sign the Constitution, Layton replied that he would do it by exporting things Quebecers are proud of — like public daycare — to the rest of the country. When interviewer Kathleen Petty suggested the country might not be able to afford such a program, Layton replied that it was a priority for Canadians.

At the same time Layton is being forced to fend off suggestions his party would hurt Quebec.

The Bloc says NDP policies, including the design of its cap-and-trade system, would work against the province and the sovereigntist party argued that only it has Quebec's interests at heart.

Layton began his Montreal speech by reminding the audience that he was born in that city. He also dismissed the attempt to turn the election into a mini-referendum on Quebec independence.

"I believe Quebecers have seen the same-old, same-old politics going on, year after year in Quebec, and they're beginning to say, 'Perhaps we want to be at the leading edge of change,' " he told a news conference before arriving in Montreal.

"We've offered to Quebecers the same thing we've offered to all Canadians: We will look after the issues of health care of your families, we will focus on job-creation, we will work hard to provide economic security for seniors, and we will try to take steps to make life a little more affordable — and people are responding to this in Quebec, very strongly."

While his foes fought over the role of Opposition leader, Harper continued courting voters in key ridings he would need to take him above the magic 155-seat mark and into majority territory.

The prime minister delivered a speech on religious freedom in Toronto, touting his party's promise to create an office to monitor persecution abroad.

He illustrated his case by telling the story of his recent encounter with Pakistani cabinet minister Shahbaz Bhatti — just before he was murdered last month.

Harper called the encounter unforgettable. Later in the event, the late cabinet minister's brother took to the stage to speak at the rally.

But that message was overshadowed by questions about a controversial endorsement that was given to a Conservative candidate in B.C.

Harper supporters, prompted by campaign staffers, drowned out the media by cheering loudly for over a minute as a journalist tried asking a question about an endorsement from Ripudaman Singh Malik — who was acquitted of criminal charges laid in the 1985 Air India bombings.

The party says it would never have knowingly accepted an endorsement from Malik.

The cheering crowd made it impossible to ask Harper how, given Malik's profile in B.C., his local candidate could possibly have been unaware that she was attending an event where Malik gave the endorsement.

The Tory candidate, Wai Young, said she had no warning that Malik would be at the event that was held at a local school and would not have gone had she known.

In raising the issue on Friday, the Liberals questioned Young's judgement in being at an event with Malik. They pointed out Malik had links to the only man convicted in the bombings.

Evidence entered during Malik's trial revealed he provided financial assistance to the family of Inderjit Singh Reyat. Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter for supplying parts to make the bombs that brought down an Air India jet, killing more than 300 people.

But the impact of the NDP surge was on Harper's mind late Saturday afternoon at a rally in Campbell River, on Vancouver Island's northeast coast.

Harper flew directly to the island from Toronto in an effort to shore up Tory incumbent John Duncan, who faces a fierce challenge from the NDP.

"Friends, this is important, because I know here we're not under any illusion here — your main competition here is the NDP," Harper told a crowd of about 500 in a stuffy community centre gymnasium.

A stronger NDP could help the Tories overall, but also hurt them in some pockets of the country; B.C. is considered among the latter.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/ ... D=National

[The Green Barbarian]

Yikes!!! I was reading this article:

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/ ... =Elections

and I was just thinking it was another hum-drum article about the election until I saw this paragraph:

Layton, meanwhile, started his Sunday with a church service in Toronto, joining members at the front of the church to sing the Hallelujah chorus. He later crossed paths with Ignatieff at a Khalsa Day parade, a huge affair that draws tens of thousands of Sikhs celebrating the birth of their religion. The two leaders shook hands.

and I said WHAT!!! Layton is mixing politics and religion????!!!! How can this be???? He was in a church!! On Easter Sunday!!!??? OH NO!!!

Clearly this indicates that if he gets into power, Layton is going to defund Planned Parenthood, appoint only severely right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, and end a woman's right to choose and make abortion illegal as fast he can. That's what this means for sure. That's the only thing that can be interpreted from this. Oh yeah - so much for laws against capital punishment as well; clearly the newly religious Layton will be calling for death penalty reinstatement immediately upon ascending the throne. I for one am shocked at this new Jack Layton - so bold and reckless in declaring his faith to the Canadian public, flaunting all of the NDP policies of separation of church and state. I am just glad that the "real" Jack Layton was exposed and his true agenda revealed before the election.

/sarcasm

[UnknownResident]

Yikes!!! I was reading this article:

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/ ... =Elections

and I was just thinking it was another hum-drum article about the election until I saw this paragraph:

Layton, meanwhile, started his Sunday with a church service in Toronto, joining members at the front of the church to sing the Hallelujah chorus. He later crossed paths with Ignatieff at a Khalsa Day parade, a huge affair that draws tens of thousands of Sikhs celebrating the birth of their religion. The two leaders shook hands.

and I said WHAT!!! Layton is mixing politics and religion????!!!! How can this be???? He was in a church!! On Easter Sunday!!!??? OH NO!!!

Clearly this indicates that if he gets into power, Layton is going to defund Planned Parenthood, appoint only severely right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, and end a woman's right to choose and make abortion illegal as fast he can. That's what this means for sure. That's the only thing that can be interpreted from this. Oh yeah - so much for laws against capital punishment as well; clearly the newly religious Layton will be calling for death penalty reinstatement immediately upon ascending the throne. I for one am shocked at this new Jack Layton - so bold and reckless in declaring his faith to the Canadian public, flaunting all of the NDP policies of separation of church and state. I am just glad that the "real" Jack Layton was exposed and his true agenda revealed before the election.

/sarcasm

LOL. Trying to draw comparisons between Harper and Layton... Getting a bit desperate? What was the point of that post?You're adding fuel to the fire, bringing to light that Harper is taking away womens rights, is against abortion, is defunding planned parenthood, will probably appoint extreme right-wing judges, and is in favour of the death penalty.

[grammafreddy]

Well, none of them are above playing their silly games to court any and all religions to mark their ballots in their favour. Election signs only in Punjabi or Chinese (depending on the neighbourhood), printed propaganda that targets certain faiths, visiting certain churches and meeting halls, lots of baby-kissing going on .... and not a baby in sight.

[NAB]

Yikes!!! I was reading this article:

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/ ... =Elections

and I was just thinking it was another hum-drum article about the election until I saw this paragraph:

Layton, meanwhile, started his Sunday with a church service in Toronto, joining members at the front of the church to sing the Hallelujah chorus. He later crossed paths with Ignatieff at a Khalsa Day parade, a huge affair that draws tens of thousands of Sikhs celebrating the birth of their religion. The two leaders shook hands.

and I said WHAT!!! Layton is mixing politics and religion????!!!! How can this be???? He was in a church!! On Easter Sunday!!!??? OH NO!!!

Clearly this indicates that if he gets into power, Layton is going to defund Planned Parenthood, appoint only severely right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, and end a woman's right to choose and make abortion illegal as fast he can. That's what this means for sure. That's the only thing that can be interpreted from this. Oh yeah - so much for laws against capital punishment as well; clearly the newly religious Layton will be calling for death penalty reinstatement immediately upon ascending the throne. I for one am shocked at this new Jack Layton - so bold and reckless in declaring his faith to the Canadian public, flaunting all of the NDP policies of separation of church and state. I am just glad that the "real" Jack Layton was exposed and his true agenda revealed before the election.

/sarcasm

LOL. As I posted a day or so ago somewhere, Ignatieff has done similar (and before Layton). There was a church he attended.

But then again, it is Easter, and none of the leaders will want to be seen as an athiest and risk losing any religious votes.

Nab

[The Green Barbarian]

LOL. Trying to draw comparisons between Harper and Layton... Getting a bit desperate? What was the point of that post?You're adding fuel to the fire, bringing to light that Harper is taking away womens rights, is against abortion, is defunding planned parenthood, will probably appoint extreme right-wing judges, and is in favour of the death penalty.

actually - thank you UR - you've just shown the perfect comparison - Layton can go into a church and no one says a word, yet Harper goes near a church and the fear-mongers bring out the entire giant pile of steaming BS that you just typed - thanks for the laugh BTW - "taking away womens rights" - how do you keep a straight face while typing such pure nuttiness? Aren't "women's rights" enshrined in the constitution, along with everyone elses'? So you are saying that Harper is going to change the constitution to deliberately disenfranchise women? Really? That's what you are saying? Harper is going to join the Taliban now? What are you saying "exactly"? This is just complete insanity, almost as nutty as your post that "Harper obviously doesn't care about the environment". THIS is why some people think that the voting age should be raised, significantly. You really are not making a strong case for the defense UR.

[Tacklewasher]

Here's another reason TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE (or at least anything but Liberal)

NAB. Do you have a source showing the Liberals started this process? I've been trying to find one as I'm pretty sure they did, but haven't found one yet. But I haven't been looking that hard either.