158

This woman seems very concerned


 

The Conservative spot that seems in highest rotation at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOpJjxlSm8w


 

This woman seems very concerned

  1. LOL and how is Harper going to pay for the fighterjets, or eliminate the massive deficit he created, or make up the difference from the tax cut for corporations?

    Probably bye-bye Healthcare.

    • "massive deficit"

      2% is not a massive deficit. It is the smallest deficit of the world's developed liberal economies.

      • Wow. That's a lot of qualifiers there.

        It's also the smallest deficit of those living on the moon, but I don't think that's anything to bray about.

        • You think that comparing….nevermind.

      • It's the largest deficit in Canadian history. Period.

        • Not any more, based on current revenues, and it never was the largest in comparable dollars. The deficit is well under control and will be eliminated on schedule, or earlier. It won't be if the Liberal/NDP coalition takes over.

          • Liberals cleaned up the last massive Con deficit, and they can do it again.

            Con schedules have a bad habit of going awry….especially when Peter Mackay enters a showroom.

          • The Conservatives wasters created that deficit.

          • the Canadian gov't created the deficit. Another party always had to support them.

          • Deficit under control? flaherty can take care of that in no time!

        • No thinking person can take that statement seriously. Period.

          • Let's you out then.

    • Your so-called "massive debt" was incurred hwne the economy slumped and both the Libs and the NDP were demanding public spending. Harper disagreed until actors in the world economy were of one mind on the issue. It took all to make it work. Corporate tax cuts are positive in terms of the economy and jobs. (Economics 101 – 401)

      • a) you don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt

        b) Harper agreed to the public spending at a G20 meeting when Bush chaired it

        c) corporate tax cuts don't create jobs, the companies just hoard it.

        • i love when you talk about economics, Emily. It always gives me such a big laugh.

          • I'm sure it's very confusing to you when you don't understand economics.

          • I understand them very well – that is why I laugh.

          • And you do what for a living?

          • I will simply say that I work in the financial services industry.

          • LOL which means you don't know anything about economics.

          • there you go again, with your politeness, and lack of being demeaning.

          • The fact remains, you know nothing about economics.

            Or English for that matter.

          • I know nothing about economics? On what do you base that acusation? What 'facts' do you have to back up that claim? Don't you realize what statements like that make you look like?

            Poor choice of words, sure, but I am trying to be polite, unlike others on this page.

          • Same way you can tell if someone never made it past grade school.

          • Again – that was rude.

            And it did nothing to answer the question. You are brilliant at that – did you know that. Does that serve you well in real life? Not answering questions, or dodging them? They were simple questions, that could have had a simple answer. Instead, you give this meaningless drivel.

        • How could a tax cut possibly create *NO* jobs? It's a question of scale not direction.

          And there's also much to be said for lowering corporate rates in order to have corporations claim more taxable profits in Canada. I think there's a case to be made that Canada is already 'competitive' with a middling effective corporate tax rate, but we can always do better.

          • Because they don't.

            It's a lovely theory, but it doesn't create jobs.

            Companies simply keep the extra money….and show a bigger profit.

            They don't use it to buy new equipment, or hire more employees.

          • Sorry, Emily. They might keep some, of a future reason. For the rest, they will do the thinks that will earn them more money: invest in better technology, higher more staff. increase their product share.

            Your above post could be titled 'how to not run a business.'

          • Yes, lovely theory. Doesn't happen.

            Which is why we lose so many businesses.

          • Not a theory, it is a fact.

            Way business are lost is because of bad management, or market conditions. Nothing to do with what we were discussing.

          • Weak. The only numbers that were actually quoted were "Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada's total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000" That is based as a% of GDP. There may be some 'noise' in these numbers. I have heard economists stating that Ignatieff's move to raise the taxes up to 18% would not create 6 Billion in extra funds, but would be closer to 100 million. Coupled with the loss of jobs, it doesn't seem to makes for a good decision.
            http://thecommons-ccd.com/2011/01/what-about-themhttp://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2011/04/i

          • There's another, better argument for why CIT shouldn't be lowered anyfuther as regards the US. That's tax bleed. I don't have the link, but it was recently cited in a globe article by the gentleman the tories caused to quite over their absurd ending of the LF census. I forget his name, but he was our lead stats guy at stats Can. I'll post the link if i can find it.

          • if you find it, by all means. . .

          • Thanks that was a good read. While not conclusive, it does suggest that the NAFTA needs to be tweaked. . .

          • Have you ever heard of capital flight? Of dividend payments to foreign stockholders? Of 100K+ bonuses to executives living in Houston? None of those items create jobs in Canada.

  2. Absolutely. It's very important to hammer home the message that we can't afford the $60 billion in new spending promised by the NDP over the next four years.

    • I think it's more important to drive home the message that we can't afford the Tory's hidden costs, since what little they have costed, seems to be undercosted.

      • can you give specifics?

        • The big 9 billion dollar future purchase of 65 fighter planes, is one example. Apparently that number will get us maybe a third of those plans, if i'm not terribly mistaken.

          • If you have all the numbers for that, I would love to see them. As far as I have heard, no one still know the total cost. Either way, it will be over may years, not just one.

            The above post made it sound like there were many issues like this. Do you know of any?

  3. I certainly hope that's a long form census she's filling out.

    • ZING!

      • I guess she needs the calculator to figure out how many bathrooms she has in her house

  4. Well lady, you should be more worried about Stephen Harper who has increased spending year after year since he became PM. Whereas Canada had a multi-billion dollar surplus, which was a bad thing, a theft, the Conservatives claimed, we now have an annual deficit of tens of billions of dollars.

    In a world where inflation is becoming a concern, I would be worried about facts rather than fiction. Harper's pet peeve: reality.

    • Canada's inflation rate is currently 50% higher than the Bank of Canada's target rate.
      Last month saw the biggest single-month spike in inflation since 1991.

      • Due to oil prices, Amateur

  5. In the days after the 2008 debates, the Tories ran a similar ad (I can't be sure whether it helped, but they went back up in the polls and won a strong minority government).

    The problem is that I'm not sure well-off women from the Toronto suburbs are the voters Harper needs to be worried about. The NDP surge on his left flank may have different demographic consequences – eg. he could be losing blue collar males in Southwestern Ontario, while winning the suburban Tory-Liberal races.

    • That is hardly a 'well-off' woman from the Toronto suburbs.

      And that bad cut at the end of Ignatieff's remarks hint at the context Cons don't want you to hear.

      'GST: The Tory ad edited the clip from a 2008 interview and cut off the word "later." Ignatieff actually says he wouldn't take a GST hike off the table if Canada stayed in a deep deficit for several years. He also said raising the GST would be a "bad idea" in a recession. A year after that interview, in September 2009, Ignatieff said in another interview that a Liberal government would clean up the deficit "without raising taxes."'

      • Wow the tories really are scumbags. Cutting words off quotes…sending Ignatieff quotes to Macleans with important qualifers missing…where have we seen this before? This is the worst low ball brigade we've ever sent to Ottawa.

        Isn't there any kind of advertising standards that cover such egregious and intentional lying?

        • Hard thing to do….no matter who tries it there would be allegations of bias.

      • you have a quote where Ignatieff says that he won't raise taxes? He said that he will bring the corporate tax up to 18% if elected.

        On which idea was he lying? It has to be one.

        • No, just Cons trying to play with words.

          • You amaze me. This has nothing to do with 'Cons'.

            You say that Ignatieff said that he won't raise taxes. – Right?
            Ignatieff has said that he will raise the corporate tax rate to 18%. – a well documented fact.

            So which one of these things is wrong? (there is a conservative conspiracy that took over Ignatieff's brain for a few hours is not an acceptable answer).

          • How the hell does that justify taking a quote where he nuanced the question of raising the GST back up[ something he should have stuck to IMO rather than touch CITs] and editing it? It's the CPC who are unf'king believable bud.

          • TA – I never said that it justified anything. I was just pointing out that if OE's quote about Ignatieff was right, he was a liar. As far as I can see in this, and every election, they all have attack ads. I just don't feel like whining about it. When I can get two confirmed quotes that contradict each other – that I like.

          • I'm not whining about attack ads per se. It's true i don't like them, but obviously they're effective from time to time. But the CPC seem to have perfected the art of the intentional, deliberate lie. Even going to the extent of editing out key words or abandoning context altogether. It's a bloody disgrace. There's more then enough legimate stuff on Ignatieff to put out there without resorting to character assasination or intentional mandacity.

          • Exactly what I was trying to find out.

  6. I think this ad contrasts very sharply with the NDP ads that project a positive message. TO me, the subliminal message is:

    Tories – worry, pessimism
    NDP – hope, optimism

    It sounds silly, but this ad is not one that is going to inspire you to go vote – it might confirm believers, but it is not a selling of the party. The two new NDP ads do sell themselves (and last night during the Canucks game they played the Tory ad immediately after the NDP ad, so I got the chance to see them back to back)

    • No, people don't need fear and gloom….they need optimism and hope

      • Everything I read in French from Quebec points to that – people like Jack Layton because he is positive, optimistic. He doesn't threaten, he doesn't scare people. He's not negative. He smiles. It's spring…

        • Yeah, frightened world right now….so anybody that offers a lift is bound to be popular.

        • Loraine, you are fantastic!! Love your comments. Passing this one on to others for the sheer loveliness and great spirit of it. Nice beats nasty. Great. Because life itself is mostly not so nice. But it is how you spend your time in between sunny days. Watching Sun TV and getting your hate on, or educating yourself and writing uplifting comments. Great STuff!
          Harper is like having a cloud over the country day in, day out. The angry, bitter, selfish cabal that is the Conservative party want to run Canadians into a depression, and I don't mean strictly financial.

      • And you should see the reception the Bloc is getting from people today after they brought in Gérald Larose to the rescue, and it spectacularly backfired on them:

        …Venu porter renfort au Bloc québécois ce matin, le président du Conseil de la souveraineté Gérald Larose a plutôt fait dérailler la campagne bloquiste. L'ancien leader syndical s'est excusé d'avoir traité le chef du NPD, Jack Layton, «d'imposteur» et de «crapule». Il a aussi comparé les politiciens des autres partis fédéraux à des «crosseurs professionnels»…
        http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/elections-fe… went on and accused Layton with his cane of being a 'crapule' – now that's a very, very

        • LOL pour gas on the fire instead….!

          This new development seems to have put everybody off their stride.

      • They don't need Jack's overconfident grin!

        • Well, Layton just passed Harper as leader.

    • I think it depends. Fear is a very powerful motivator – there is a reason every campaign runs attack ads. However, messages of fear don't tell you where to go. That is Ignatieff's problem – lots of people agree with him that Harper had to go, they just didn't think Iggy was the guy to lead them away. For voters that might be frightened of the prospect of NDP rule, fear is a pretty good way of getting them to vote Conservative, because the Tories are the only party that can prevent an NDP government.

      • No, they aren't.

        Cons are always big on just 2 choices…black or white…and reality doesn't operate that way.

        • Yeah, remember when they said it was either the "blue door", or the "red door"? Those dastardly Tories….

          • Harper has just been hit by the orange door.

            NDP is now only 3 points behind the Tories. LOL

          • Nanos has the Tories 10 pts ahead. Exactly where they have been the entire campaign.

          • Well that's where Nanos has them….other polls disagree.

          • Funny, you seem to enjoy quoting polls which you were calling unreliable only days ago!

          • When Cons on here post polls favourable to them, I point out the others that aren't.

          • No, Emily – you only post what supports your ideas. You ignore points that you cannot debate, and you name call to try to intimidate comments.

            Most of the people on this site enjoy talking to everyone, and hearing different views. You, however, seem to be filled with a black bile, and can only spew hate. There are lots of left leaning people here who are great to debate with, and respect other people's ideas and opinions. You are not one of them.

          • Apparently you haven't noticed I usually post the opposite to what others post.

            It's Contrarian.

            It's just not pro-Harper….which apparently drives you into fantasy land.

          • Again you miss my point.

            It is not your opinions that bother me, it is you attitude. You are rude, demeaning, smug, and you have absolutely no respect for anyone who dares to disagree with you. You use little demeaning names on people who don't agree with you. You post a lot, and when someone calls you on a 'fact' that is wrong, you ignore it, or dismiss it like it isn't important. Basically, you act like a bully, and you feel that if you say something loud enough, often enough, it will become fact.

            As far as you posting the opposite, that might be true, but next times make sure that it is factual. You may consider yourself contrarian, but you only take opposing views against conservative posters. A true contrarian always plays devil's advocate, even when he is arguing against an idea that he believes.

            Take a look at your first post on this page. It wasn't a reply to anyone. (Not contrarian). It just throws in some fear mongering about Health Care. No facts whatsoever.

          • Your 'point' here is that I'm supposed to defer to you because you are a conservative, and therefore think you are right.

            Ain't never gonna happen, pal.

          • see – you never seem to get a point that you disagree with.

            And again, you seek to change the topic. I do not think you should defer to me for any reason. I have already stated that I respect differing opinions. My comments only pertained to you attitude, and treatment of others. You have not commented on this at all.

          • And you don't see a problem with telling other people how to live, or how to think….or what their attitude should be?

            You feel comfortable lecturing a 64 year old woman on her behavior?

            See….there's your problem.

          • my problem is that I have to take a 64 year old woman to task on her treatment of others. I don't care how you live, or what you think. I am only concerned with you behavior on these pages.

          • No, you don't.

            You've sent me over a dozen emails today, and I'm not much impressed with self-righteous bigots who feel they have to tell others how to live.

            Find something useful to do with your time.

          • I love debating people who have differing opinions than my own. It helps all of us come to better understanding.
            Bigot :"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." I will leave the bigot stuff to you.

            I am sure that you don't like anyone calling you out for what you do. Either way, if the shoe fits. . .

          • No, you just like preaching to them

            Now stop filling up my trash box with this nonsense.

          • and here it ends, Emily has successfully argued that she has done nothing wrong. . .

          • Ekes has a sample size that is double that of Nanos and a smaller error rate. This places Ekos in a more trustworthy position.

          • Emily, you will find that the fear factor will become huge if it starts to look like the NPD might win the gov't. Lots of people would get off the couch to prevent that from happening.

          • Lots of people have apparently gotten up off the couch to vote FOR the NDP

          • and this changes the essence of my post how?

        • OE1 Get a life!!! You are so negative about everything.

          • LOL a Con's view of the world is not 'everything'

            The world has a terrific future if we could get the Harper gang and their doom and gloom out of the way

        • Emily,

          Name another party that can prevent an NDP Gov't. That's right, there isn't one, yet you say 'no, they aren't.' and offer no alternatives.

          The way you can ignore valid points amazes me.

          • LIberals are another alternative.

            The way you can miss the obvious amazes me.

          • doesn't your poll have them in the low 20's? Not an alternative.

            Next.

          • It doesn't matter what the polls have them at….they are still an alternative.

          • I guess . . . just like the Greens are an alternative. I had assumed that we were using reality here. . . guess I was wrong.

  7. Exactly. I'm always at a loss to understand the moronic idea that spending money is saving money. Especially when the GST isn't charged on most basic necessities.

    An income tax cut lets the indiviual decide whether to spend or save and how.

    The greatest beneficiaries of the GST cut were people buying new homes, cottages, cars, yachts and services like vacations, maids, pool boys, spas, salons etc etc.

    Who here falls in that category?

    • That's what I've been telling people for years since those cuts.

      A friend of ours who bought a Mercedes soon after the cut from 6 to 5% bragged about saving $500 because of the cut, then I asked her . . . how much did the dealer jack the price before on which the reduction applied? In any case, Quebec pretty quickly took up the vacated tax room.

      Income tax cuts are the best, lets the individual decide what to do with his money . . . sounds very libertarian to me.

      • But true. I don't want Jack Layton preempting that view by his decision where to spend MY money..

      • I agree. Income tax cuts are usually the best. However, I am in the process of buying a new home (after two used ones, so no, I am not rich) and I am looking at saving about $10,000. Any tax cut is good, if it lets the gov't waste less of our money.

    • nice – people who buy new homes lumped in with people with maids.

      Quite a stretch.

  8. And make it snappy – cameras4all is about to wet himself again.

    • I assumed it was satire, but I admit it's often disturbingly difficult to tell.

  9. Just got an email from Stephen Taylor (this is the sort of douchecanoe they let run the NCC these days?) warning of Prime Minister Layton(OMG Oh Noes!). Like most of the problems the NCC finds, it can be solved by giving money to the NCC.

    • Buncha jerks. Everybody knows that if you want your problems solved, you give your money to me.

    • Yeah, I followed him on Twitter. For about a week.

    • Well, if it doesn't help solve the problem, I am sure they still appreciate it. :)

  10. uncompetitive jets

    Not fighting a war in Afganistan will certainly free up defense spending in five years time.

    • But aren't they counting on lower defence spending to reduce the deficit?

    • "Not fighting a war in Afganistan will certainly free up defense spending in five years time"

      Gee that's a comforting thought. In addition to his other post dated promises is SH now a prophet?

      • Maybe not a prophet, but a hell of a lot smarter than the competition.

  11. Oh come on John D, even the AG gave the Conservatives good marks for deploying the stimulas $$$ well and fairly in such a short time.

    Financial media is reporting higher government revenue than expected from corp. and personal taxes.

    • Whoa- um, who's idea was the stimulus? And who didn't want anything to do with any stimulus until he was backed up against a wall?

      • Yes, there is a lot of mis-information on this when it's convenient. I've been reminded numerous times that Harper had committed to the stimulus spending at the G20 meeting, before the opposition backed him into a corner.

        • The short 2008:

          "March"
          Experts – 'We think we're heading for a credit crunch'

          "August"
          Experts – 'We're heading towards a credit crunch, a big one'
          Opposition – 'Dear Government, we've let you run a deficit, but now get ready for a depression'
          Government – 'There is no depression'

          "September"
          Experts – 'It's about to blow'
          Opposition – 'It's bad out there, where's the plan? Government?
          Government – 'There is no depression, to prove it to you we're launching an election to make sure nothing gets done'

          "October"
          Experts – 'Markets are crashing, stocks are tumbling, this is the worst depression since the the Great One'
          Opposition – 'We can't believe we're back where we started, fine, fork out the cash Government, it's a depression out'
          Government – 'There is no depression, and in case you wondered, there's also no recession'

          "November"
          Countries all over the world – 'STIMULUS! GET YOUR STIMULUS!'
          Government – 'There is no depre…'
          Opposition – "That's IT! We're banding together to fix the economy'

          "December"
          Government – 'What do you mean coalition? Fine! Try running for government when Parliament is prorogued! How you like them apples!'

          "January 2009"
          Government – 'Hey look! a Stimulus plan!'

          • Yes, well, the couple of times that I've pointed out to people who blame solely Harper for the countries deficit that actually the opposition had a role to play, they set the record straight by telling me that Harper committed to stimulus spending before at the g20/g8 meetings. That would fall under "June". Now, this is just what I've been told.

            Anyway, you seem to have the narrative all figured out, so well done.

    • Saying that you wasted money in a manner that got said money out the door quickly is faint praise indeed.

  12. This election has disappointed me. I wanted some truly epic attack ads from the Tories, but instead all we get is this, and a rehash of the Ignatieff coalition ad with Layton in place of Iggy. Where is the bridge-burning hate I have come to expect from the Tory war-room?

    • Bridges, like hate, go in both directions.

    • Their internal polling has probably got the sphincters of the Tory braintrust so puckered that they're suctioned immobile to their chairs. This won't last, however, and I fully expect an onslaught of epic proportions starting at 6AM on Friday morning.

      • Yes, where are the demon sheep when you need them?

        • You know, it's really a message of renewal it seems. After scrolling through all the NDP candidates running in Quebec and seeing how many of them were young, working class individuals with little political background, I realized that this is probably the vision of politics that Macdonald, Cartier and Brown had 150 years ago.

          Seeing how all parties trend toward the centre when the actually do get into power, I'm beginning to wonder if such a transition is not something to be outright feared, but instead could be a fascinating experiment.

          • I like the Quebec NDP candidate who spent the campaign on vacation in Las Vegas because she had already booked the holiday and couldn't get a refund.

          • I think that's awesome. If she wins I think she should be put in charge of a department, especially a profligate one. Maybe Finance Canada. She would take one look at the $10K overseas flights all of those politicians and bureaucrats take and that would be the end of that.

          • I read somewhere that she is a single mother and not well-off. Good for her.

          • Well, that certainly helps clarifies why she'd want to go to Las Vegas DURING her campaign.

          • I'm sure, AT1, that the tickets and trip were booked well in advance of the campaign.

          • if you're serious about getting the job, you cancel your trip. period.

          • She had a one in a million chance of winning that riding, and if she cancelled her trip and worked doggedly every single day she might have had a one in 900,000 chance of winning. In other words, she was never going to win.

            Considering she's a single mother who waitresses, I'm sure she doesn't have the cash to simply throw a thousand bucks down the hole just so she can watch herself get smoked in the election. She could do that from Vegas.

            I've talked to a few conservatives in strong CPC ridings who haven't gotten so much as a mail-out flyer; I haven't seen nor heard anything from my local Liberal candidate. For all I know, they're off in Vegas too, and they actually have a chance of winning!

          • I have no doubt that the NDP will become a centrist party, if the Liberals and Bloc remain dead (or almost dead). Parties need to keep their constituents happy in order to maintain power. The united Conservatives are already a good example of this – they have governed to the left of the Alliance and the PC Party (most of the folks that lionize PC centrism didn't actually read their platform in 1997 or 2000).

            The problem is that this is a long-term movement. In the short term, a lot can happen – like say, Meech III, or skyrocketing interest rates popping Canada's possible housing bubble.

          • experimenting with a country is scary.

            A town would be easier to handle. :)

          • Well, we have a Tory running the show here in Halifax. He gave something like $400,000 of the city's cash to a local concert promoter without seeking council's permission when it became evident that the promoter booked acts for the Commons shows that only a small audience here wanted to see. Meanwhile, the contractor building a new highway exit low-balled his bid by over $5 million dollars, threatened to stop work on the project when the money inevitably ran out, and has just received approval for a $5 million dollar add-on to the project. I'm sure the competitors who lost out on the bid are pleased about that. Sounds like same-old same-old Conservative shenanigans to me.

            Anyone else got small-scale experiments?

    • They were holding back the best for last but Patrick Muttart got canned today so we might be out of luck.

  13. Are you referring to the 11 billion of cuts from government operations over the period of four years?

    • Right, the ones from improved computer systems that would almost certainly cost more than they would save?

      And the rest came from…where, exactly?

      • From cutting the job of the lady in the video…although she doesn't know that yet.:)

      • It sure wouldn't take much to improve G of C computer systems which have mostly been disasters. I cite the gun registry, the UI program and so on. They either must have hired burn-outs in the Liberal days, or software companies were taking them for a ride.

    • It took Flaherty's Strategic Review 4 years to find $1.6 billion that they think they can save by 2013-2014. One third of that was by slowing defense procurement, not creating efficiencies and eliminating waste.

      Finding an additional $11 billion in efficiencies another 4 years is a fantasy and a fraud.

      That kind of savings only comes from cuts — and out of the $80 billion they have to work with, it'll be big cuts.

      • You said it Amateur Hour – Amateur Hour on the blog

  14. Just because the Tories have spent recklessly, does not make this a poor message. All parties need to address the issue of how they plan to pay for the deficit, including the Tories. I'd rather trust Harper to do the right thing than Layton. Jack keeps referring to provincial NDP governments. They aren't the ones making $60 billion in promises.

    • Jack keeps referring to SOME provincial NDP governments. I note that he doesn't mention the Ontario NDP government, nor the BC NDP government, of the 1990s. Sort of like how some Germans don't like to mention the War.

  15. Every time I see this ad I start to daydream about a utopian society where my partner does the income taxes and worries about paying the bills … what's the ad for anyway?

    • Make the partner do the income tax and pay the bills the day she/he brings home more money than you.

  16. And we can thank the LPC under Martin and Chretien for the fact that, despite the massive spending spree of the CPC since it took over government, Canada can still claim to have the smallest deficit.

    Imagine that…the CPC is willing to take credit for Liberal policy.

    • or we can thank the LPC for underfunding certain things, causing this increase in spending. . .

      • No the spending for the military was in the Martin pipeline anyway.

        • that's only part of the whole budget.

  17. Dealing with climate change is going to be increasingly urgent, and Harper is the worst possible 'leader' for that.

    • After this winter it is not hard to believe in climate change – getting COLDER!

      The lefties are stuck in a rut.

      • No global warming because wow winter was cold should be the new godwinning a thread. Even with LOLs at the end.

      • I see your dubious anecdotal evidence and raise you with some of my own: Deadliest tornadoes in April in over 40 years in the midwest.

  18. I'd actually like to see the EI and CPP programs to be self funding. If that means increasing, fine. If it can be decreased, fine. Either way, it would be nice to know there was no big liability waiting down the road for the taxpayers.

  19. I'm not crazy about buying new jets: I wonder if the ones we have can't limp along until an all UAV fleet becomes technically feasible. But if we're going to replace them on schedule the F-35 is seriously the only game in town. If the Liberals and NDP are going to criticize an 'noncompetitive bidding process' perhaps they could point to any other airplane this country could conceivably buy instead??

    F-22 = way too expensive even for the Americans
    F-16, F/A-18, Super Hornet = old tech
    Eurofighter, Gripen, Raphale = oldish tech and no industrial spinoff
    Anything Russian = old old old tech and geopolitical non-starter

    There's no point in holding a contest when there's no competition: the only alternative to the F-35 is no airforce at all, and that's no an option for a serious country like Canada with real security needs.

    • "…the only alternative to the F-35 is no airforce at all."

      Bullsh*t.

      When the current fleet of CF-18s was procured, we were at the height of the Cold War. The world has changed, but Canada seems to be racing to replace those planes with their modern equivalent. Are they the right planes for our current and coming challenges? This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink our military and make sure its configuration makes sense.

      You jump to the conclusion that no other aircraft could meet our requirements, but we haven't stated our requirements. Procurement 101: know what you need.

    • If you hold a contest, other aerotech firms will compete. They might even put an engine (or two, preferably) in the design costs.

  20. Working hard, so you don't have to work at all? Not very ambitious are you? Bit lazy maybe? Landlording should be banned. At the very least each person should only be allowed to own 2 properties and if a third be bestowed in a will, it, or a previous one would have to be sold off within a year. NO LANDLORDS!! ARCHAIC PRACTICE. PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED and ABLE TO OWN. Only ownership creates engagement in a community, keeps a community looking decent, creates neighbourhoods where neighbours know eachother. Landlording is strictly for opportunists. Taking advantage of people is not all life is about, but it is to some. A game taking people's hard-earned money while sitting on your ass.

Sign in to comment.