Friday, October 26, 2007

John's sad 'tory - Updated again!!

Friday A.M. Update: Our own Adam Daifallah has an excellent, no-nonsense editorial in today's National Post - Bye-Bye, Mr. Nice Guy.

Well, somebody had to say it, and Adam did it very well. Time for some Tory tough love.


Ian Urquhart - Tory convinces most important backer - himself.


* * * *

Thursday Evening update: Star - Public Funding Fight Far from Over: School groups. They might even fight it in court.

Good idea, John; but bad timing.

* * * *

Good column by the Globe's Campbell Murray, who seems to think that we should be giving John Tory a second chance - Tory has a chance to transform himself, just like McGuinty once did.

This contrasts with the Star's Ian Urquhart whose column contains a very candid interview with Frank Klees - Faith-based plank not mine, Klees says:

...Nonetheless, Klees said he "implored" John Tory to get out in front on the faith-based schools issue and define it in his own terms before Liberals framed it in theirs.

However, according to Klees, Tory got conflicting advice from his "communications strategists," brandishing polls that said the issue was not a big concern to the public.

"The advice that he (Tory) received was that we should not focus any attention on this issue, that we should allow this to be dealt with quietly and focus on other issues," said Klees. "My warning to John was: you risk having the Liberals distort this proposal and you will find yourself on the defensive and your good intentions will end up causing us great difficulty."

But Tory accepted the advice of his campaign team and chose not to highlight the faith-based schools policy in his campaign speeches or advertisements, until near the end of the election...


Too bad John didn't listen a bit more to Frank Klees.


Campbell Murray informs us that Tory has now "deep-sixed his faith-based schools proposal", and that "John Laschinger's Northstar Research will no longer be doing Conservative polls".

Finally!


My personal feelings at this point are that John Tory should stay on as leader for a while, to do what he does best - help the party recover from the past election costs.

However, he needs to demonstrate some humility and ability to learn from his mistakes, and listen to his caucus when they tell him he is going off in the wrong direction.

A good leader makes tough decisions, but he also values and listens to those under his command.


And the biggest lesson of all is this, John - Never, ever underestimate the moral depths to which the Liberal war machine will descend in order to win an election.


* * * *
Sunday Update: From a defeated Liberal candidate and Sun columnist Marianne Meed Ward - Tory has an uphill climb in the 905 area.


59 comments:

liberal supporter said...

And the biggest lesson of all is this, John - Never, ever underestimate the moral depths to which the Liberal war machine will descend in order to win an election.

They can go as deep as the CPC would.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - I was expecting something like that. What exactly did the Federal CPC do that you would consider morally questionable?

liberal supporter said...

Of course you did, the bait was pretty blatant.

Perhaps you should describe the "moral depths" the Ontario liberals descended to.

I think "You don't support the troops" if you don't agree with the CPC formerly new government, is about the same level of moral depth as "Tory wants to divide Canadians"

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - I never heard anyone in the government say that if you didn't agree with the mission, then you didn't support the troops. Please show me a quote. Thanks.

Perhaps you should describe the "moral depths" the Ontario liberals descended to.

What I was referring to is something along the lines of what Lorrie Goldstein said in his column today:

...Then again, in Ontario, another province where politicians like to think of themselves as "progressive" and "enlightened," Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty just won re-election largely by pandering to Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry during the debate over whether to publicly fund faith-based schools if they teach the Ontario-approved educational curriculum, proposed by Conservative Leader John Tory...

Raphael Alexander said...

I understand that many people want to dump John Tory, but we should at least see what he can do for the next little while. He did, after all, balance the finances of the party which was in debt after the Eves departure. I think he can be fiscally conservative, even if he did make overtures that were more liberal-lite. If he can broaden his base support by leaning a little farther right, he might have found the key to lock. I think people have been fairly hard on him, and if Dalton McGuinty can bounce back after breaking all those promises, then surely a man of integrity like Tory deserves another shot.

If not Tory, then who? I haven't heard about possible replacements.

liberal supporter said...

So I have to provide a quote from someone in the government, but your case rests on the words of a columnist?

Who does Lorrie think he is, claiming "Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty just won re-election largely by pandering to Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry"

Baloney. That is Lorrie's opinion. The big elephant in the room was private schools, whether secular or religious, balkanizing the school system. I do not believe Islamophobia had anything to do with it.

However I read other Sun columnists refer to "Taliban Jack" and "Dion is not a leader" and some snickering about sending them over to Afghanistan to be beheaded while negotiating (smirk) with the Taliban. Even though Karzai is doing just that.

Anonymous said...

"Baloney. That is Lorrie's opinion. The big elephant in the room was private schools, whether secular or religious, balkanizing the school system. I do not believe Islamophobia had anything to do with it."


Then your an idiot!!!

OMMAG said...

Give Tory another Chance?
More time?
Hope he changes?

Yeah right.
I do not know what happened to the Ontario PC's .... but seems that once Mike Harris got his second term that all the depth disappeared ... Tory's selection as leader seems to be proof of that.

Can John Tory rebuild the party?

I really doubt it. My opinion is that if Tory does stay and his advisers and supporters do not change there will be another election where Ontario gets to reelect one of the worst governments in the Nation.

Raphael Alexander said...

Fair enough OMMAG, but who, for instance, do you propose to replace him? Changing the leadership again, and then spending the next four years getting voters used to this "new" personality may be vexing.

It's easy to say "NEXT!" but harder to define that perfect candidate.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So I have to provide a quote from someone in the government, but your case rests on the words of a columnist?

Just for the record, I don't believe that any political party is perfect. They all wear various shades of dirt. I think Dalton's crew is pretty grimy. JMHO.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's easy to say "NEXT!" but harder to define that perfect candidate.

Well, I think that's pretty easy - Elizabeth Witmer. Smart, female, and classy.

nomdeblog said...

“Baloney. That is Lorrie's opinion. The big elephant in the room was private schools, whether secular or religious, balkanizing the school system. I do not believe Islamophobia had anything to do with it.”

I knocked on 1000’s of doors canvassing and I can tell you Islamophopia had a lot to do with it. The problem was that people did not understand that what JT was proposing was inclusive and not going to cause more isolation, it was going to reduce it. However, one service that JT provided to Ontario, at much cost to his campaign was to prove that multiculturalism as a concept is now thrown on the dustbin of history. Voters in Ontario want integration. Muslims want it!

As to the “balkanizing” the school system .. that is code by teachers unions for “competition” and you are right, they don’t want competition like they have in Alberta even if it means better results. Government unions don’t want competition in Health Care either, like the Shouldice Clinic.

So the elephant in the room is government unions.

Anonymous said...

Until the collective Ontario Tories just accept that funding faith-based schools was just a downright stupid idea, and that they already enjoy too much public funding in their current form, then they will always be coming up with rationalizations about how EEEEEVVVIL the other side is an how it wasn't their fault that they picked a stupid policy.

Honestly, the smartest thing Tory did was to abandon a dumb policy - it was smart to get rid of the rot, but it also made him look like a spineless strategist, which he is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So the elephant in the room is government unions.

Nomdeblog, that whole comment was really well said. You made some great points. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

nomdeblog:

No one that I talked to cared a whit about what kind of schools they were. They cared that their public dollars were now going explicitly towards funding religious thought. Sunday schools and churches exist for a reason.

Give it up with the accusations of xenophobia and racism. The only people that would be afraid of that would be other conservatives; if you asked 1000 of them, I'm not surprised that their answer was 'Islamophobia'. To win, Tory needed votes from the left too, and the primary apprehension on that end was towards the stupidity of providing MORE funding to subsidize religious teachings.

Anonymous said...

Not to mention the fact that (by necessity) we would need to draw lines in the sand and restrict certain religions or come up with standards for measuring compliance as well as the 'validity' of their religiosity.

The whole concept was a bad approach to the problem that would inevitably introduce more problems than it solved. The correct solution is just to do away with funding for religious schools. It's an anachronism.

The complete removal of funding also fits in with the UN report on human and equality rights - you know, the one that all the Tory supporters loved to trot out in support of their plan (despite the fact that most of them do nothing but chastise the UN and anything having to do with human rights or equality rights legislation, including our own Charter).

It's the simplest solution and it meets the expectations of equality rights. It was only ignored because the Liberals didn't want to open the can, and the Tories didn't want to say there was another way.

nomdeblog said...

“They cared that their public dollars were now going explicitly towards funding religious thought.” …errr like where McGuinty went to school ? … oh , never mind … agreed , we do not want to fund that stuff. Multiculturalism is now in the dustbin … let them fund their cultures/religions themselves. We do not want to be like Paris. We want integration.

Next ..how do we get more competition in health and education so my life is not dominated by the elephant in the room ... government unions.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Next ..how do we get more competition in health and education so my life is not dominated by the elephant in the room ... government unions.

Another great comment! Public unions are bleeding us dry. Look at what's happening in Toronto - the socialist centre of Canada. And it all uploads from there.

Anonymous said...

Ooooo... that's clever how you can point everything to one problem. Or, it would be clever, if the same thing couldn't be done with any sufficiently vague and ill-defined social or political concept.

The problem with your xenophobic attack on multiculturalism is that it doesn't imply that we explicitly have to fund ANYTHING. In it's simplest form, it means that we offer equal opportunity and do not force people to integrate. Religion is a subset of culture, so restricting the funding for religious schools does not detract from multicultural policies as a whole. In fact, it's pretty easy to see why some people would think that the treatment of religious matters can be fairly seperated from cultural matters without doing harm to multicultural policies, given that we generally support a seperation of church and state.

In short, culture is not a subset of (or equal to) religion. Religion is a subset of culture. Thus, putting justifiable restrictions on the public subsidization of one (religion) doesn't completely the superset (culture). So multiculturalism is intact, but thanks for coming out.

nomdeblog said...

“In it's simplest form, it means that we offer equal opportunity and do not force people to integrate.”

No that’s not multiculturalism , that’s diversity, which I agree with.

Multiculturalism is a creation of the postmodern relativists to actually fund and prop up cultural silos for their own poltical ends .. to wit: cricket bats. That’s what voters thought JT was doing , he wasn’t, but that is beside the point now.

I do agree with “equal opportunity”. But that will result in unequal outcomes and that too is OK.

Oh and cut it out with the ad hominems like “ xenophobic attack” . Attacking a concept is not the same as attacking a people , which I am not doing.

liberal supporter said...

Multiculturalism is now in the dustbin … let them fund their cultures/religions themselves. We do not want to be like Paris. We want integration.

So says you. I think you saw a lot of "Islamophobia" because you don't like multiculturalism. I thought multiculturalism was simply to avoid something that could be like the Iranian (and Saudi) religious police who enforce conformity with the official national culture. Instead multiculturalism might involve letting kids take courses in the old country language, but I never thought of it as balkanizing society into permanent enclaves. Usually it is letting the immigrant generation get a break while the kids (or at most grandkids) become fully integrated.

Next ..how do we get more competition in health and education so my life is not dominated by the elephant in the room ... government unions.

We hand out vouchers to pay part of health and education and you're on your own for the rest. We toss those who can't afford it in the dustbin, of course. Make the poor pay!

Public unions are bleeding us dry. Look at what's happening in Toronto - the socialist centre of Canada. And it all uploads from there.

Unions are overbearing, idiotic, and constantly grabbing for more. Like corporations, except the union leadership is elected from all members with equal votes.

Life with unions running everything is stifling. Life with some unions as we have is annoying. Life without any unions allowed is frightening.

The correct solution is just to do away with funding for religious schools.

Another possibility is to require the existing separate system to accept any student of any faith, and provide a religious based environment. Even when it is someone else's faith, the kids learn something about getting along and understand the main difference with other faiths is they have different ceremonies.

There is a huge difference between having two funded systems, and having dozens. To claim there is no difference (i.e. so you can say McGuinty won't extend funding except to his own faith) is missing the point. If you believe that, I'll send over a dozen kids for you to watch along with your two. No difference right?

When the other faiths are a little closer to being half the population, then they would have more sway in the one and only faith based system. Meanwhile, those who want to send their kids to secular (or religious) private schools will have to pay for that on top of contributing to the public system like everyone else does whether they have kids or not.

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth Witmer

Hmmm...nah. She's a former Harris person. The Libs would eat her alive.

Christine Elliot...that's yer leader right there.

Jim Flaherty has his old crew already organizing for her. Plus, Hudak and Snobelen are organizing.

Anyone who thinks that Tory has the time to hold on are fooling themselves. These people began organizing to replace him on October 11th. Some very high-profile PCs and various financial backers alredy have the knives out. Tory is toast!

Anonymous said...

Agree with anon. 6:11 - no one with baggage will snag the premier's chair....guaranteed.

I do also think Tory should go sooner rather than later because it gives conservatives more time to reorganize a whole new slate.

Agree also that any current advisors hit the bricks.

Any truth to the rumour that Frank Klees went awol and didn't attend the caucus meeting?

What about Peter Van Loan? There's rumour that he's been organizing for a shot at provincial leadership also???

ET said...

LS- you still haven't provided the reference for your claim that the CPC said "If you don't support the CPC, then you don't support the troops".

anonymous - could you provide proof that the Conservatives reject human rights and equality rights? By the way, the UN is hardly a prime example of support for either. Nor is our charter, where group rights trump individual rights.

LS- the issue wasn't private schools, secular or religious. It was only about private religious schools. Tory wasn't asking the public to fund Upper Canada College.

I agree with nom de blog- the unions in the educational and health care systems resist losing power; therefore, they resist privatization and ununionized workers, which offer choices and better market values, in both health care and educational types.

I also disagree that religion is a subset of culture; equally, culture is not a subset of religion. They are 'shared'; a better image would be the intersection of a Venn diagram. You can't separate religion and culture as you are trying to do.

And multiculturalism doesn't mean just 'culture' (and please define 'culture'). It refers to the set of beliefs and behaviour of a group, defined usually by some 'hereditary' or familial attribute such as ethnicity, religion or language.

Why should this set of beliefs and behaviour be 'sealed in stone' when people immigrate to a new country? That's what our policy of multiculturalism did and it isolated these people, making them dependent on the federal govt (Liberals) for funding for their centres, schools, etc. Of course they should integrate! And equal opportunity has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Doesn't Canada have a culture? Or is it just an empty space where people from 'real cultures' come to settle, and retain their old ways?

The rejection of FBS was a concern by many that the public would be funding Islamic schools that were, quite possibly, going to be teaching anti-Western ideology. Tory's real agenda of insisting on a common Ontario curriculum wasn't articulated clearly.

Multiculturalism was a dangerous agenda; you shouldn't define people in 'sets' and insist that they retain a static identity.

Societies are complex adaptive systems, and the people of a CAS ought to be adapting, changing, integrating.

OMMAG said...

Raphael - I do not have an answer to that!
My connections in the Ontario PC's were supporters and boosters for John Tory..... I gave them a hard time about it and got lot's of justification for their stance ..... in the end there is no satisfaction in being right about things like this.

I did hope that I was wrong about Tory ....... unfortunately I was not wrong.

liberal supporter said...

LS- you still haven't provided the reference for your claim that the CPC said "If you don't support the CPC, then you don't support the troops".


I do not have one. I never said the CPC said so. But referring to the "Liberal war machine" includes all liberal supporters. Just as the CPC war machine includes the droning on from various CPC supporting blogs.

Tory wasn't asking the public to fund Upper Canada College.

He didn't have to. Flaherty had already provided tax cuts when he was Ontario finance minister. If "fairness" requires funding multiple religious schools, how would you say "fairness" says that's ok, but that we won't fund multiple secular schools?

the unions in the educational and health care systems resist losing power

Just like business resist losing market share. How is that ok, but it is somehow bad that unions would look out for the members who elected them?

Why should this set of beliefs and behaviour be 'sealed in stone' when people immigrate to a new country?

Who said it is?

That's what our policy of multiculturalism did

Oh, you said it.

and it isolated these people,

According to you.

making them dependent on the federal govt (Liberals) for funding for their centres, schools, etc.

You can make a case for less government funding of "centres", but schools are already funded. If they want special ones, that is their problem.

Of course they should integrate!

And mostly they do.

And equal opportunity has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Equal opportunity is for all, isn't it?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hmmm...nah. She's a former Harris person. The Libs would eat her alive.

Christine Elliot...that's yer leader right there.


I really like Liz, but I've heard more than one person say that Christine is the one - for exactly the reasons you state. No baggage; excellent credentials.

I would definitely support her. In fact, I might even take out a party membership if she were leader.

nomdeblog said...

“Unions are … Like corporations, except the union leadership is elected from all members with equal votes.”

Unions haven’t even reached the enlightened stage of secret ballots.

However, I have no qualms with unions that are in the competitive private sector. I do have a big problem with government unions that are attached to the monopolistic delivery of services.

The only way to fix this is to outsource delivery of government services and cover the payment for these services, for example in Health, with an OHIP card. The new delivery options may or may not be unionized and it doesn’t matter as long as there is competition.

But when we have the double whammy in this Province of near monopoly delivery of Health and Education and in turn the employees are all part of a monopolistic union, then we are by definition uncompetitive.

That was the elephant in the room when the teachers unions came out in force against John Tory. That’s how his message got even more distorted. But much was his own darned fault, which he has admitted.

ET said...

LS- your definition of a political 'war machine' is so large that it is essentially meaningless, for your definition includes people not controlled by the Political Party. Therefore, your claim of the amorality of the CPC is invalid.

Tax cuts are not equivalent to funding a school.

I wasn't talking about funding FBS as a matter of 'fairness' (though Tory was); but as an issue of thereby ensuring that these schools taught the children the Ontario curriculum.

Unions should look out for their members but, should stay out of the realm of non-members. The problem is, they don't, because the unions we are dealing within in health and education are public services, aligned with the govt, and they use this political power to reject competition from private services. We, the customer, suffer from this unionized monopoly.

I agree with nom de blog's outline of the problem of unions in monopoly public services. What happens is that these unions transform the services into a sole focus on the well-being of the employees. Not the public who needs those services.

When you see the amount of money that we, the taxpayer spend on funding multicultural groups to finance their social centres, their activities etc - then, you'll see that we do encourage their isolation and non-integration.

Also, read the Charter and its outline of multiculturalism and how these group rights trump individual rights.

Anonymous said...

You're all pretty much off the mark. We can't even afford the school system we have. Thanks Gerard Kennedy. Thanks teacher unions.

Can't wait to see the encore.

No matter what Tory does he will never ever live down faith-based funding of schools. It will follow him for the rest of his political career.

Listen to uncle Warren

Joanne (True Blue) said...

We can't even afford the school system we have. Thanks Gerard Kennedy. Thanks teacher unions.

You're right on the mark, there.

Imagine how Gerard Kennedy would ruin this country if he were Prime Minister! Just scary.

Joan Tintor said...

"So I have to provide a quote from someone in the government, but your case rests on the words of a columnist?"

Okay, never mind the columnist. How about McGuinty himself:

When I travel the world on behalf of Ontarians, and I tell folks in China, India, Japan and Pakistan that 27 per cent of people living in this province were born outside of the country, and 52 per cent of people living in the GTA were born outside the country, the first thing they say is why have I not seen on your television screens what I have seen on the streets of London, Germany, Paris, the Netherlands? Why is there not more strife, struggle and controversy?
--McGuinty, leaders debate

Anonymous said...

Joan - I can't believe voters bought that crap.

Does anyone on this blog have kids in school? If they did they'd know that the McGuinty gov't has set things back since before the NDP.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anon and Joan - It's actually pretty frightening how easily voters can buy into the propaganda. Just wave a new holiday in front of them; build up a little fear and hysteria, and they forget all the little annoying things, like gang wars and native occupations and such.

Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism is a government-sponsored advertising program designed to trick immigrants into thinking we want them to remain isolated and out of the mainstream. It's a subtle form of ghettoization. It achieves its goal of providing workers for marginal jobs and votes for the Liberal party.

Or it did. The scales are falling from the eyes of newcomers and the old guard. Multiculturalism is a failed concept and most people are finally realizing it.

I found it quite funny to hear a so-called 'Liberal' like McGuinty rattling on about how divisive and balkanizing the inclusive education policy would be. Orwell would have had a ball with the McGuinty cabal.

What isn't so funny is that it worked. By keeping his head down and staying hidden during the campaign, McGuinty kept the focus off his abysmal record. Ditto all his henchmen - even Bryant wasn't shooting his mouth off in the media which was bizarre, since he lives for media ops. Then when Tory (acting on bad advice from Lasch and Patterson it appears), failed to explain FBF clearly, McGuinty held on to it like a dog with a bone.

I knocked on a lot of doors too. Once explained, people got why FBF was a good idea. However, most people's objection if they were honest with themselves was xenophobia, specifically about Muslims.

We had people come in to the campaign office and rant about Muslims - not realizing that most of the schools would be Christian schools of various types.

Here's the real kicker - the school people were just as angry because they wanted the funding with no strings attached.

Very bad platform plank, no question. Too hard to explain in the 5-second sound bites that most people rely on to make their voting decisions.

And Joanne is right - there is no depth to which the Liberals won't stoop in order to hold on to power. Self-interest is their only interest.

If the PCs want to win, they have to be as manipulative and sneaky as the Liberals - or the electorate has to get clued in to what's really going on.

Raphael Alexander said...

Does anyone on this blog have kids in school? If they did they'd know that the McGuinty gov't has set things back since before the NDP.

Well, that's not exactly true. Education is still suffering, but the teachers and unions are being paid extremely well.

Anonymous said...

Raphael - you're right of course. The only happy folks in the schools sure aren't parents, students or school boards.

Yet by all counts the re-election of McGuinty has dollar signs in their eyes again.

The big scam of course is the whole class size boongoggle. We never did have a class size problem in small town Ontario. Still our board receives money to hire teachers....more members for the unions because more split grades. More split grades mean more teachers and you get the picture.

This is not about education for children. It's about the teachers...again.

What McGuinty doesn't say is that for example if a board receives $400,000 for class size caps, if they don't need the money it can ba applied somewhere else. Do we know where or how that money is accounted for? Or is it going into another black whole?

Anonymous said...

Bill Davis...oops I mean John Tory's decision to stay is a mistake. This is not Bill Davis's Ontario and I agree with whoever said it before but he'll NEVER escape the fbschools issue...NEVER.

The party faithful need to clean house inside and out, including Liz Witmer. We need to offer Ontarians a choice and Witmer's more of the same liberal lite.

Was Mr. Klees at the caucus meeting? Anyone know for sure?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

By keeping his head down and staying hidden during the campaign, McGuinty kept the focus off his abysmal record. Ditto all his henchmen - even Bryant wasn't shooting his mouth off in the media which was bizarre, since he lives for media ops.

Very interesting comment, Anon. The whole thing was informative. Sounds like you had a lot of personal experience during the election, trying to deal with all this.

The highlighted part of your comment (above) is the other very important side of the last election - Dalton was deliberately kept away from anyone who could ask embarrassing questions (except for the Ottawa hospital incident).

Tory, on the other hand, loves to talk. He felt the need to answer every question and not duck reporters.

Therein lies his fatal flaw - He in too honest and accessible. Too genuine. He must learn how to avoid reporters when it is to his advantage, and how to deflect embarrassing questions. He also needs a pitbull around him just as McGuinty has George Smitherman. Then he can appear to be lily-white and let the others do his dirty work.


BTW, I had to enable comment verification due to an excess of spam. Sorry about that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This is not about education for children. It's about the teachers...again.

Exactly. Pandering to unions again. Miller and McGuinty both have to face new contract talks with many different public service unions. I wonder how much this is going to cost us? Can anyone say 'Tax Increases'?

Anonymous said...

"And the biggest lesson of all is this, John - Never, ever underestimate the moral depths to which the Liberal war machine will descend in order to win an election."

As soon as I heard that Kinsella was in charge of the McGuinty campaign, I could have predicted the outcome. Nasty business all 'round.

liberal supporter said...

joan: I read that you have been awarded a government contract for providing communications services.

Is that true? If so, congratulations!

I would be most interested in hearing you compare and contrast yourself and someone like warren. I am interested in the relationship with government and parties, and how does one maintain the division between party work and government work.

We see complaining about teacher unions, supposing that they may not be acting in the public interest, and instead act in the union interest. Would a similar situation exist elsewhere, so that someone will act more in the party interest than the public? If not, why?

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Daifallah is 100% right. If we want to give voters a choice we better BE that choice and give them an alternative.

This is NOT Bill Davis's Ontario....as many here have suggested.

BEAJ said...

I can't believe that the Tory supporters are blaming the Liberals for making the faith based funding platform. It was not the Liberals, it was the people who recognize that separation of church and state is what makes Canada and the West great.

If these religious groups keep whining about Catholic funding, the only thing that will happen is that Catholic school funding will disappear.

I'm all for them taking this issue to court. Taxpayers should not fund anything religious.

nomdeblog said...

Liberal supporter says “We see complaining about teacher unions, supposing that they may not be acting in the public interest, and instead act in the union interest. Would a similar situation exist elsewhere?”

Yes! It exists everywhere. People look after their own interests. Only Marxist utopians think otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with looking after your own interests, it is human nature. But we need choice and competition to counter too much power clustering into the near monopolies of the government institutional delivery of Health and Education. In turn the government union employees involved are near monopolies that hold us to ransom because we don’t have enough choice.

We’ll be reaching the tipping point by the next Ontario election. By that time the bodies of the baby boomers will be 4 years older and falling apart quite rapidly, the wait times will be very long. The next election is going to be fought on choice and competition to break near monopolies in Health and Education.

Möbius said...

It always amazes me that we choose leaders that are as liberal as the guys we are trying to beat. Eves and Tory lost by trying to be the so-called "nice" face of conservatism.

Harris won (twice) by doing what he said he would do.

We need to stop listening to liberals tell us what type of leader we need in Ontario.

Möbius said...

LS- you still haven't provided the reference for your claim that the CPC said "If you don't support the CPC, then you don't support the troops".


I do not have one.

So, you were making it up.

Möbius said...

Damn it, do you know how hard it is the do the word verification after several pints of beer!?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Möbius - lol!! I'll take it off for a while. ;)

Möbius said...

Thank God!

Or some other non-denominational deity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Möbius - I just have to remember to put it back on later tonight, or I'll be spending another hour tomorrow morning cleaning things up. However, if you want any pharmacy information, just let me know. ;)

liberal supporter said...

So, you were making it up.

No, you are making it up that I attributed this to the CPC itself. I simply gave the statement and said it had the same level of moral depth as "Tory wants to divide Canadians".

Did the Liberal party actually say "Tory wants to divide Canadians"? No.

Joanne was acting as if the CPC has some moral superiority. I do not agree.

Möbius said...

I've been protective of my work email, but still get 4 or 5 messages per week offering to enlarge certain parts of my anatomy. How expensive can it be to buy Viagra or Cialis at the local SDM?

I feel your pain.

Möbius said...

I think "You don't support the troops" if you don't agree with the CPC formerly new government

You said the above, and won't provide a reference for the quote. What's so difficult about that?

Hahaha!

liberal supporter said...

You said the above, and won't provide a reference for the quote. What's so difficult about that?

You don't need to provide a reference for your own statements. Paraphrasing others also does not requite a reference.

However, feel free to bash away at this strawman.

liberal supporter said...

how expensive can it be to buy Viagra or Cialis at the local SDM?

You need a prescription.
To get one, you need a doctor.
If you have a doctor, you might be too embarrassed to ask. You have to tell your doc you can't perform and need therapeutic treatment.

I once read that Hugh Hefner says viagra is the best recreational drug invented. I also read that young men (and even women, since it not actually hormones) will use it, even though they do not have a medical need.

I also feel your pain, Möbius. I too have inadequate small parts in my anatomy. I don't know how the nice people emailing me know this, but they assure me it is true.

Perhaps my past partners were just pitying me and being polite. Maybe that is why they are past partners.

It seems odd though, since in my student days, I watched some instructional movies and the men there had similarly small body parts. They appeared to be pleasing the women and quite vigorously too, so I think they were in the aroused state. Maybe the movie makers then did not want me to be burdened with the awful truth either. It must have been terrible performing in these movies knowing everyone watching would laugh at their puny parts.

Anonymous said...

"So I have to provide a quote from someone in the government, but your case rests on the words of a columnist?"

Good ol' Joan Tintor...on the payroll of the Conservative Party of Canada. Joan, paid $20,000 to merely put conservative talking points on a blog. Must be nice, but how can anyone read what she writes seriously anymore?

After all, she get's paid to say what the CPC wants her to. Does she even have any opinions of her own anymore? Who know?.....the CPC does, I'm sure.

Möbius said...

After all, she get's paid to say what the CPC wants her to. Does she even have any opinions of her own anymore? Who know?.....the CPC does, I'm sure.

And you are?....

Surely unconnected with the Liberal Party, I'm sure.