Hey, Gilles, Jack, Michael: wanna try that again?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will campaign in the next election to kill direct public financing for political parties, which last year cost taxpayers $27-million.
Never the shrinking violet. Score one for the PM.
Some of My favorites so far!
From “Paul” (and since there is only one Paul on the planet we know exactly who He or she is)!
“Kim Leaman is a tax payer leeching Money for nothing censoring communist.”
Ya nailed it I think. lol! Although it is not exactly obvious without the commas it would take to turn it into readable English.
*******************************
From ET: Who is yet another Anonymous Commenter.
“Hey – why hasn’t Kim come on and justified his/her opinions? Is it the same old thing – where a leftist comes to a blog with a full set of ungrounded opinions and when called to account, disappears?”
I am not a Leftist (please look that one up) and how in Hell can an anonymous poster say I have disappeared? Do you seriously think that this is the only site on the web?
If my opinions are “ungrounded”, as you intimate, then look them up. It is all just a click away. It is not like you are so open minded that you will do that, but at least I am not the “unknown comic” of the two of us! That would be You.
I’m a very busy guy, I have not the time to justify all of my opinions to a close minded slave to the doctrine that is being proffered here. Why are you loyal to a man who thinks it is fair to play these games? He has no means whatsoever to change this rule, and can never do so without a Majority, and in spite of all the Right’s posturing that is simply not in the cards.
Besides, if two dollars is so important to you, don’t vote!
*************************************
And to any of you, and i suspect there are many of you, who thinks all tax is theft, try driving around on unpaved unmaintained roads for a while. And do try to keep it in mind, that unless you are quite well off, the taxes you pay in a lifetime are probably not enough to pave the road between where you live and where you work. Not even once in that lifetime.
*******************************
As far as me running back to the safety of my blog goes. There is nothing safe about publishing a blog that is open and searchable. If I wanted to play it safe, I would either call Myself ” John Wayne”, not give my URL, and post with safety. That is not nearly good enough. Although it meets the requirements of safety for any who are guided by their Amydalas.
**********************************
And finally, to Rose, who by any other name would still be anonymous and who worries, as she has been told to do by the Harper Conservative / Reform / Alliance Party (yes it’s actually a coalition and the result of a hostile takeover) to hate the long form census to the point of absurdly suggesting that it has been criminalized in any real way. Although I do see that the prosecutors in Saskatchewan have decided to prosecute a political opponent to prove Harper’s point it is a flawed position as we all know that the names disappear from and are kept separate from any of the data, other than the information that confirms such Compliance to the law.
***************************
Thanks for your support! And remember, I am not such a mystery as any of the many Anonymous among you!
Have a great day, eh?
Kim – you are not making coherent arguments.
First – whether I use my name or not in my posts, is totally irrelevant to the FACT of both the existence of and the veracity of my comments.
Second – when I say that you have ‘disappeared’ it means, obviously, from the site. Not from the planet. You know this, so don’t play semantic games.
Third – if you post on a site and provide us with only your conclusions, this means that those conclusions are ungrounded. That means they lack both factual and analytic support. It is up to YOU to provide both.
I cannot ‘look them up’ because I don’t know what facts you’ve actually used to support your opinions. Remember, you haven’t provided any facts! Nor do I know what logic you’ve used to link those facts to that conclusion. So your ‘it’s just a click away’ is spurious and empty.
Oh- and the word I think you want to use is not ‘intimate’ but ‘indicate’ or ‘imply’.
Now, what does ‘unknown comic’ mean and what has led you to such an opinion? Please, again, provide some facts and reasoning that led you to that conclusion. Surely you haven’t moved into the triviality of ad hominem!
Kindly provide the evidence for your statement about ‘close-minded slave to the doctrine that is being presented here’.Whew; that’s quite the opinion. Now – provide some evidence for my being ‘close-minded’ and a ‘slave’. Because I have an opinion- and I’ve explained my facts and reasons – how can that be ‘close-minded or slavish’? Explain.
And..what doctrine are you referring to? The suggestion that taxpayers should not fund political parties? Why do you reject the taxpayer’s right to debate and discuss this question? [It’s hardly a doctrine; again, semantics is important.]
Yet again – a fallacious statement. ‘If two dollars is important to you, don’t vote’. That’s a false hypothesis (IF-THEN hypothesis). The question is not about the importance of two dollars – which is most certainly NOT and should NOT linked to voting. The question is about whether or not the taxpayer should fund political parties (and a taxpayer includes those who vote and those who don’t vote). How about dealing with the question?
No – don’t try to bring up an irrelevant Red Herring tactic – of ‘you who think taxes are theft’. No-one is saying that. Don’t try the red herring. Stick to the question.
The question, which you refuse to debate, is on the legitimacy of the taxpayer funding political parties. You have opinions – but refuse to outline your reasons for those opinions..and you imply insult any and all who disagree with your ungrounded opinions.
No, the PC-Reform merger is not a coalition. Again, semantics is important. Get your terminology correct. A coalition exists when all parties maintain their separate identity and yet, in a particular situation, agree to work together. A merger removes the separate identities. Terminology is important.
As for the rest of your paragraph on that – it is so muddled that I have no idea of its meaning.
As for your irritation about the anonymity of the posters – our identity (our education, work, etc) is quite frankly not relevant to any discussion. What matters is only: the issue. Who/what a commenter is, is not relevant. HOW they debate the issue, the facts and analysis they offer on an issue – that is all that matters.
Again, how about providing us with your reasons and analysis for your opinions?
Kim Leaman>
On Criticizing “Paul” – “Although it is not exactly obvious without the commas it would take to turn it into readable English”.
This coming from a person who can’t spell their insults correctly like “scycophantic”.
By the way, how much does it cost to pave a road? And how much tax does the average conservative blogger pay? Where does the government get the money to pay for all these roads and services that taxpayers can’t afford? Why does government have extra money for entitlement & welfare programs both foreign and domestic, yet average taxpayers do not give enough money to pave the road in front of their house? If they can afford a house that is.
Kim Leaman>
A little awakening for you concerning your criticism of SDA.
Your blog 6,000 hits.
SDA + 20,000,000 million hits, that’s with an M.
I’m afraid your sentiments and appeal all exist in that dreamy little mind of yours. But please keep trying to educate us and Kate SDA with what the real pulse of Canadians should be. It reminds us why we have so much work ahead to reclaiming Canada back from the minority of fruitcakes that have taken it hostage.
Poor old Kim and Jim. Can’t think back and learn from history.
Democracy, and parties, survived quite well for over 130 years, nationally, without a direct handout from the taxpayers. They will surely survive without it, if they have a valid agenda, supported by the generosity of its members.
If the Greenies are as cheap as I think they are, that party is dead. Mixed thoughts about that though. The Greenies are great comic relief, Lizard May is a nutbar, and that 10% mines away the hardcore lefties from the Dippers or the Fibs, so, there is some residual value to their $2 per vote……
Les,
As a Reform organizer and then CPC.
You suggested that the $2 subsidy was democratic in that it empowered poorer citizens to help support their party of choice. When we started Reform we were the outcasts. We ran our first campaign on $4400 and unseated the sitting PC MP in the riding. The next campaign we elected our candidate on $24000.
The difference you ask? Our riding org had 1720 members, many volunteers. Election day we had scrutineers on every poll. Elections Canada people said to me that they had never seen that level of participation by the grassroots.
I suggest to you that it isn’t about the money. This subsidy is simply a way that ‘elites’ can dictate the message and control the electral process.
ET.
Yes, the paper did not say whether they thought the subsidy was good or bad but did suggest that all parties would be severely limited in their campaign abilities if nothing replaces it.
It also points out that Harper ran on the check-off system in the 2004 election. That’s the system the U.S. uses. He also said in his election platform that the money wouldn’t come off your personal taxes or affect your refund. It was financed by the taxpayer. You check off a box that says you want taxpayer funds ( a nominal amount ) going to the Federal election campaign. The money you allot goes into a general pool and is divided up among all the parties running based on a formula. It’s a taxpayer subsidy and you have no idea which party your money is going to support.
You know you can debate till the cows come home of how this may or may not be a detriment to one party or the other, or whether this would be a good move or a strike against democracy all you guys want.
But at the end of the day it comes down to this.
The money being paid out for this subsidy, is taken from tax payers, its not a donation. If this “subsidy” gets eliminated thats less money being spent by the government, and less justification by same to tax us for it.
Its a spending reduction, and its not spending on any of the favourite sacred cows of any demographic or interest group other than the political parties that are short of cash.
Using the argument against this that its somehow democratic is kind of hard to accept when this subsidy has only been around for less than a decade. Just how did democracy survive without tax payers dollars funding poitical parties since confederation (this perhaps explains Adscam)? It is also a hard argument to accept as it tends to be the equivalent of wrapping ones self in the flag, that being patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels
“Using the argument against this that its somehow democratic is kind of hard to accept when this subsidy has only been around for less than a decade. Just how did democracy survive without tax payers dollars”
Corporate and Union donations were unlimited.