Other than a sin tax, and commitments starting in 2015 2016 the vision is no vision just more gaff

I’m not sure about that steph99. After all, it does appear that rural high speed internet is an issue of national significance.

I think it’s actually good to see that the Conservatives are serious about ensuring that everyone in Canada has the same level of service when browsing porn and buying cheap junk from overseas as everyone else, LOL :)

So let’s do the math.. 2.9 billion deficit this year.. Then a 6.4 billion surplus.. A swing of 9.3 billion. Did he say where all this money was coming from?

As for rural internet.. Enjoy your porn NMG. And it will be great for rural schools to get faster internet as they will hopefully use it for education rather than what you seem to use it for ;)

So you are saying that porn is not education, P Val …..

My ex brother-in-law used porn as an aversion therapy for sexual deviants …..

So, I am wondering whether amazon could be used a aversion therapy for shop-a-holics and hoarders …. ;-)

Gus you think kids need porn in schools for education.. Seek help bud. Yikes

Angry Tom from the federal dippers said that there is nothing in the budget for our soldiers “defending our country”. Uh, er, um, hmmmm? OK. I guess he is right. The dippers still want us out of NATO?

A guy I worked with said he used porn to help him master subjunctives when he was learning French. Don’t blame the messenger, LOL.

Must be something in the $20 billion defense budget for soldiers,.

So in his teaser for the budget earlier in the week he mentioned there was something in the budget for going after charities that fund terrorists. Its like waiting for a punch line… where the beef Mr Flaherty?

I want to know who the terrorists are that are funded by charities. Is it the Children’s hospital charity he is talking about, should I hold off on funding the soup kitchen?

Or is this just more conservative rhetoric about using partisan government funding to go after those opposed to pipelines?

Eagleone, it is a well-known fact that a handful of radicals use environmental groups, such as Greenpeace to name one, to exercise their twisted version of justice and social activism. Those kinds of people need to be stopped. I think it pressures the charities to monitor their members’ activities don’t you?

Charities have gone well beyond what is legal in some cases. There have been relationships between terrorist organizations and charities subsidized by the Canadian tax payer. More scrutiny in this area is a good thing.

Do the pipeline opposition have something to hide? You can bet they don’t want there funding sources scrutinized.

Nice try dow;

The situation to which you infer links between a Toronto Hindu temples and terrorist organization “Tamil Tigers”.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/04/two-toronto-hindu-temples-fined-by-cra-for-sending-money-to-suspected-tamil-tigers/

How do you compare the Tamil Tigers, engaged in civil war using machine guns and bombs, with Canadian citizens who oppose pipelines in Canada?

I count myself among the 60% of British Columbians who “oppose” this pipeline, and you attempt to compare me, and us, to the Tamil Tigers. Yup, you sound like a conservative puppet shill.

Our oversight through regular audit practices should be enough to shut down any charity funding Tamil Tigers fighting ethnic cleansing a half a world away.

If its civil disobedience for political reasons why don’t they just use the gang laws for the Hells Angels and round up everyone from the green party? Oh, people would notice that wouldn’t they. Why undermine the neutrality of the tax agency?

Essentially what Flaherty is talking about is putting a chill into the civil society debate on public policy. He would much rather have it where untouchable people behind corporations (like sovereign wealth funds eg Petro China) skip out the middle man (citizen voters), and direct policy directly to the politicians entrusted with authority to set policy.

To hell with freedom of opinion when it comes to Revenue Canada under the Harper regime. For a politician born to a banker its only natural to use Revenue Canada to impose a political will on those who would descent from authoritarian rule. After all that’s the kind of tool Revenue Canada is for those types… and that my fellow citizens is a dangerous thing, no matter the hypothetical eco-terrorist argument put forward.

Lets face it the promise to use Revenue Canada as an enforcement unit of a political ideology whether to put a chill on opposition, or to actually direct politically motivated enforcement, threatens the very nature of rule of law democracy… and in that this Federal budget is a real bombshell… on civil society and democracy itself.

Those on Harper’s ‘enemies list’ got top billing for a Revenue Canada audit… and Harper’s favorite friends foreign and domestic get the Harper pass from Revenue Canada? Have we been highjacked as a country?

I would hope that the going after charities that fund terrorists are the types as listed on Wikipedia ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism

If it is intended to go after opposition to activities surrounding environmental groups that we will all be vigilant of that direction he would be taking. Harper seems to be the type who could possibly do that.

PVal … and you think that only kids in school get educated?

Obviously you do not understand what aversion therapy is.

Time you educated yourself and looked into it!!

Nice try peeps. Terrorist funding is certainly a concern. However,your comment of “canadian citizens” who oppose industrial projects needs more scrutiny. Many of these organizations receive clandestine funding from foreign entities. That is fine as long as Canadian tax laws and regulations are not breached. Even a brainwashed leftard like you know that much enviro protest funding comes from US entities that have an agenda of their own. Call me a con shill, I’ll take that any day over being a paid mindless troll.

Thanks for toning down your “terrorist” rhetoric dow. Noticed you never used the word once in your above response. ;-)

Thanks for toning down your “terrorist” rhetoric dow. Noticed you never used the word once in your above response. ;-)

Thanks for toning down your “terrorist” rhetoric dow. Noticed you never used the word once in your above response. ;-)

I have an aversion to sick individuals like yourself gus.

Are you having a seizure peeps?

Don’t know how that happened, posted just once at 8:53 am and it shows up three times all with the same date and time stamp.