29 May 2011

This just gets better & better

-- TORONTO -- Ontario Conservatives would force high-risk sex offenders and other dangerous criminals to wear GPS monitoring bracelets, Sun Media has learned.

A PC government would also make the entire sex offender registry — including names and addresses — available to the public online.

These measures will be part of a strong anti-crime program in the Ontario PC election platform, Changebook, to be released Sunday.
The hits just keep on comin'... and comin'.

And let's not forget income splitting.

Stand by for the lunatic left-o-sphere to lose its collective mind... in three, two...


4 comments:

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This is good. Now we're seeing some clear definition between the Libs and PCs. Excellent.

No more Liberal Lite!!

Marcus said...

Hudak is a disaster. He'll say anything to get elected.

Any thoughtful Conservative smells a rat here. His promises don't add up.

6.1 billion more into heathcare, 5% decrease in income tax? Sounds great. Where's the money coming from?

You may love the tough on crime rhetoric, but Hudak has no depth at all. He should be sent packing before he does some real damage. (ie. like getting Dalton re-elected.)

Neo Conservative said...

*
"marcus says... Hudak is a disaster. He'll say anything to get elected."

of course... unlike good ol' dalton 'here's my written promise not to raise taxes' mcguinty.

or we could always let the ndp pull the levers of power again... 'cos that worked out so well the last time, eh?

*

Frances said...

Neo - I remember when the Status of Women (or one of their satellites) was publicly arguing that single-income families should have an additional tax because of the contribution of the no-income mate. Forget that said mate (and it was - in those days - almost unvariably female) would be the one looking after offspings and senior family members. Forget that said mate would be the volunteer at church, school, and community. Her work was - according to those women - a TAXABLE BENEFIT.

To this day, I wonder just what, specificially, part of the work of the 'non-working' spouse they really objected to. Caried to the ultimate end, all spouses would have had to refrain from any 'non-paying' work at home.

Where did that leave singles, responsible for all work, paying or otherwise, for their households?