# Wonderful quote



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> "Mr. Harper doesn't feel at ease with civil servants, with independent organizations or offices, with journalists, with the opposition — in a word, with democracy," Duceppe said.


Tories oppose Bloc motion supporting Elections Canada


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Duceppe has been the author of many wonderful quotes. My favourite:



> “We will be responsible. When something that is proposed that is good for Quebec, we will support that.”


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Mine's much better.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Parizeau's speech to "Oui" supporters after their defeat on October 30, 1995

"It's true we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and the ethnic vote."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here's my favourite Duceppe quote:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Here's my second favourite Harper quote:


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Good one Sinc! It makes him look even more like a certain type of head that comes to mind; fits the bill perfectly!

My favorite quote thus far is Dions..."You think it's easy to make priorities"...have they ever had a good politician come out of the belle province?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Now that that bit of mudslinging is over, here is the line that preceded the wonderful quote:



> But Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Tories' refusal to express confidence in Elections Canada is typical of Harper, who has fired the heads of a number of independent agencies — including the head of Canada's nuclear safety watchdog, the ethics commissioner and the environment commissioner — when they've disagreed with him.


Such anger. Such arrogance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Duceppe certainly knows from arrogance.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Perhaps we can have the thread subject line changed to "Wonderful quotation."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Perhaps we can have the thread subject line changed to "Wonderful quotation."


The title of the thread is correct as it _began_ with a quote.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Here's another:



> "This will be resolved. It's just a matter of how much dust do we have to kick up and how far do we have to drag the Prime Minister kicking and screaming to acknowledge that there are people in this country that he doesn't control."


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/420225


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here's a couple of quotes I like much better:

"After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn't mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It's a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question." - Stephen Harper 

"As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions." - Stephen Harper


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Here's a couple of quotes I like much better:
> 
> "After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn't mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It's a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question." - Stephen Harper
> 
> "As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions." - Stephen Harper


Those are wonderful! They show Stephen Harper to be the xenophobe he truly is! Nice and divisive, bordering on hateful. Thanks Sinc!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> The title of the thread is correct as it _began_ with a quote.


No, it began with a quotation. Calling it a "quote" uses the vernacular for "quotation."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> No, it began with a quotation. Calling it a "quote" uses the vernacular for "quotation."





> QUOTE: To refer to a statement that has been made by someone else.


quote - Wiktionary



> QUOTE: to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.


quote - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Must we waste time with this?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Those are wonderful! They show Stephen Harper to be the xenophobe he truly is! Nice and divisive, bordering on hateful. Thanks Sinc!


I for one think Harper is right on this and does not indicate anything of the kind that you are saying.

Your comments prove his to be correct. It is a religion in that we have faith in it when the is no real evidence that it does what it is supposed to.

Where has official bilingualism got us, from the time of it's inception by Mr. Trudeau? The PQ, two referendums, one that almost passed and the Bloq Quebecois being the Official Opposition at one point!

To be a leader one should have the guts to call it like it is and not support the status quo just because it is politically expedient to do so, we had plenty enough of that from the Chretien era.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Those are wonderful! They show Stephen Harper to be the xenophobe he truly is! Nice and divisive, bordering on hateful. Thanks Sinc!


How immature to call it hate.

It's fact and any way you cut it, official bilingualism is, and always has been a dismal failure.

Truth hurts does it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> How immature to call it hate.
> 
> It's fact and any way you cut it, official bilingualism is, and always has been a dismal failure.
> 
> Truth hurts does it?


Saying Harper's viewpoints are _*"bordering on hateful"*_ is immature? Hardly. Look at his track record.

Harper's current kowtowing to Quebec after his NCC days is so laughable. He really isn't fooling anyone.

Here's an excerpt from, and a link to an excellent op-ed piece written by Larry Zolf:



> Harper's pro-business, pro-military, anti-welfare and social conservative stands all add up to problems. His Canada is not the real Canada.
> 
> His Canada is also not Quebec - the prime minister and the province have little in common.
> 
> ...


CBC News - Viewpoint: Larry Zolf

Harper truly is the architect of his own undoing. It fills me full of glee to see the drama unfold. 

It's not a question of bilingualism being a success or failure, it's the anti-Quebec feelings behind the statements. So no, the 'truth' doesn't hurt at all.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Saying Harper's viewpoints are _*"bordering on hateful"*_ is immature? Hardly. Look at his track record.
> 
> Harper's current kowtowing to Quebec after his NCC days is so laughable. He really isn't fooling anyone.
> 
> ...


Anti-Quebec? Yeah that is why he went further than any PM before him and issued a motion to have the Quebec be recognized as distinct. The motion that was widely supported in the House of Commons and received a standing ovation even from the opposition Liberals read, "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." 

In 2006 he also signed an agreement with Quebec Premier Jean Charest establishing a formal role for Quebec in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Here is Charest had to say about the agreement:

Premier Charest stressed that the agreement, which recognizes Quebec’s unique and distinct personality, confirms Quebec’s special role on the world scene. “The signing of this Agreement, based on asymmetrical federalism, ushers in a new era of partnership between our two governments. Our presence in UNESCO will give us a say in sectors that are important for Quebec’s identity, such as culture, science and education. The federal government is formally recognizing Quebec’s capacity to act on the international front.”

You say look at his track record, well there is part of it in junction with Quebec. What part of it do you read as Anti- Quebec?

Do you really think that an op-ed from a flaming red Liberal supporter and promoter proves anything? Clearly Harper' s actions speak louder than Zolf's words.

You really shouldn't speak about things of which you know nothing about.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> quote - Wiktionary
> quote - Definitions from Dictionary.com
> 
> Must we waste time with this?


Sure, why not? Why else are we here?

In the thread title, "wonderful" is an adjective, and "quote" is a gerund. Although some sources will tell you this example is acceptable, it's a recent usage and, generally, isn't. "Quote" should be used as a verb. You can quote me on that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Anti-Quebec? Yeah that is why he went further than any PM before him and issued a motion to have the Quebec be recognized as distinct. The motion that was widely supported in the House of Commons and received a standing ovation even from the opposition Liberals read, "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."
> 
> In 2006 he also signed an agreement with Quebec Premier Jean Charest establishing a formal role for Quebec in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing vote buying means nothing to you? The only way to a majority for Harper is Quebec. Perhaps the things you 'know' really only scratch the surface.

Also, Have problems with flaming red Liberals versus icey blue Tories, oops, I mean Reformers?

I erred in saying that Harper's not fooling anyone. Because he seems to be fooling you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm guessing vote buying means nothing to you? Hello, the only way to a majority for Harper is Quebec. Perhaps the things you 'know' really only scratch the surface.
> 
> Also, Have problems with flaming red Liberals versus icey blue Tories, oops, I mean Reformers?


I believe in dealing with a person's actions not their so called "hidden agenda" that those on the left and the left leaning dominated media try and get the rest of us to believe exists. 

I'm not Liberal, not Conservative, nor NDP. I think for myself and follow no party lines. As such I'm not afraid to think outside any political box and judge things on their merits alone.

Until I see evidence of it in proposed legislation I am sick to death of the conspiracy theorists and all their hype of a secret Conservative "hidden agenda".

The point of the flaming red Liberal comment is that you offer up an op-ed of a known Liberal supporter as some sort of proof that Harper is anti-Quebec. That is like saying, "here read this op-ed by Ezra Levant, and you will see why Dion is weak kneed lamb duck leader who should never be PM." It's meaningless, their opinions are biased and vested in their own interests.

That's the problem with Party Politics and their supporters, they are incapable of judging things based on their owns merits independent of the source of origination. Gotta tow the party line, get in line with the rest of the sheep.

Democracy, real democracy, will never come to this country until we reform the Party Whip based Parliament we currently have. Maybe then in turn the electorate will start to think independently and evaluate policy critically based on merit alone.

As for your so called vote buying comment goes, how naive are you? What vote isn't bought either through proposed policy, promised action, or actual action? All votes are bought, it is just a matter of what currency you accept.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is time for reform of the Canadian parliamentary system. Could it be this simple?

Step 1. Outlaw all political parties.

Step 2. Elect independent candidates only.

Step 3. Elected MPs elect the PM.

Step 4. Majority rules on free vote on every issue before parliament.

Step 5. Establish authority conditions within which the PM could act without parliamentary approval.

Step 6. Establish authority conditions within which the civil service could operate without parliamentary approval.

Step 7. Enjoy government by the will of the people rather than the will of the party.

Might just be worth a try.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I believe in dealing with a person's actions not their so called "hidden agenda" that those on the left and the left leaning dominated media try and get the rest of us to believe exists.
> 
> I'm not Liberal, not Conservative, nor NDP. I think for myself and follow no party lines. As such I'm not afraid to think outside any political box and judge things on their merits alone.
> 
> ...


I think that choosing to overlook one's hidden (or otherwise) agenda is foolish and naive. I choose to view Harper through the lens of his past. Most noteably the NCC. For all intents and purposes, Zolf is merely doing the same.

Trying to diminish this by labeling it a conspiracy theory is a weary tactic at best. 

I, as you claim, am not a supported of any of our political parties and am not towing any party lines. I merely despise what Stephen Harper (and his ilk) stands for and am looking forward to him being sent packing back to the oil patch.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I think that choosing to overlook one's hidden (or otherwise) agenda is foolish and naive. I choose to view Harper through the lens of his past. Most noteably the NCC. For all intents and purposes, Zolf is merely doing the same.
> 
> Trying to diminish this by labeling it a conspiracy theory is a weary tactic at best.
> 
> I, as you claim, am not a supported of any of our political parties and am not towing any party lines. I merely despise what Stephen Harper stands for and am looking forward to him being sent packing back to the oil patch.


See that is exactly where you go wrong. I don't know about you, but I don't believe in exactly the same things now that I did twenty years ago or even ten. All human beings are capable of growth and change, in fact if we cease to do so we slowly die.

I did things as a manager twenty years ago that I would never do now. Why should any person be preferentially judged by their distant past actions vs. their most recent actions?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> See that is exactly where you go wrong. I don't know about you, but I don't believe in exactly the same things now that I did twenty years ago or even ten. All human beings are capable of growth and change, in fact if we cease to do so we slowly die.
> 
> I did things as a manager twenty years ago that I would never do now. Why should any person be preferentially judged by their distant past actions vs. their most recent actions?


Specifics may change but fundamentals do not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I think that choosing to overlook one's hidden (or otherwise) agenda is foolish and naive. I choose to view Harper through the lens of his past. Most noteably the NCC. For all intents and purposes, Zolf is merely doing the same.
> 
> Trying to diminish this by labeling it a conspiracy theory is a weary tactic at best.
> 
> I, as you claim, am not a supported of any of our political parties and am not towing any party lines. I merely despise what Stephen Harper (and his ilk) stands for and am looking forward to him being sent packing back to the oil patch.


How can you judge someone based on pure speculation and hearsay? You do not KNOW of any such agenda. The only people who could KNOW are the ones who hold it if is secret. It is not a matter of being naive it is a matter of choosing not to bear false witness or believe everything that the vested interests of an opposition and Liberal dominated media choose to feed me.

I work on Parliament Hill and have an insiders perspective to know that you only get half truths from the media and it is obvious which Party's agenda they tow. Also all you have to do is look at the ownership of the Eastern dominated Canadian media to know that it is Liberally biased. This is not speculation nor conspiracy theory. It is a fact.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Specifics may change but fundamentals do not.



Again, that is presumptuous of you. You can only speak for yourself. Also, politics is about specifics, philosophy is about fundamentals, so your comment despite it's invalidity would only serves to strengthen my point.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> How can you judge someone based on pure speculation and hearsay? You do not KNOW of any such agenda. The people who could know are the ones who hold it if is secret. It is not a matter of being naive it is a matter of choosing not to bear false witness or believe everything that the vested interests of an opposition and Liberal dominated media choose to feed me.
> 
> I work on Parliament Hill and have an insiders perspective to know that you only get half truths from the media and it is obvious which Party's agenda they tow. Also all you have to do is look at the ownership of the Eastern dominated Canadian media to know that it is Liberally biased. This is not speculation nor conspiracy theory. It is a fact.





screature said:


> I'm not Liberal, not Conservative, nor NDP. I think for myself and follow no party lines. As such I'm not afraid to think outside any political box and judge things on their merits alone.


Hmm, for an admitted nonpartisan, methinks ye doth protest (Liberal) too much.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Specifics may change but fundamentals do not.


Actually I have seen people re-evaluate and change fundamental beliefs. Sometimes but not always for the better. Certainly a year or three in office tends to add to the corruptibility of most politicians whatever their stripe. White on black does seem to be rather prevalent nowadays. 

Certainly if I find my self agreeing with the shrub on anything I instantly re-evaluate and usually change my views in that area.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, for an admitted nonpartisan, methinks ye doth protest (Liberal) too much.


Seems natural to me that anyone could continue to mistrust a party that brought crime and corruption to the highest levels and nearly destroyed the country in the process.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

SINC said:


> It is time for reform of the Canadian parliamentary system. Could it be this simple?
> 
> 
> 
> Step 5. Establish authority conditions within which the PM could act without parliamentary approval.


You mean sort of like this chappy?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Again, that is presumptuous of you. You can only speak for yourself. Also, politics is about specifics, philosophy is about fundamentals, so your comment despite it's invalidity would only serves to strengthen my point.


Harper's politics are his philosophy and vice versa. Nothing is being strengthed here at all. Harper's past speaks for itself. You can't change that. His present rubbish about transparency also speaks for itself. He is proving to be exactly what he is, an angry little dictator hell bent on reshaping our country to better fit into the American mold.

It seems pretty clear from your reactions that you are indeed very partisan. Why bother to say otherwise?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, for an admitted nonpartisan, methinks ye doth protest (Liberal) too much.


It doesn't take a partisan person to see what is. The media in eastern Canada is Liberally dominated it is a fact. It is also a fact that the only National media in Canada is eastern, therefore one can say without a shadow of a doubt that the media in Canada is Liberally dominated. I could agree with the views they portray or disagree with them, it wouldn't change the ownership or their political affiliation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Harper's politics are his philosophy and vice versa. Nothing is being strengthed here at all. Harper's past speaks for itself. You can't change that. His present rubbish about transparency also speaks for itself. He is proving to be exactly what he is, an angry little dictator hell bent on reshaping our country to better fit into the American mold.
> 
> It seems pretty clear from your reactions that you are indeed very partisan. Why bother to say otherwise?


Wrong! Every argument I have made is in specific reply to statements that you have made and that I disagree with. That does not make me anyones puppet. Again, just because I disagree with your attack on Harper does not mean I support him or his Party. It means that I disagree with you and your arguments.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Funny how the language issue is often called upon by those, conveniently, are in the majority. If it were reversed, I'm sure some would be bellyaching their right to communicate in their mother tongue.

It won't last... with the growing population of non-english speaking immigrants, it will soon be Cantonese.

Language is much higher than religion (and far more useful)--it's an absolute essential right for a person (in Canada) to be able to communicate with their government in one of the official languages.

Nobody is forcing anyone to speak French... but sure as sh!t there are a lot of people who want to force Quebec to speak English. Oddly enough, it seems the West is hellbent on it. I wonder why?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Nobody is forcing anyone to speak French... but sure as sh!t there are a lot of people who want to force Quebec to speak English. Oddly enough, it seems the West is hellbent on it. I wonder why?


That's rubbish and you know it. 

No one in the west gives a damn what language they speak in Quebec. Just don't force French down our throats is the major beef. I don't need to hear French first when I call the local RCMP or Post Office. Less than 3% of people here speak it.

Matter of fact it would make much better sense for them to use Mandarin, Vietnamese or East Indian if they followed local language demographics.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Funny how the language issue is often called upon by those, conveniently, are in the majority. If it were reversed, I'm sure some would be bellyaching their right to communicate in their mother tongue.
> 
> It won't last... with the growing population of non-english speaking immigrants, it will soon be Cantonese.
> 
> ...



Try getting a position past the entry level in the civil service. People ARE being forced to speak French, whether it will actually be used in their job or not.

The situation IS reversed for those of us who live in Quebec and are anglophone or allophone. We live here under Bill 101! One of the most ridiculous situations where a democratic society (Canada) has to allow for a totalitarian law to be held in force just to appease the minority population. Bill 101 is completely unconstitutional but cannot be challenged because Quebec never signed the constitution and the Federalists in Ottawa are always held hostage to the threat of separation. So give me a break!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Are parties really self-generating organisms?

Are most people really that opposed to groups of people establishing a consensus and then moving toward related goals?




SINC said:


> It is time for reform of the Canadian parliamentary system. Could it be this simple?
> 
> Step 1. Outlaw all political parties.
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Are parties really self-generating organisms?
> 
> Are most people really that opposed to groups of people establishing a consensus and then moving toward related goals?


If only it were that simple. The problem with parties as they exist within this county is the notion of the Whip where the party and its doctrine take priority over the wishes of the people and the individual that they elected to represent them must then tow the party line even if it goes against their interest. 

Classic case in point is where Bill Casey was thrown out of the Conservative caucus because he dissented with the party over the Atlantic Accord. He held and continues to hold Conservative principles in general, but because of one issue that he could not in all good conscience agree with and support relative to his electorate he was forced to leave the Party because of the Whip based system.

You have to ask yourself whose interest should reign supreme, the people or the Party's. I think that in a Democracy it should be the people's. People in this country vote for individuals who happen to belong to one Party or another. We vote for them, not the Party. If it were otherwise we should vote for a Party and we get whoever we get that the Party chooses to be our representative in Parliament. There is a major contradiction and conflict of interest that can arise within the current Party system as the Bill Casey situation again serves to illustrate.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> That's rubbish and you know it.
> 
> No one in the west gives a damn what language they speak in Quebec. Just don't force French down our throats is the major beef. I don't need to hear French first when I call the local RCMP or Post Office. Less than 3% of people here speak it.
> 
> Matter of fact it would make much better sense for them to use Mandarin, Vietnamese or East Indian if they followed local language demographics.


Please show me where Alberta (or any province for that matter) is being forced to speak French.

By all means.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Please show me where Alberta (or any province for that matter) is being forced to speak French.
> 
> By all means.


Roll your eyes all you like, but try using them to read. NOWHERE did I ever state ANYONE was being forced to speak French.

Geez.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Try getting a position past the entry level in the civil service. People ARE being forced to speak French, whether it will actually be used in their job or not.
> 
> The situation IS reversed for those of us who live in Quebec and are anglophone or allophone. We live here under Bill 101! One of the most ridiculous situations where a democratic society (Canada) has to allow for a totalitarian law to be held in force just to appease the minority population. Bill 101 is completely unconstitutional but cannot be challenged because Quebec never signed the constitution and the Federalists in Ottawa are always held hostage to the threat of separation. So give me a break!


Are you talking about Provincial civil service or Federal? There is a BIG difference and greater requirements that is essential for people to be able to speak both languages.

That said I have friends (and family) who work in various provincial, federal and military service that are not required to speak French. At all. It is elective and if they DESIRE to learn French they are (in some instances) allowed to take language courses. If they choose to do so.

French speaking Canadians have a far more difficult time getting decent English language training because it simply does not exist... at least quality training.

My wife has been working with the Feds for the last decade (PWGSC, HRDC, SDC, DND) and has never once been forced to speak French. EVER. She elected to learn French completely on her own out of a desire to better herself. Several of her friends whom she met via the IO program (when she first started) are English-only speaking professionals. One of which recently celebrated her husband getting accepted for a job with the Feds last year... and he does not speak a lick of French.

So believe what you will... there are a lot of issues with finding employment with the Feds... but simply blaming the language issue is short-sighted. There are far worse things to contend with--nepotism for one; running competitions specifically aimed at a person a department wants to hire (stacking the deck in one's favor), etc. than the language issue.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Roll your eyes all you like, but try using them to read. NOWHERE did I ever state ANYONE was being forced to speak French.
> 
> Geez.


While YOU may not "need to hear French" there are quite a few French-speaking Canadians in Alberta who might prefer to speak in that language. The last time I checked the RCMP were a national (federal) police force.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Are you talking about Provincial civil service or Federal? There is a BIG difference and greater requirements that is essential for people to be able to speak both languages.
> 
> That said I have friends (and family) who work in various provincial, federal and military service that are not required to speak French. At all. It is elective and if they DESIRE to learn French they are (in some instances) allowed to take language courses. If they choose to do so.
> 
> ...


Oh you can get a job, you just can't go very far whether you are otherwise qualified or not. A decade is a short time in the civil service. My sister will have her 30 years in three years, my brother-in law 25 years and my best friend 22. They all had to take second language training and get the highest designation for their second language to get where they are and yet ask any of them how much they use their second language they will tell you very little to not at all. Yet they continually go on refresher courses to maintain their level.

The language equality policy is a conflicting tangle of rules that falls far short of its stated goal. The only employees with a right to work in their own language are those at the lowest level. Once a person reaches even the first level of supervisory responsibility, she/he must be bilingual so that her/his employees can work in their language of choice. English-speaking supervisors would have a right to be supervised themselves in their own language, but it's a moot point because they rarely get the jobs.

In effect, this policy means that all but the lowest-level employees in a region like ours must be bilingual. Even those jobs are now hard to get. When a department like Public Works designates entry-level jobs as bilingual imperative, unilingual Canadians can't even get a foot in the door. For example, last year Public Works posted job openings for 39 administrative and business support clerks. Each and every one of these jobs was designated bilingual imperative.

What once might have been a well-meaning attempt to create a bilingual utopia has degenerated into a nonsensical hiring regime that actually denies federal government employment opportunities to the majority of Canadians. Only 17.7 per cent of Canadians are bilingual and only 8.8 per cent of anglophones can speak both official languages. The situation is nearly as bad for visible minorities, only 11.5 per cent of whom speak both French and English.

Here is the cold reality. In the national capital region, our federal government is only interested in people with a high degree of bilingualism. Other Canadians aren't welcome, and if they do manage to get on the first rung of the employment ladder, they will be stuck there.

That's grossly unfair to the majority of the Canadian population and it greatly narrows the talent pool for the federal government. That makes it bad public policy. It's high time the federal government woke up and did something about it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> While YOU may not "need to hear French" there are quite a few French-speaking Canadians in Alberta who might prefer to speak in that language. The last time I checked the RCMP were a national (federal) police force.


Yep, I already stated that about 3% of Albertans speak French. That leaves 97% of us who don't, yet I am greeted by "Bonjour, Gendarmerie royale du Canada" first, and then "Good morning RCMP" second.

I shouldn't even hear another language unless it is Mandarin if you count the numbers of Chinese versus French in Alberta.

It is a forced federal policy that is so out of step with reality it is laughable in western Canada.

That ought to be worth another dozen or so of those little blue things you over use.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> I work on Parliament Hill and have an insiders perspective to know that you only get half truths from the media and it is obvious which Party's agenda they tow. Also all you have to do is look at the ownership of the Eastern dominated Canadian media to know that it is Liberally biased. This is not speculation nor conspiracy theory. It is a fact.


I agree 100%. I worked for a dozen years in Ottawa in a nationally syndicated news organization. Of a staff of writers and researchers of about 25, me and the computer tech where the only guys in the office that were conservative. In fact one of our reporters had a cubical that looked like a shrine to Jean Chretien, complete with election posters, buttons and other liberal promo material. She covered the House of Commons and still does to this day. The Reform party was the official opposition at the time and they rarely held back their contempt and snickers during news meetings.

I would speculate that probably 30-40% of the staff would have been NDP supporters. Far higher percentages than the general population.

The CBC is another left wing biased organization. An example is when they cover the US election with "political experts" from the Huffington Post. I have no problem with them using these folks but they always forget the obligatory disclaimer, "that was Mary Brown from the *Left wing blog*, Huffington Post". The disclaimer is always front and center if its a source from the right, in which case they would be sure to warn us that "that was Dave from the *Right wing Think Tank*, The Fraser Institute". While they most often have the left wing angles well covered, they're often missing a perspective from the right.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> "It's another example of the Harper government's talk about accountability and transparency — they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk," said Black, who said her office often uses the database.


Tories kill access to information database

The $%[+ from this Government just keeps piling up.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Tories kill access to information database
> 
> The $%[+ from this Government just keeps piling up.


!!!!!

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> !!!!!
> 
> .


I made an assumption based on your cryptic post and made a change. By quoting it though, you keep the original intent in perpetuity.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> "This is terrible and I consider this to be yet one more step in making records less accessible," said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer, frequent user and co-author of a standard reference work on access law.
> 
> "To do this now after the CAIRS' usefulness has been proven over and over again is indicative of the extent to which government will go to stifle the access regime."


CityNews: Tories Kill Information Registry Used To Hold Government Accountable

Refreshing that the normally right leaning City TV picked up this Canadian Press story. Must have been by accident. 

I'm interested to see how anyone could defend the Government's actions on this one.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I made an assumption based on your cryptic post and made a change. By quoting it though, you keep the original intent in perpetuity.


I was expressing surprise with the astonishing story. It wasn't a comment on the euphemism, which I'm happy to edit also.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> I was expressing surprise with the astonishing story. It wasn't a comment on the euphemism, which I'm happy to edit also.


Thank you for clarifying that. I find it astonishing also.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> "You can control events for so long, you can only manipulate for so long and ultimately I think this has harmed the Harper government to the extent that Harper's image has become `Mr. Partisan, Mr. Mean, Mr. Control Freak,'"


TheStar.com | Canada | How Harper controls the spin



> Starting today, the Star launches a series titled "Secret Capital" looking at the communications style of the Harper government that sees cabinet ministers routinely muzzled, the Prime Minister remain aloof from the media during trips abroad and details about government initiatives hard to come by.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh dear.

Now yu duunit.

Here come the galloping unholy trinity...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh dear.
> 
> Now yu duunit.
> 
> Here come the galloping unholy trinity...


I'm concerned more about this message rather than theirs...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mr. Dion's voice: "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"

Stéphane Dion. Not a leader. Not worth the risk.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Here's my second favourite Harper quote:


It's that cowboy from the Village People! Minus the mustache.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Mr. Dion's voice: "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"
> 
> Stéphane Dion. Not a leader. Not worth the risk.


After witnessing Harper in 'minority' mode I would say any option is better.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> After witnessing Harper in 'minority' mode I would say any option is better.


So bring on an election. Remember though, Dion is scared to try because he knows he would lose.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Time for an election to put that mean-spirited guy to the test!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm concerned more about this message rather than theirs...


I agree. And I appreciate the link. But, a quick glance at a few of the responses, we have people are more interested in sabre rattling, and any other diversion but, actually dealing with the subject you posted.

Just because Dion, is failing to ignite any excitement for the liberals, does not mean a pass for what the tories are doing. I have some friends in Ottawa working in government telling me first hand what this centralizing is doing. 

As for an election. Just keep any of them in minority. Period.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I
> Just because Dion, is failing to ignite any excitement for the liberals, does not mean a pass for what the tories are doing.


Exactly. This isn't a partisan issue at all. It's an issue who's mandate is being kept as far away from the voters eyes as possible. The fact more of us aren't united and up in arms about this truly surprises me. Get rid of this creep and start again. There is far too much at stake.

As far as Dion being lame, I totally agree. As far as Dion losing? Perhaps, but I still see a possible Liberal minority based on polling figures. But a Conservative/ Reform majority? Absolutely not. Possibly just more of Harper's nonsense until a strong Liberal leader is elected.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> But a Conservative/ Reform majority? Absolutely not.


Quite a deduction given the Reform Party has been gone for many years.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Quite a deduction given the Reform Party has been gone for many years.


Some people just can't move on, they are just more interested in ascribing labels than dealing with reality.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Some people just can't move on, they are just more interested in ascribing labels than dealing with reality.


And what label are you ascribing in making this comment?

If you believe that suddenly saying 'we're not this but this' is enough to warrant a difference then I fear who the voters are out there. 

I also realize that we are talking about your employer so for you there is some forgiveness.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's why so few voted Liberal the last time out.

They didn't even have the smarts to change their name, just their spots. And Dion is the big spot. Or is that big shot? I'm never sure.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Killing CAIRS was a mistake, plain and simple. It saves little and even though it may have been used primarily by political rivals it does reduce the transparency that was promised by the Conservatives. It also does a disservice to democracy.

As for Harper being a control freak, I don't know of any Leader that isn't, go down the line from Trudeau to Mulroney to Chretien all control freaks, the difference is that all these PM's were leading majority Governments that couldn't be brought down by a non-confidence vote.

As a leader you can have much greater slack in the reins with your Caucus and Cabinet when you know that no one single blunder could bring down your Government.

I am not a fan of the way Harper is reigning in his Caucus and Cabinet, but I can understand it and quite frankly it is working. This is the second longest sitting Minority Parliament in history well on its way to becoming the longest.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I also realize that we are talking about your employer so for you there is some forgiveness.


And exactly how would you know who my employer is? And even if you "think" you do, you would be wrong. I have stated that I work on Parliament Hill, that doesn't make any political Party my employer (shows how little you actually know about how things work) my cheques are issued by the Government of Canada. I really have to refrain from using colourful language here, but you have no idea who I am or what I do even if you "think" you do. You might want to think twice about speaking about things of which you know little.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> And what label are you ascribing in making this comment?
> 
> If you believe that suddenly saying 'we're not this but this' is enough to warrant a difference then I fear who the voters are out there.
> 
> I also realize that we are talking about your employer so for you there is some forgiveness.


You also clearly have no knowledge of the Reform movement and its history if you think you can ascribe the Conservative/Reform label to the current Conservative party. The name had to be changed because there were significant policy differences between Reform, PC and now CPC. Not to mention there is a completely different constitution for the new party. Granted you are still talking about people that are politically conservative but the Party is a different Party.

On your terms the NDP should be known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)/Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). Why don't you stop being partisan for just one moment and try to enter into an educated, intelligent, adult and non-belligerent dialogue, it just might prove to be fruitful.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Really. How intelligent does one really need to be to understand the words, "the west wants in"?

The 'new' conservatives are not the reform party, but I will not buy for one second it's a 'different' party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Exactly. This isn't a partisan issue at all. It's an issue who's mandate is being kept as far away from the voters eyes as possible. The fact more of us aren't united and up in arms about this truly surprises me. Get rid of this creep and start again. There is far too much at stake.
> 
> As far as Dion being lame, I totally agree. As far as Dion losing? Perhaps, but I still see a possible Liberal minority based on polling figures. But a Conservative/ Reform majority? Absolutely not. Possibly just more of Harper's nonsense until a strong Liberal leader is elected.


rose colored glasses conservatives simply cannot fathom this. Each, and EVERY criticism is met with either yea well call an election then har har, or well the liberals did blah blah...

Does ever occur to them, for even a a few shining seconds, that they are, as guilty as the idiots voting in droves for the past corrupt liberal governments? They are running like the lemmings they har har'd about in the thousands, ready to mark their "X" to reward a government, who just as the liberals did. Lie.

Lie.

And lie again.

Do you think at any time, we might consider NOT rewarding a government, who blatantly takes us for idiots???


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Really. How intelligent does one really need to be to understand the words, "the west wants in"?
> 
> The 'new' conservatives are not the reform party, but I will not buy for one second it's a 'different' party.


You really should read the constitutions of the previous parties Reform, PC and the CPC as that is what defines a Party. They are different and in some instances significantly different.

The West undoubtedly "wants in" as you put it. What Province outside of Ontario and Quebec don't? For the West, clearly the only option currently to achieve a place at the table is through the CPC. 

If you know your history you would know that the Reform Party came about as a reaction against the Mulroney Conservatives. The Conservatives were obliterated in the West by the Reform Party. There was a great disdain for the kind of centralized power that came with Mulroney, they wanted something different, a more egalitarian Party where all the power did not reside at the top. For a while that was the Party they had, but they were never going to form government because they would always be seen by the East as a regionalist Party. That is why Preston Manning did what he did by trying to reunite the two factions of Conservatism in Canada. It was never a very happy union because there was and still is some bad blood between the two sides.

That is in part why Harper is a bit of a tyrant, he has to hold together a Party that has a membership with two very different views of Conservatism and two very different Party histories and somehow keep them both happy or at least keep the Party from imploding.

This Conservative Party IS very different from either the Reform or PC's because it is comprised of both. They are a Party of internal compromise, which as long as they are in power is their strength but once they lose power there will be very difficult times ahead for them and they most likely will fall into disarray much in the same manner as did the Liberals without the iron fist of Chretien to keep them in line.

It is actually very ironic for the Reformers who still support the CPC because with the pursuit of power the baby was thrown out with the bath water. They lost their egalitarian ideal and once again they have a Party where all the power is centralized at the top.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> And exactly how would you know who my employer is? And even if you "think" you do, you would be wrong. I have stated that I work on Parliament Hill, that doesn't make any political Party my employer (shows how little you actually know about how things work) my cheques are issued by the Government of Canada. I really have to refrain from using colourful language here, but you have no idea who I am or what I do even if you "think" you do. You might want to think twice about speaking about things of which you know little.


Checked your ehMac profile lately?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> You also clearly have no knowledge of the Reform movement and its history if you think you can ascribe the Conservative/Reform label to the current Conservative party. The name had to be changed because there were significant policy differences between Reform, PC and now CPC. Not to mention there is a completely different constitution for the new party. Granted you are still talking about people that are politically conservative but the Party is a different Party.
> 
> On your terms the NDP should be known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)/Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). Why don't you stop being partisan for just one moment and try to enter into an educated, intelligent, adult and non-belligerent dialogue, it just might prove to be fruitful.


The merging of parties was the only way The Reformers could fool their way into power. The preverbal wolf in sheep's clothing. The Conservatives after the disastrous Mulroney years had nothing left to lose.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Why don't you stop being partisan for just one moment and try to enter into an educated, intelligent, adult and non-belligerent dialogue, it just might prove to be fruitful.


Thanks for the advice but I'll pass. I find Harper, his politics and ideals to be repugnant. He is a snake in the grass and hopefully, from what the polls show anyway, he's fooling no one new.

As far as me being partisan, if my disdain for Harper and his inner circle of thugs makes me partisan then so be it. In my opinion all of our glorious parties come with their own baggage. I fly no one's flag, I just look for the right person for the job.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Checked your ehMac profile lately?


I checked it and it seems to be missing something. Or is that anything?

Nothing there to indicate anything you suggest. Blowing more smoke are we?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I checked it and it seems to be missing something. Or is that anything?
> 
> Nothing there to indicate anything you suggest. Blowing more smoke are we?


Ahh if only, I gave that up four years ago.

From a website provided in the profile:



> His background includes business-to-business and consumer work as well as time as a Special and Legislative Assistant to a Member of the Canadian Parliament.


Given this and a perceived and concrete defense of the party, I assumed () employer allegiance. Of course I don't know for certain but if it walks like a duck...

Oh and for the record, I have no problem being incorrect from time to time and admitting it. You should try it.

And ewww, now I feel like a stalker.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Ahh if only, I gave that up four years ago.
> 
> From a website provided in the profile:
> 
> ...


Ah, I see. Paranoia. OK.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ah, I see. Paranoia. OK.


?

Go to bed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Little early for me and I am not delusional. Nighty night.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Little early for me and I am not delusional. Nighty night.


Please SINC, tell me how I'm delusional.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Please SINC, tell me how I'm delusional.


Never said you were. I simply said I am not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Never said you were. I simply said I am not.


Good play. It seems to be one of your favourites.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> Special and Legislative Assistant to a Member of the Canadian Parliament.


I'm pretty delusional too I guess.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I'm pretty delusional too I guess.


Not unless of course, you assume without any proof that it is the party of YOUR choice, so it would suit your opinions. Could be the one you support.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

unfortunately for you sinc, my opinion here isn't to further another party 'of my choice'.

Yours, is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> unfortunately for you sinc, my opinion here isn't to further another party 'of my choice'.
> 
> Yours, is.


BS. You have proven time and time again to be anti Conservative, little different from my anti Liberal stance. I call that a draw.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

anti conservative?

No. I am criticizing what I see as unacceptable in government.

I think it's time you saw the difference.

And that ain't no BS Sinc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, tell me gt, what was wrong with the Liberal government over their 13 year reign of governing?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Good lord Sinc.

We need about 10 more pages to get into that. Make that 20.

Can we summarize and say there was many things wrong? 

I'm really getting tired.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OK, then let's leave it at this. The Cons have to go one hell of a long ways to even begin to catch the Libs on corruption and things done wrong in the course of governing the country.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Ahh if only, I gave that up four years ago.
> 
> From a website provided in the profile:
> 
> ...



Well, well I didn't realize I had become so famous (perhaps infamous in mrjimmy's eyes) as to warrant my own real life stalker. Thanks for the compliment. It seems some of the things I have said have rubbed you the wrong way enough to conduct your own little private investigations.

It really wasn't all that hard being that my freelance company has a website where my past is on full public display. You however you seem to have connected a few dots where there aren't any to connect.

The only political Party I have ever belonged to was the NDP back in my early university years. A card carrying member. It didn't take long to become disillusioned with the whole Party system of politics in this country. 

I did spend a period of time working for an MP as his Special Assistant (a job that fell into my lap at a time when I needed one), doing his web site and desktop publishing and other Marcom functions as well as for a time being his Legislative Assistant during a maternity leave. 

When one works on the Hill one gets to see quite intimately how the various Parties function, their connections, how they operate and if you are doing your job right, you become a student of every Party.

Partly because you need to because come the next election you may need to be marketing your skill to a Member that belongs to a different Party from the one you were working for before. There are many Hill staffers who have worked for Members from different Parties, I know people who have worked on the Hill for 30 years and who have worked for Members of every Federalist Party.

Most MPs who are not incumbents know very little about how things work on the Hill and actually very little about the Parliamentary process. Being a staffer to an MP isn't about being a party faithful it is about knowing your job and the ins and out of Parliament. Those skills are transferable across Party lines.

I worked on the Hill during the Chretien dynasty and through the trials and tribulation of the various incarnations of the various Conservative based Parties up until the formation on the Canadian Alliance. Consequently I am very well versed in the history of that period.

Your attempt to portray me as being a conservative because I know their history and because I take exception to your inaccurate and facile branding of a reconstituted Conservative Party as something that it is not is misguided. I do not defend the Conservative party, I do take exception to demonization of any one Party over another because I have seen how they work from the inside and none of them are any better or any worse when it comes to a moral high ground.

I also take exception to people who think they know the inner workings and minds of people from what they read in the news paper, hear on the radio or watch on TV. Armchair politicians or critics at best full of bluster and furry with very little actual knowledge but plenty of opinion all garnered at the teat of the ever willing media to feed you with half truth, innuendo, hearsay and gossip.

mrjimmy, I have taken exception to a number of things you have said regarding the conservatives and even Harper because either they were inaccurate or in flew in the face of history and fact. You can hate Steven Harper and the conservatives all you want I could care less, there is plenty about them I don't like myself. But I would appreciate it if you put an end to your own personal witch hunt when it comes to myself. It is tiresome and quite frankly rather disturbing. A man should be entitled express to his opinions (which are generated from first hand experience ) without having to feel that he is being stalked by someone who happens to disagree with him.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*Bordel de Merde!* tptptptp 

I know it has a somewhat strong meaning but I'm going by what Google told me...

"for crying out loud"...

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

My neice and nephew in northern B.C. had the luck to have access to a fine French immersion school... from little youngsters on to graduation and now they are fluent in both national languages... THAT'S how you do it...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Furthermore... I do my best not to refer to someone else as a Conservative in a way that sounds accusatory of something and would sure appreciate the same respect of my Liberal ways! 

Further on language... unfortunately my French is very limited... I would love to meet someone here, relocated from Quebec willing to do some tutoring. I'd like to visit Quebec someday and I think it appropriate to make the effort to communicate in French. In any case I think it would just add to making for a pleasant visit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DreamBird: Read the backs of cereal boxes and you can gagnez a fine command of the French language as your prix.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> It seems some of the things I have said have rubbed you the wrong way enough to conduct your own little private investigations.


Well if you call 30 seconds spent looking at someone's profile an investigation then yes. It was more of a response to your neck vein bulging, colourful language, what do you know about me anyway comment. I actually was more amused than rubbed the wrong way.



screature said:


> Partly because you need to because come the next election you may need to be marketing your skill to a Member that belongs to a different Party from the one you were working for before. There are many Hill staffers who have worked for Members from different Parties, I know people who have worked on the Hill for 30 years and who have worked for Members of every Federalist Party.
> 
> Most MPs who are not incumbents know very little about how things work on the Hill and actually very little about the Parliamentary process. Being a staffer to an MP isn't about being a party faithful it is about knowing your job and the ins and out of Parliament. Those skills are transferable across Party lines.


Fair enough. Although the tone of your posts implied otherwise. My mistake.



screature said:


> Your attempt to portray me as being a conservative because I know their history and because I take exception to your inaccurate and facile branding of a reconstituted Conservative Party as something that it is not is misguided. I do not defend the Conservative party, I do take exception to demonization of any one Party over another because I have seen how they work from the inside and none of them are any better or any worse when it comes to a moral high ground.


Well I guess that's one of the minefields of politics and political opinion.



screature said:


> I also take exception to people who think they know the inner workings and minds of people from what they read in the news paper, hear on the radio or watch on TV. Armchair politicians or critics at best full of bluster and furry with very little actual knowledge but plenty of opinion all garnered at the teat of the ever willing media to feed you with half truth, innuendo, hearsay and gossip.


Well, we unwashed have nothing else to go on but what the media feeds us. If it is so ludicrous and inaccurate, why is Harper trying to muzzle it?



screature said:


> mrjimmy, I have taken exception to a number of things you have said regarding the conservatives and even Harper because either they were inaccurate or in flew in the face of history and fact. You can hate Steven Harper and the conservatives all you want I could care less, there is plenty about them I don't like myself. But I would appreciate it if you put an end to your own personal witch hunt when it comes to myself. It is tiresome and quite frankly rather disturbing. A man should be entitled express to his opinions (which are generated from first hand experience ) without having to feel that he is being stalked by someone who happens to disagree with him.


If you consider referring back to old posts and glancing at a very public user profile tiresome and a witch hunt then you must have a very thin skin. 

As far as the conservatives and their leader, well, chacun à son goût.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Well, we unwashed have nothing else to go on but what the media feeds us. If it is so ludicrous and inaccurate, why is Harper trying to muzzle it?


I would say in my estimation it is for two reasons. First he is terrible with the media, he has very little charm or charisma and it his way of taking control of something that could otherwise be very detrimental to his image. He IS very controlling without doubt.

Secondly, the answer is in your question. "If it is so ludicrous and inaccurate, why is Harper trying to muzzle it?" Because some of it is half truth and innuendo. In the court of public opinion many times an accusation is as good as a guilty verdict. Plain and simple. 





mrjimmy said:


> If you consider referring back to old posts and glancing at a very public user profile tiresome and a witch hunt then you must have a very thin skin.
> 
> As far as the conservatives and their leader, well, chacun à son goût.


Yeah well, it was late last night when I was responding both tired and peeved, so under those conditions sometimes things get a little overstated. What I took exception to was your jumping to conclusions as to whose pay role I am on. As I have said to you before I am no ones puppet and I think for myself, I belong to no religion nor to any political party. Obviously I have my own particular "bent" on things as anyone does, but it is my bent and I just wish you would pay me the respect of accepting that and not insinuate otherwise.

As for chacun à son goût, absolutely, wouldn't have it any other way. Just further on that point this is part of the reason why I hate the current form our Party system takes. There is plenty I don't like about all of the Parties Policies and there are pieces of all the parties policies that I am in favour of, but the way things work it is an all or nothing scenario. So we (well me) are always left choosing what we think to be the lesser of evils. In the current political climate, for me, I'm not quite sure what Party that is. You clearly have made up your mind and that is obviously your right. It doesn't however mean that you should be entitled to deride others who do not share your view. Disagree by all means, but there is absolutely no reason to make things personal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> OK, then let's leave it at this. The Cons have to go one hell of a long ways to even begin to catch the Libs on corruption and things done wrong in the course of governing the country.


how about 13 years of majorities?

I'd lay money on it.

Sinc you are comparing 2 years of trying to stay 'clean' minority to 13 years of liberal majorities. Come on... all they've had is 2 years in minority of having to keep squeaky clean to get a majority, and look at the problems already!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sinc you are comparing 2 years of trying to stay 'clean' minority to 13 years of liberal majorities.


Indeed, and it's been a breath of fresh air.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

see that's the reason right there why I cant take anything you say about this seriously.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> You really should read the constitutions of the previous parties Reform, PC and the CPC as that is what defines a Party. They are different and in some instances significantly different.
> 
> The West undoubtedly "wants in" as you put it. What Province outside of Ontario and Quebec don't? For the West, clearly the only option currently to achieve a place at the table is through the CPC.
> 
> ...


No I don't need to read the constitution of either party to see what is plain to me. The 'new' conservatives may be a new party with a re written constitution, but as you cannot deny it is made up of both conservative and reform members so regardless, this is not a completely different party from the reform party. If the reform party's values were completely and totally wiped out then we'd see a fracture of the party pretty soon. So I don't know what is being debated here really.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I would say in my estimation it is for two reasons. First he is terrible with the media, he has very little charm or charisma and it his way of taking control of something that could otherwise be very detrimental to his image. He IS very controlling without doubt.
> 
> Secondly, the answer is in your question. "If it is so ludicrous and inaccurate, why is Harper trying to muzzle it?" Because some of it is half truth and innuendo. In the court of public opinion many times an accusation is as good as a guilty verdict. Plain and simple.


I would contend that thirdly, he has a political agenda that would be unpalatable to a majority of Canadians.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> No I don't need to read the constitution of either party to see what is plain to me. The 'new' conservatives may be a new party with a re written constitution, but as you cannot deny it is made up of both conservative and reform members so regardless, this is not a completely different party from the reform party. If the reform party's values were completely and totally wiped out then we'd see a fracture of the party pretty soon. So I don't know what is being debated here really.


This is my opinion as well. In fact, ask anyone less than enamoured with the Conservatives and it generally will be their opinion also. It will take the party some time I suspect to shake the specter of Reform if it ever does at all.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Yeah well, it was late last night when I was responding both tired and peeved, so under those conditions sometimes things get a little overstated. What I took exception to was your jumping to conclusions as to whose pay role I am on. As I have said to you before I am no ones puppet and I think for myself, I belong to no religion nor to any political party. Obviously I have my own particular "bent" on things as anyone does, but it is my bent and I just wish you would pay me the respect of accepting that and not insinuate otherwise.
> 
> As for chacun à son goût, absolutely, wouldn't have it any other way. Just further on that point this is part of the reason why I hate the current form our Party system takes. There is plenty I don't like about all of the Parties Policies and there are pieces of all the parties policies that I am in favour of, but the way things work it is an all or nothing scenario. So we (well me) are always left choosing what we think to be the lesser of evils. In the current political climate, for me, I'm not quite sure what Party that is. You clearly have made up your mind and that is obviously your right. It doesn't however mean that you should be entitled to deride others who do not share your view. Disagree by all means, but there is absolutely no reason to make things personal.


Fair enough.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I would contend that thirdly, he has a political agenda that would be unpalatable to a majority of Canadians.


Did you base that rather iffy conclusion on the fact he formed a government after enough of that "majority" of Canadians you refer to voted for him?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Did you base that rather iffy conclusion on the fact he formed a government after enough of that "majority" of Canadians you refer to voted for him?


Look at the polls SINC.

And what was the percentage of the popular vote the Cons received in the last election?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Fair enough.


Great. All water under the bridge.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

TheStar.com | Canada | Tories seen as secretive, arrogant



> "(Harper) is certainly seen as being a secretive, obsequious kind of guy," said Angus Reid, CEO of Angus Reid Strategies. "There seems to be this lack of accessibility to Stephen Harper. The guy just has not connected at an emotional, visceral level with Canadians."
> 
> Almost three in five – 58 per cent – are "dissatisfied" with the way the government has performed in informing the public about its policies and plans.
> 
> ...





> Florence Best, 74, of Victoria is one who thinks the Tories are secretive.
> 
> "What I live for and fight for is freedom to speak ... and reporters to report," the former nursing instructor, one of the people surveyed, said from her home.
> 
> Best also called Harper arrogant, "and if he is arrogant he is not going to listen to the ordinary person. ... If Mr. Harper gets back in, I will be frightened for the future, for my grandchildren and my country."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, if Florence Best is miffed, who can argue with that?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, if Florence Best is miffed, who can argue with that?


Exactly. Florence and the thousands, if not millions like her.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh hell, why not just say Florence Best represents 30 million Canadians and be done with it?


----------

