# The Truth About The Liberals?



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

By Ian Robinson -- Calgary Sun

Back when I was a boy reporter, rosy cheeked, innocent and about as worldly as a newborn kitten, I encountered the forces of corruption that would forever change my political beliefs.

That's right.

I met some Liberals.

In June 1984, I was working at a small paper within easy commute of Ottawa when the party met to choose a new leader. My editor decided he could spare his only reporter for the weekend and signed me up to go.

I was so green I was thrilled. An entire weekend of political speechifying?

Cool!

As far as I could tell, the only other compelling item on the weekend schedule was a garden show. I got to cover national politics. My editor got to take pictures of old ladies and their roses. If he was lucky, somebody would've found a potato in the root cellar that looked like Winston Churchill and we'd run it as secondary art on front page.

And no, unfortunately, I'm not kidding.

My town's delegates were my subject that weekend. Who they supported (the completely forgettable John Turner), the experiences they had (mostly they got drunk) and how they felt after it was over (happy that they'd chosen a leader who would usher in a new era of permanent peace and prosperity. Yeah. Right.)

I got to hear the best political speech of my life -- Jean Chretien in his losing bid for the leadership outlining his opponent's beliefs and, after enumerating each one, thundering: "NOT THIS LIBERAL!"

Guy gave me goosebumps. Seriously. You'd never have known he was just another degenerate power whore.

The two guys I hung around with at the convention were serious movers-and-shakers in the small town where I worked. They were nice guys, even though they were lawyers. They showed me the ropes. They showed me where the bathrooms were.

And then they showed me their true faces.

As the first round of voting began, one of them handed me an envelope. "Little present for you," he said.

I opened it. It was a complete delegate's package. It had my Liberal Party of Canada membership card. It was so new I was surprised the ink had a chance to dry. And there was all the other stuff that would allow me to vote for the next leader of the party.

"Don't worry," the guy said. "We paid your membership and registration for you. Just get in line and vote for John Turner."

"Um," I said. "This isn't exactly OK, is it?"

He slapped me on the shoulder. "Everybody does it," he said. "Half the delegates here are instant Liberals. Don't worry about it. Just do the right thing for us here."

I said OK and faded into the crowd on the convention floor and called my editor.

Do the right thing?

My editor told me not to be stupid. That I didn't have to vote, but there was no way I was going to write about what had happened. Well, I could write it, but he wasn't going to publish it.

He was a Liberal too, you see.

Everybody did it, he said. It was OK. It was just the way politics worked. That I should maybe grow up a little. I thought about quitting on the spot. I was leaving the paper in a few months anyway to get married. I even had another job lined up. I didn't quit on the spot.

I did, however, get in line with the other delegates and cast my vote for Chretien instead of Turner, because ... well, if I can't get all the way even, I'll settle for what I can get.

I would go on to encounter people in politics I thought were honest, but I treated everyone I met like they were on the take.

I still do, pretty much.

That was the last editor I met who'd kill a story for political reasons. I guess I got lucky.

The Liberals had a policy convention this weekend. They congratulated themselves on throwing out the traditional definition of marriage and betraying our oldest and most constant ally on missile defence.

Harvard University intellectual Michael Ignatieff told the delegates the Liberal Party of Canada "itself is an instrument of social justice."

He concluded by urging delegates to remain true to Liberal values -- "generosity, unity, sovereignty, justice, and the courage to choose, the will to govern."

As they taught me a long time ago, there's only one thing on that list they really care about and, to give them credit, they do it better than anybody else.

Liberals do have the will to govern. And, as the Gomery Commission keeps telling us, they'll do pretty much anything to keep on doing it.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Ah, the Calgary Sun, the last bastion of objective reporting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nothing to do with the Sun. READ.

It is his personal experience when working for a weekly in Ottawa.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Tis a good yarn. You can bet that this does not apply to just the Liberal party. 

Ain't politics grand? Not!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex said:


> Tis a good yarn. You can bet that this does not apply to just the Liberal party.
> 
> Ain't politics grand? Not!


I suspect that all parties are guilty of the same kind of conduct, but that does not make it right.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Truth is, I will always vote for a party whose policies are most similar to my own values. When it comes to general human rights, separation of church and state, rights of women, pluralistic society, social justice, healthcare, etc., I could not possibly support Stephen Harper. I'm also more middle-of-the-road than the NDP (believing in personal incentives and a balance to fiscal policies). Fundamentally, I want a better Liberal Party.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

The sad thing is that the Liberal party is Canada's best (I use the term loosely) choice. We know that they are mired in scandal, systemic abuse of taxpayer $, partisanship and couched in a milquetoast agenda that is anything but forward-looking. What other choice do we have?

the Reform/Alliance/New Conservatives? No thanks. Alberta's rich enough.
The NDP? Layton's seems a good, intelligent man and all, but there's little chance of that.
The Bloc Q? They could care less about my (non Quebec) interests.

The only way to fix the problem is to encourage Proportonal Representation (and therefore weak and vaccilating governments) which is something Canadians seem resistant to, but 'works' in Europe.

Besides, we have (through the Mulroney years and the Chretien dynasty) handed most of our political power off to the MNC's and the NGO's. Ultimately, what's a cynic to do? Besides be inspired by the status quo.
James


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

"...Fundamentally, I want a better Liberal Party"

For those of us who have been stuck w/ the federal Liberals for 47 gazillion years (un-notable exceptions noted), we'd like a "better Liberal Party" as well...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I really should change tht tile of this thread. Somehow "truth" and "Liberals" just don't belong in the same sentence! :rofl:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Ian Robinson via Sinc said:


> Guy gave me goosebumps. Seriously. You'd never have known he was just another degenerate power whore.


Yep, degenerate power whore pretty much sums up my opinion of Chretien and many other politicians. Good line. He was one of the craftiest and cagiest politicians ever to run. This does *not* in any way, give me respect for him.

This kind of story and these kinds of practices are not restricted to Liberals only and could have taken place in a host of political settings. This story is not "The Truth About the Liberals", but it is the truth about entrenched political power and why we so desperately need to reform our political system and speak truth to power.

IMHO, a shift to proportional representation would help greatly in this.

Of course the Calgary Sun writer is spinning it to mean Liberals bad, Conservatives good. There are many Liberals as well as Conservatives who would resort to sleaze to get their way and there are many who have more principles. We all know this. We need a system in place that does more than just throw out the last set of degenerate power whores and replace them with another set of degenerate power whores. We need a system where citizens real needs are addressed and not subverted to the all consuming lust for power.

As we learn time and time again, as soon as we elect them, the power whores amongst them try to rise to the top, like scum in a pool.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

> Layton's seems a good, intelligent man


...who's only in because of the Union vote. Not that I am necessarily anti-union, but anyone who's entire backing is basically one big lobby group really shouldn't be in power. Kind of creates a conflict of interest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ....As we learn time and time again, as soon as we elect them, the power whores amongst them try to rise to the top, like scum in a pool.


It's not just that they _try_ to rise to the top, the system is inherently biased against anyone with any integrity or other principles that would inhibit their 'playing the game.' This is true of all parties, but I think that the NDP suffer from it the least, due to their characteristic earnestness. This winds up costing them in the long run, as we've seen in BC, where they get eaten alive by less-principled/more-experienced politicians.

Fortunately, I think that modern communications technology, combined with ubiquitous dissatisfaction regarding the political system, is leading towards a more participatory democracy (a la the ancient greek system, 'cept that we now recognize that women are people too

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Federal NDP and the Unions have not been in bed comfortably for a long time No question a good portion of the strength is there but it's much broader based than union only. They chew at the Liberal left as the Libs hold the centre.

More Libs would vote NDP if there was not a vote splitting risk. They rank a neoCon threat higher than whacking the Libs.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And they deeply fear any sort of a new conservative Federal Government in Canada. Boy do they EVER!

Why? Because the very best and most sucessful of their policies are ALWAYS stolen from the conservatives. After a suitable period of loud riducule, of course.

And if the Conservatives ever got back into power (and they will) then the general population would soon begin to see the same sort of positive policies from their actual source...and would begin to identify those popular policies with their actual source.

Bye-bye left. Bye-bye liberalism. Bye-bye massive opportunities for personal enrichment by skimming from huge wasteful programs that use the Canadian taxpayer as a captive cash cow. While doing NOTHING of real value.

Couldn't have _THAT_, now could we?


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And they deeply fear any sort of a new conservative Federal Government in Canada. Boy do they EVER!...


 It's a little misleading to lump all kinds of "conservatives" together - the people we used to complain about - the likes of W.A.C. Bennett, Peter Lougheed, Joe Clark - were models of compassion and moderation compared to these neo-con scum. If they ever get the upper hand, we'll lose what few rights we have. It will just be an "all-Canadian" version of the Bush gang. We'll look back with nostalgia on a little Liberal corruption.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Well said Gerbill!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt, you are hopelessly naive if you actually believe that somehow your precious Conservatives, if they ever won power, would not fall victim to the same sort of degenerate power whores in their midst.

Besides the fact that I think their policies are dead wrong, I don't discount that there are earnest and well meaning people who ascribe to them. Why do insist on your simplistic black and white arguments that paint all members of other political parties as somehow corrupt.

Never mind, silly question, which I'm sure you'll only answer with more simplistic rhetoric. I know by now that you're not interested in real debate. 

Sorry, I'm on my way out for the evening, so I won't be able witness another episode of the MacNutt show.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure what you are inferring here Gerbill...

Do you mean that those horrid conservatives would actively STEAL vast amounts of Canadian tax dollars from massive government spending programs that are, by their very nature, quite simply simply a "setup" for this larcenous activity? Programs that promise the moon...but do nothing, BTW.

Would these despicable conservatives actively attempt to maim or destroy the delicate and oh so essential economic relationship with Canada's biggest trading partner?

While starving our own Canadian military into such total uselessness that we would then be COMPLETELY reliant on this very same trading partner...the one that is being loudly insulted and demeaned...for our own Canadian defence?? And, therefore, our own Canadian soverignty??

Would these filthy "neo-cons" steadfastly refuse to modify and change our cherished (and failing) Canadian Health Care system to eliminate the long lineups and re-make it into a truly sustainable system? One that did NOT rely upon the safety-valve of sending thousands of Canadian patients into the hospitals of this southern trading partner in order to get much needed medical procedures that OUR state-sponsored system is unable to provide? You know..the same trading partner that we keep on thumbing our noses at and insulting very loudly?

Would those "highly dangerous" conservatives also provide us with bland wishy-washy leadership while openly lying about their personal knowledge of the massive corruption and theft that the Auditor General has uncovered on their watch?

Would their leader also be exposed as a massively wealthy Canadian who has all of his Canadian companies registered in offshore Caribbean countries in order to dodge Canadian taxes and regulations? While his company is ALSO doing almost two hundred million dollars of business with...wait for it...the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT!! While he heads that government!!

Would it also be discovered that this very same leader uses ONLY private medical clinics for all of his medical care. While actively claiming to want to stamp out these very same private medical clinics???

Gosh...I'm sure glad that we have those wonderful Liberals running the show.

I can't IMAGINE what life would be like if those horrid conservatives were actually running the show, instead of the sainted Liberals! 

Boy, are we ever _LUCKY_, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And...let's face it...

Even though Canada has ten provinces and two territories, Canada simply _MUST_ always have Prime Ministers who are lawyers from Quebec. Even though Quebec is widely known as the most corrupt part of all of this continent...and Quebec lawyers are an integral part of the deeply corrupt elite from this particular region.

Nevertheless...it's deeply racist to question the fact the we Canadians MUST ALWAYS be ruled by one of these openly corrupt Qubec lawyers. For about the last forty years, no less.

To even _SUGGEST_ that we might even CONSIDER electing a Prime Minister from ANY of the other provinces simply REEKS of racism. And it would go against tradition, after all.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> I'm not sure what you are inferring here Gerbill...
> 
> Do you mean that those horrid conservatives would actively STEAL vast amounts of Canadian tax dollars from massive government spending programs that are, by their very nature, quite simply simply a "setup" for this larcenous activity? Programs that promise the moon...but do nothing, BTW.
> 
> ...



Wow for so much typed you actually manage to regurgitate allot of your old threads, why don’t you just post links to your old threads that way you might give your keyboard a rest.

Laterz


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

What rights do you fear losing Gerbill? It sounds a bit paranoid to me. 

I for one can't wait for a change of government. I can't wait for the Conservatives to win a majority or minority government. 

I agree with McNutt, its time to elect a PM that isn't a lawyer from Quebec. I trust Stephen Harper more than any other party leader. Of all the leaders, I think he is the most direct, least political and most intellectual.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I second this.

We can go with what we know and have clearly SEEN to be both ineffectual and proveably corrupt (deeply corrupt, according to our own Attorney General).

Or we could try someone new who seems to be sincere.

And BTW...a guy whose whole family uses _EXACTLY_ the same public health care system that the rest of us Canadians are stuck with. Instead of exclusive private medical clinics in both Canada and the USA (like Chretien/Martin).

He's not filthy rich, either. And he's not currently the focus of several investigations for fraud and theft, either. Nor is his political party.

Nice breath of fresh air, if you ask me.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What rights do you fear losing Gerbill? It sounds a bit paranoid to me.
> 
> I for one can't wait for a change of government. I can't wait for the Conservatives to win a majority or minority government.
> 
> I agree with McNutt, its time to elect a PM that isn't a lawyer from Quebec. I trust Stephen Harper more than any other party leader. Of all the leaders, I think he is the most direct, least political and most intellectual.


I'm no apologist for the Liberals - I'm a dyed in the wool NDPer. However, the Liberals are preferable to the neo-cons. 

Fortunately, the neo-cons in Canada, like the Republicans in the US, are an uneasy coalition of two basic groups who aren't really very compatible. To put it simplistically, they are the religious nuts and the yuppies. The religious nuts are essentially organized to push their various agendas like homophobia, creationism and anti-choice on abortion. The yuppies don't want to pay taxes to fund public services. They appear united on a few issues like being against gun control.

These two groups gather under the umbrella of "conservatism," and have succeeded in sweeping all before them in the US, hoping to do the same in Canada.

This mixture is essentially unstable, though. The yuppies are uncomfortable with the know-nothing anti-intellectualism of the religious nuts, and the religious nuts don't really care about tax reform. It is to be hoped that these fracture lines will deepen in the short term and result in fragmentation of the neo-con movement in the long term. When a yuppie woman realizes that "her" political party wants to control her body, when an educated yuppie lets his contempt for the lunacy of "creation science" show, there will be splits and bad feelings. The religious nuts don't necessarily worship money as their main god, so there's another source of friction there.

Unfortunately, if this coalition holds together long enough to gain national power for a few years, we may suffer damage that will take decades to put right. All you have to do is look at the agendas of the neo-con dominated provincial "Liberals" in BC or the Klein Conservatives in Alberta to see what we might be in for. I don't mean just the legislation that the actually pass, although some of that is bad enough. Look at the stuff that the right wings of those governments manage to get on the agenda - what they _want_ to do, even though it might get shot down by public opinion. Reckless union-busting, privatization of every conceivable public service at whatever cost to the public, heartless pressure on those least able to defend themselves, the old and sick, the list goes on.

Sorry, I don't want to be too long-winded - but these are the kind of issues that worry me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ummmm....let's see now....

Gerbill claims that the "neo-cons" are an unholy and unstable alliance which is likely to disintegrate in the coming days. Both here and in the USA (and...one would imagine...in all of the other parts of this planet where it has now taken hold).

Funny about this. The so-called "neo-cons" have totaly infiltrated the former socialist stronghold of Great Britain these days. To the point that the Labour (leftist) Party of today is now somewhat to the RIGHT of the old Conservative Party in that country.

(Quick question here: would the older conservatives, from an earlier time in Britain,now be termed "elder-cons" by your side? "despius-cons"? "early-cons"? Or...would you just call them the "New Left" these days?)

Also.....

The NDP is an unstable and completely unholy alliance between the monied unions who are committed to their own focussed interests and the greenie enviro types who are ALSO deeply committed to their own pet interests.

The current batch of Canadian Federal Liberals are, quite obviously, comitted to THEIR own self interests...personal enrichment via the masive tax base of the ordinary Canadian.

And they seem to have a shrinking voter base in this current modern age.

Soooo...my question is this:

Which of these "unholy and unstable alliances is MOST likely to break up at the drop of a hat"?

And which one is most likely to get elected and make a REAL difference? While showing REAL leadership?

Think about it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Stephen Harper is the reason the Conservatives are not in power and the reason they are running at a lower rate of support now than at the election. If you really want a Conservative government, you might start by dumping him. Of all the party leaders, he is a liability.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Considering how incredibly close a whole lot of the electoral races actually were in the crucial Toronto region during the last Canadian Federal election...

And when you stop and think about all of the last minute desperate fear-mongering that came from the ultra rich Quebec elite-driven Liberal camp (while they were frantically trying to hang onto even a tiny fraction of their power base)...

And when you step back and take a really clear and unbiased look at the wishy-washy mess that has been the Martin government so far...

Then it becomes abundantly clear that any party that falls under the "NOT LIberal Party" banner has a real fighting chance in the upcoming Canadian election.

You know...the one that will come just after the next non-confidence vote in Parliament. Which could happen at ANY time.

Shouldn't be long now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I have to agre with NcNutt again. The NDP is the biggest unholy coalition politics has ever seen. The NDP is made up of people who want to force their personal beliefs on other people (e.g. the commie types amongst the NDP). These people scare me far more than the religious right. 

You recommend that I look at the policies of Klein in Alberta and Campbell in BC as examples of failed right wing policy. That couldn't be further from the truth. BC and Alberta of two of the the three 'have' provinces in our country. BC now has the lowest unemployment rate in the last 20 years. In my opinion employment is the cheapest and most effective social policy that is far more compassionate than a social state. Alberta has the highest per capita income in Canada and the population base between Calgary and Edmonton has the highest per capita income in all of North America. Alberta has no debt and will has the best health care system in the country.

I don't know why you label Campbell as being a social conservative. He is actually very 'liberal' in his social beliefs. Four more years baby!

So basically, you are worried about union busting and privatization of public services. I despise the sense of entitlement that many of our public unions have (e.g. HEU). I like the private sector unions since they understand the link between profits and jobs. Our public sector unions are completely out of touch with reality.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think that was your reasoning for predicting a landslide defeat of the Liberals at the last election MacNutt. Except it didn't happen. Remember? Really wasn't that long ago.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think the Liberals were defeated in the last election. Paul Martin did not get his majority and holds only a weak minority grip of power. When it comes time for the next election, Martin is going to look very ineffectual.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice JWoodgett. You take a small moment to snipe at me for incorrectly predicting the total defeat of the ruling Liberals in Canada....

Okay. They weren't actually defeated in that particular election. Just reduced to a tiny minority that has no real power and that WILL be totally defeated rather soon. My bad.

I also want to note that you have chosen to completely IGNORE Vandave's very valid observations on this subject while replying to mine.  

What's up there Jim? Looking down on the newer citizens from your ivory tower? Taking a page out of the macdoc book of pompous etiquette?

Or...can this be...you just didn't want to deal with Vandave's very valid and very real observations on this subject?

Say it isn't SO, Woodgett! Please redeem your now tainted presence here! Beforre it's too late!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> The NDP is made up of people who want to force their personal beliefs on other people (e.g. the commie types amongst the NDP). These people scare me far more than the religious right.


This attitude neatly explains a major reason why the Conservatives are struggling. The threat isn't from the NDP, its from some of the more extreme Right-wing elements in the Conservatives and their refusal to keep religious beliefs out of politics. 

Here's an interesting quick poll about Canadian attitudes.

Err.... MacNutt, the above quote is from Vandave. Satisfied? I doubt it.

The reason I resurrected your totally off base prediction is because it was based on the self same arguments you're making now. And I take it as seriously now as I did then (from my "ivory tower" to your water tower).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mr Muzzle..........and you think this ass is ever going to form a government. If an election were called right now the 29% he got last time would look golden.
He blew his big chance. QUEBEC put the liberals in minority - nothing Harper did.



> *Tories back off plan to avoid social issues debate*
> 
> FROM CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


Now John Tory MIGHT have a chance to bring Ontario back to the likes of Bill Davis party but not as long as the likes of the lunatics out west spout their neoCon nonsense. I notice he told his yappers at caucus about same sex "shut up it's the law stupid".

Macnutt et all....... you're the best friends the Federal Liberal party has. Just keep yappin' :clap:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Liberal Party needs all the friends it can get right now. The latest investigations into the massive corruption have uncovered big monetary kickbacks to the Big Liberal Bosses, in case you hadn't noticed.

The principals are actively attempting to publicly deny this right now. In order to try and save some small shreds of their now ruined credibility with the Canadian voting public.

Good luck on THAT!   

You'd have to be living in a _CAVE_ to try and pretend that the Quebec elite Liberals were not deeply corrupt and on the "Take" in a HUGE way. For..like...FOREVER!! 

Say, Macdoc...

What is the address of your current underground dwelling? I am still planning to send you that drag race video that I promised some months back.

Tell you what...just hang a red flag outside the entrance to your particular hole in the ground. 

FedEx will manage to find it. I'm sure.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I probably should have placed 'religious right' in quotations before as I was responding to your claim that other conservatives are leary of religious members in the Conservative Party. I support the Conservatives and regularly donate to the party, but I am not religious and I have no fears of the 'religious right'. I should point that Paul Martin considers himself to be a religious man.

How is it that you find that Globe and Mail poll interesting? Since the Globe and Mail is a Liberal leaning paper, that response is expected. A random poll would be more interesting.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Ummmm....let's see now....
> 
> Gerbill claims that the "neo-cons" are an unholy and unstable alliance which is likely to disintegrate in the coming days. Both here and in the USA (and...one would imagine...in all of the other parts of this planet where it has now taken hold).


We can only work and hope.


> Funny about this. The so-called "neo-cons" have totaly infiltrated the former socialist stronghold of Great Britain these days. To the point that the Labour (leftist) Party of today is now somewhat to the RIGHT of the old Conservative Party in that country.


To the right of the Thatcher conservatives? What have you been smoking?


> (Quick question here: would the older conservatives, from an earlier time in Britain,now be termed "elder-cons" by your side? "despius-cons"? "early-cons"? Or...would you just call them the "New Left" these days?)


 con-fused?


> Also.....
> 
> The NDP is an unstable and completely unholy alliance between the monied unions who are committed to their own focussed interests and the greenie enviro types who are ALSO deeply committed to their own pet interests.


I admit that the NDP is pro-union, without accepting all the nonsense. Talking about "monied" unions is just disingenuous - unions derive their strength and influence from "people-power," not from money.

As for the greeny-types, some of them are as fascist in their way as neo-cons, very little difference. You should be recruiting them for your side.


> The current batch of Canadian Federal Liberals are, quite obviously, comitted to THEIR own self interests...personal enrichment via the masive tax base of the ordinary Canadian.
> 
> And they seem to have a shrinking voter base in this current modern age.


 Which is why they won the last election, I suppose.


> Soooo...my question is this:
> 
> Which of these "unholy and unstable alliances is MOST likely to break up at the drop of a hat"?
> 
> ...


 The NDP could make a real and positive difference. Your neo-con buddys could make a really big difference, but I don't think I'd enjoy living in a corporatist/religious state - I'd likely end up in a camp.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Gerbill...

Perhaps I was not clear enough when I posted my last examples of the widespread movement towards the right in formerly socialist Britain...

I was referring to the conservative party BEFORE Thatcher. And I have pointed out the simple truth that it is now seen to be slightly to the LEFT of the current "leftist" Labour Party of Britain.

Question here:

Which party moved the most? Did the Conservatives go far left...or did Labour move FAR to the right? And did they then find themselves slightly to the RIGHT of the pre-Thatcher Conservatives??

Also...does this shift to the right still continue? In formerly socialist Britain?

If so...why?

You might want to consider this. You might also want to consider the noteable shift to the capitalist market-driven political right that has been taking place all over Europe...and all over Eastern Europe..and all over India..and all over China, for that matter.

You might also want to consider the very signifigant shift AWAY from left/lib voting patterns that has been taking place all over North America, as well. On every level of government. For about a decade or more.

Or...you could choose to ignore it, or to apologise for the failure of the left to hold the attention of the electorate.

Or...you could hope for some sort of totalitarian takeover that would FORCE leftist governments onto all of us.

Good luck on THAT.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay MacNutt, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your steadfast conservatism is of the noblest, "hard-working-people-should-keep-their-money-and-not-have-to-support-parasites" variety (and not the worrisome "everybody-should-be-forced-to-pay-tribute-to-my-imaginary-friend" variety found south of the border). But let's examine some of what you're saying.


MacNutt said:


> ... vast amounts of Canadian tax dollars from massive government spending programs that are, by their very nature, quite simply simply a "setup" for this larcenous activity? Programs that promise the moon...but do nothing, BTW.


I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of waste in federally funded programs (unlike private corporations, where stupid wasteful expenditures, nepotism, and shady-dealings are unheard of[/sarcasm]) but I can only speak directly to that with which I am personally familiar.

Let's look at the federally-funded Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) (which is where my salary comes from). NSERC had a budget of $759M of _your_ tax dollars to spend on funding research in Canada.

Now research is one of those things that, if nobody did it, we'd be screwed, but, as long as somebody is doing it, no one really notices... sorta like taking away the trash, but with microscopes and test-tubes. But, unlike sanitation workers, if researchers went on strike, you probably wouldn't really notice anything for about 5-10 years, by which time it would be too late to do anything about it. Let's take it as a given that the work that Canadian scientists do is valuable to Canada and the world (if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to start up another thread to do so).

Now let's look at the breakdown of the $759M pie:
45.3% goes towards grants that fund the research needs of labs around the country (disposables, equipment, reagents)...all the things we buy from *private* corporations... corporations who would never dream of overcharging or gouging publicly funded research labs by, for example, charging us $650 to change a light bulb (do you think I made that number up?). If there's waste in the system, this is where I think it is, and this is where private enterprise has it's claws embedded.

20% goes to 'innovation' funding: grants that allow Canadian researchers to try something unproven that might crack an important problem, or give Canada a claim on a new field (you'd be surprised at how many important scientific innovations Canada has been responsible for...for such a small country (by population) we have a disproportionate representation in the annals of science and medicine).

22.7-25.8% (depending on how you do the accounting) goes to salaries. Since most university faculty are paid by their departments, this money is going primarily to technicians, graduate students, and postdocs: people like me. This is, no doubt, where you think the waste is going. Maybe it is. But, for perspective, after earning a B.Sc., an M.Sc. and a Ph.D. (about 15 years of training) and working in the lab for many years after that, my salary is just under $35k/year. Do _you_ think I'm over paid? And I'm certainly not an exception to the rule. Scientists generally get paid significantly less than the secretarial staff in the same departments. This is why I'm using an aging 667 MHz TiBook instead of something newer. You might argue that, since there's so little demand for our (admittedly esoteric) skills, we ought to do something that the free-market rewards better, like selling water or playing hockey, perhaps. But that would be an argument for the above-mentioned thread on whether basic research is really of value to society, so I won't go into it here. The point is, you can't argue that we're overpaid.

The last sliver of the pie, 3.7-4.9% (again, the accounting is complex) funds administration. This is better than UNICEF or other charities, and is partly due to the vast number of hours contributed by volunteer scientists who read, review, compare and rank grant applications, essentially on their own time. This is one of the most efficiently admistered funds in the world.

So, while I have no doubt that some small number of parasites have found ways to siphon some amount of that $759M of tax-dollars (and, again, I think it's the private sector that's the parasite here), the Canadian tax-payer gets an amazing bang for their buck from that government program. (Again, if you disagree, just let me know and we can start a new thread about it).

So, the only remaining question is, would a _conservative_ government increase, decrease or maintain the paltry budget for basic research in Canada? Well, historically they've been prone to gut anything that isn't immediately profitable, or privatize it. That privatization is not an option should be immediately obvious, but for those who don't see why, simply ask yourself if _you_ would start a company that was going to look for answers to questions that may not have any applicability for decades and which will cost millions to investigate. 

Or we could look at our neighbors to the south, where the government has eviscerated their, already starving, National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, and who's policies have triggered an unprecedented wave of 'academic refugees' who are now clamoring to get into Canadian and European universities.

As a scientist, the only thing that scares me more than another Liberal government is the possibility of a Conservative government.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting that you should choose to use this particular lesser known example of massive Liberal waste program. While completely ignoring the truly HUGE examples that Canada's own Auditor General has recently used to point an accusing finger at the terribly corrupt Quebec-based Liberals.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I try to stick to examples about which I am not completely ignorant.

Just a suggestion  

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting that you should choose to use this particular lesser known example of massive Liberal waste/theft programs. While completely ignoring the truly HUGE examples that Canada's own Auditor General has recently used to point an accusing finger at the terribly corrupt Quebec-based Liberals.

Have you even heard of the billion dollar HRDC scam?

Care to comment on the multi-billion dollar long gun registry? Or on it's effectiveness?

How about the hundreds of millions that were stolen during the ongoing Sponsorship scandal?

You know....the scandal that is listed as the biggest in Canadian political history? The same one that has forced both the former PM and the current PM to testify on the witness stand? The VERY first time that's happened in about 100 years?

Tell you what...take a moment to pick out one of the bigger Liberal scandals to use as an example. Perhaps even one of the more currrent ones.

Therer are LOTS to choose from, after all.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Personally, I think NAFTA is the biggest scandal/sellout in Canadian history.

And that was perpetrated by Mulroney (the biggest crook in Canadian political history).

Of course, like so many other really audacious and egregious sociopaths, he managed to get away with it. Doesn't make it any less of a crime IMHO.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I am not a Mulroney fan, but he was right on NAFTA. Canada has benefited from NAFTA and is now more competitive globally than we would have been without NAFTA. All in all, our economy has done well by NAFTA. There is a reason the Liberals haven't scrapped the agreement.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I disagree with your assessment, but I don't think this is the place to dispute it.

Welcome to EhMac, BTW. It's actually kind of nice to have another conservative around... you folks are surprisingly rare in Mac-forums (something that has been discussed before, and never adequately explained... care to speculate?). I hope you, and our other neighborhood conservatives, don't take the political arguments personally.  

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Chretien Liberals most often stated election promise was to "tear up the NAFTA agreement" back in 1994. 

They also loudly stated that they would "eliminate the GST! CANCEL it OUTRIGHT"

They, of course, did NEITHER of these things once they were safely in power. This was just a bunch of pap that they fed to the soft-headed in order to get elected.

Once they were elected...they claimed that these loud promises were simply a "slip of the tongue".

The Federal Liberals have absolutely NO intention of cancelling the two major Federal Conservative programs that have led to our current Canadian prosperity.

In fact...they have strengthened and reinforced these two key Conservative programs in the recent years.

Odd about that...eh?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Thanks for the welcome. I am new to the Mac world and recently got an iBook. So far, so good. 

I guess there aren't many conservatives using Macs since Mac users have historically been artistic types, who are generally lefties. 

I think my switch to a Mac is the Libertarian in me crying out. I fear big government and a lack of marketplace choice. Therefore, I find it hard to support the MS monopoly. 

I won't take anything personally, unless someone makes it personal.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> The Federal NDP and the Unions have not been in bed comfortably for a long time. No question a good portion of the strength is there but it's much broader based than union only.


I didn't say the NDP held the power it does because of the unions, I said Jack Layton does.



MacNutt said:


> Canada simply MUST always have Prime Ministers who are lawyers from Quebec


Paul Martin is from Ontario.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

His home riding is in Montreal and he was a lawyer.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

"focussed"- quoted by MacNutt.
Lets all think about this word for but a slight second. This particular spelling of it. A little digging into its roots witll give you all the ammunition against MacNutt that you may, or may not need. 
Just a thought.
James


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> His home riding is in Montreal and he was a lawyer.


He was born and raised in Ontario.

Does it really matter that much? The only reason that the majority of Prime Ministers are from Quebec and Ontario is that the majority of the Canadian people are from Quebec and Ontario.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

thejst...

I don't use a spellchecker. This is just me, in all of my crude glory, talking to YOU.

For six thousand seven hundred LONG posts. All of them...every single ONE of them...were written with great passion and feeling. And with total conviction.

No spellchecker, either. Did I mention that?

Deal with it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

PosterBoy...

Pretty much ALL of our Prime Ministers have been lawyers from Quebec. For about the last four decades.

Care to list all of the Canadian PM's who were "from Ontario" in the last half-century?

Care to list the Canadian PM's who were from ANY of the other ten Provinces or two territories during the last half century?

Would this be a long list? Please enlighten us.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I guess there aren't many conservatives using Macs since Mac users have historically been artistic types, who are generally lefties.


Possibly. Most of the mac-users I know are scientists who've come at the platform (as I have) from a Unix background. Hardly the touchy-feely-soft-headed-hippie-types. But generally very left-leaning also.



> I think my switch to a Mac is the Libertarian in me crying out. I fear big government and a lack of marketplace choice. Therefore, I find it hard to support the MS monopoly.


Ah! A fellow libertarian. You realize, of course, that the libertarian/authoritarian axis has nothing to do with the left/right axis.



> I won't take anything personally, unless someone makes it personal.


A sound policy. And even if someone does 'make it personal'...try to keep some perspective... it's just pixels on your screen... nothing to get angry about


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

"The last time we mixed politics with religion, people were burned at the stake."

A bumper sticker I recently saw that seems apropos to this thread.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc have you tried the Politopia test?? I'd be interested in your results. 
http://www.politopia.com/


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Actually MacNutt, it has nothing to do with you spelling the word 'focussed' wrong- in fact, quite the opposite. Your correct denotation of the word reveals a possible allegiance to the Queen and the Crown. Going over some of your posts, they ARE written with passion...the passion of a guy who has read way to much TS Eliot- the critic Eliot, not the Poet.
James


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"Ah! A fellow libertarian. You realize, of course, that the libertarian/authoritarian axis has nothing to do with the left/right axis."




Sure it does. The libertarian takes the good qualities from the left and right and the authoritarian takes the bad qualities from left and right.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc have you tried the Politopia test?? I'd be interested in your results.
> http://www.politopia.com/


I hadn't tried that one. It described me as a civil-libertarian, placing me in the Southwest quadrant of the political landscape, somewhat west of the 'mainstream'. Probably fairly accurate. The Political Compass placed me in the same quadrant, but further from the centre, at co-ordinates left/right -9.00 (way left), authoritarian/libertarian -7.28 (way south)... that put me in the company of Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and Nelson Mandela.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

> The libertarian takes the good qualities from the left and right and the authoritarian takes the bad qualities from left and right.


  Great line. Mind if I borrow it?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Please do!!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Pretty much ALL of our Prime Ministers have been lawyers from Quebec. For about the last four decades.


Pretty much all our Prime Minsters have been Lawyers, period. Lawyers or businessmen, or businessmen who were educated as Lawyers (like Paul Martin, wh received his LL.B. but made his cash in the business world).

The trend of PMs from Quebec has only really been happening in the last 50 years, prior to Louis St. Laurent here were only 2 PMs elected from Quebec ridings (John Abbott and Wilfred Laurer).

Part of the reason it seems like we always have people from one area is the amount of time a PM can be in power, like how Trudeau was PM for 15 of the last 50 years, and W.L. Mackenzie King (elected from ON and Sask) was PM for over 21 of the 50 years before that.

In conclusion, most of the Prime Minsters of this country have been from Ontario and Quebec because these two provinces have the largest population, the same reason that the party which is elected in Ontario usually wins the election.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Butting in, pardon me...



MacNutt said:


> Care to list all of the Canadian PM's who were "from Ontario" in the last half-century?
> 
> Care to list the Canadian PM's who were from ANY of the other ten Provinces or two territories during the last half century?


Diefenbaker, Pearson, Clark, Campbell, Turner. It's their own damn fault if the latter three only managed about 18 months in office between them.

Martin is borderline. He's an Ontario boy born and bred, and it shows in the way he speaks French. However he has spent much of his adult life as a Montreal-based businessman and MP. I'd say he's from both Quebec and Ontario.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

You know, I was trying to make the point in my post in this thread yesterday, that the kind of corruption detailed in the Calgary Sun article that Sinc started this thread with, was not the explicit preserve of the Liberal Party of Canada. Conservatives, NDP, Creditiste, PQ, Republican, Democratic, UK Labour, Christian Democrat, Likud - just about any political party any where in the world that has power has participated in this. I was trying to open up the question of why do our political systems, ostensibly designed to serve the needs of its citizens, allow this kind of crap to happen and what can we do about it?

That fact that many think that we can throw out the old degenerate power whores and the new guys will be angels, just perpetuates this. The new guys always end up like the old guys, degenerate power whores, serving their political masters, corporations, unions, wealthy backers, - whatever, instead of their real masters, the public. 

I knew that MacNutt couldn't let this juicy opportunity to bash his favourite enemies pass and through his usual hyperbolic rhetoric the thread has descended into an argument about how many Canadian Prime Ministers are from Quebec. Too bad.

I liked bryanc's line that "the only thing that scares me more than another Liberal government is the possibility of a Conservative government." I agree with that of course, because I disagree with the neocon agenda, although I'm also no fan of the Liberal Party, but I also know that if Canadians were to switch to Harper's team because they are tired of degenerate power whores amongst the Liberals, they would only be trading them in for degenerate power whores amongst the Conservatives. Voting for the Conservatives would be no answer to the problems of corruption, if that is your major or only concern.

The fact that under the first-past-the-post system of government my only choice often seems to be voting for the lesser of two evils is a shame.

By the way, I have to thank that Calgary Sun writer for the phrase "degenerate power whores" - I love it.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was trying to open up the question of why do our political systems, ostensibly designed to serve the needs of its citizens, allow this kind of crap to happen and what can we do about it?


leave it to the Free Market!


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Corruption exists in all political parties, agreed. It's the nature of democracy to evolve into tyranny, according to Aristotle. That is all that we are seeing. Political parties are power hungery and all they can think of is staying in power. They become short-sighted and disregard the common good in favor of staying in power. I remember the old Reform Party used to talk alot about Changing the system until they finally became the system that needs to be changed. It seems clear that working within the system to change the system is not possible. Ican agree with some of what the so called "libertarians" are proposing, but I believe that they are missing a fundamental point. Man is not ultimately good. Left to himself he always ends up doing the wrong thing. There needs to be an outside influence to help to keep him in check. Complete liberty (what used to be called licence) tends to deprave man. There needs to be a neutral party to help to keep him in check. A tyrant would certainly fit the bill, but by definition a tyrant is one who looks only after himself, so that wouldn't be very helpful. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church played the role of the disinterested third party and everybody listened to the moral authority of the reigning pontiff. I dare say that that wouldn't work today for two reasons. First nobody listens to the Pope, even inside his own Church. Second the Catholic Church of Vatican II seems to embrace democracy and the ultimate goodness of man, contrary to what she used to teach. But if we are to believe Aristotle than we have to conclude that democracy is the lowest form of government and what we are living through right now has to be the lowest form of democracy. It's basically just political correctness run amock. It's sad that so many Canadians seem to think that liberalism (left wing, socialist, bleeding heart, etc, etc.) is the essence of what it is to be Canadian. I guess that comes from trying to distinguish ourselves from Americans, because ultimately (apart from us French-Canadians) there really isn't much to distinguish Canadians from the Americans and so Canadians (read: Anglo-Canadians) will grasp at anything that will make them different from the hated Americans. Tim Hortons is now a Canadian icon for crying out loud. A donut shop!!! So I guess it's a donut shop that distinguishes us from the hated Americans!?!? Well if we don't know any better, than I guess we deserve what we get, and that includes the political corruption within our democracy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GWR said:


> Corruption exists in all political parties, agreed. It's the nature of democracy to evolve into tyranny, according to Aristotle. That is all that we are seeing. Political parties are power hungery and all they can think of is staying in power. They become short-sighted and disregard the common good in favor of staying in power. I remember the old Reform Party used to talk alot about Changing the system until they finally became the system that needs to be changed. It seems clear that working within the system to change the system is not possible. Ican agree with some of what the so called "libertarians" are proposing, but I believe that they are missing a fundamental point. Man is not ultimately good. Left to himself he always ends up doing the wrong thing. There needs to be an outside influence to help to keep him in check. Complete liberty (what used to be called licence) tends to deprave man. There needs to be a neutral party to help to keep him in check. A tyrant would certainly fit the bill, but by definition a tyrant is one who looks only after himself, so that wouldn't be very helpful. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church played the role of the disinterested third party and everybody listened to the moral authority of the reigning pontiff. I dare say that that wouldn't work today for two reasons. First nobody listens to the Pope, even inside his own Church. Second the Catholic Church of Vatican II seems to embrace democracy and the ultimate goodness of man, contrary to what she used to teach. But if we are to believe Aristotle than we have to conclude that democracy is the lowest form of government and what we are living through right now has to be the lowest form of democracy. It's basically just political correctness run amock. It's sad that so many Canadians seem to think that liberalism (left wing, socialist, bleeding heart, etc, etc.) is the essence of what it is to be Canadian. I guess that comes from trying to distinguish ourselves from Americans, because ultimately (apart from us French-Canadians) there really isn't much to distinguish Canadians from the Americans and so Canadians (read: Anglo-Canadians) will grasp at anything that will make them different from the hated Americans. Tim Hortons is now a Canadian icon for crying out loud. A donut shop!!! So I guess it's a donut shop that distinguishes us from the hated Americans!?!? Well if we don't know any better, than I guess we deserve what we get, and that includes the political corruption within our democracy.


Well...and also the way we spell donut.

On a serious note, I think the Conservative Party is serious about making some changes in our system to remove corruption. The Liberals are simply to entrenched in it to make any real changes.

The old Conservatives were entrenched in it as well. The Mulroney government was pretty bad when it came to patronage. This is one of the reasons for the Reform party coming into being.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not buyin it guys...

The idea that we must hang on to the established corrupt guys because the "new guys would probably be JUST as corrupt" is pretty lame...and it's falling on deaf ears right now.

It's a long-shot assumption. Based on nada.

True...once the Conservatives had been running the show for a decade or so the temptation would be there. But we have to remember that they are NOT a part of any known corrupt group...and the current Liberal Party of Canada has it's power base in the Qubec elite. Which is well known to be one of the most corrupt societies on this whole continent.

Do the math.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...the thread has descended into an argument about how many Canadian Prime Ministers are from Quebec. Too bad.



I generally agree with you, and should point out that I drew up the list MacNutt requested by way of implying that the request and the argument behind it are red herrings. Shoulda spelled it out, though.

Ultimately, I think the problem is that the more matters are left in fewer hands, the more those hands feel free to do as they please. I've seen this first-hand though some previous involvement with small-scale politics. 

In an association representing a membership (say, students), you have a hard-core of deeply interested individuals (politicians) and a mass of people whose interest and engagement ranges from moderate to nil. In extreme cases, the politicians are virtually the only ones who are engaged and anyone who wants to join their ranks can be "elected" at will. 

Their world becomes an insular one with rules and norms of its own, and events unfold there with little regard to what the membership's real interests are (though regular and voluminous lipservice will always be paid to "the student body" or "the members" as the case may be). And routine events within that world easily (it's tempting to say "naturally") come to involve the casual reaping of personal benefit from the structures ostensibly set up to benefit the members as a whole. In other words, you wind up with what outsiders call "corruption" -- even though the perpetrators remain just as convinced as ever of their own idealism and righteousness.

The only way to put an end to comfortable cliques such as this is by greater scrutiny and participation from the membership. Simply saying "hey, that's corruption and we don't like it" is not enough to stop it. Actual honest people need to be convinced that there's value in getting directly involved. And other honest people need to remain outside and vigilant.

I believe our government, including the opposition, is just such a comfy clique writ large. Without citizen scrutiny and participation, any party will succumb to the lazy temptations of power. 

Specifically, I do not trust the moral purity/integrity of the Conservative Reform Alliance Party for one second. That party was founded in betrayal and petulance -- both in the Reform split from the old Tories and in the takeover of the McKay Tories. In other words, prima facie they are politicians first, not pure, above-it-all super-citizens. Given the reins of power within the current system, they will be just as disappointing as any other group of politicians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, that's my point, they all suck.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Excellent, insightful post, iMatt! Couldn't agree with this statement more, "I believe our government, including the opposition, is just such a comfy clique writ large. Without citizen scrutiny and participation, any party will succumb to the lazy temptations of power."











SINC said:


> Yep, that's my point, they all suck.


 So what do you suggest we do then, Sinc? Should we just throw up our hands and let the degenerate power whores have their way with us or should we try and change things so they can't.

Unfortunately I think that most of us love to complain about those in power, but still keep throwing our loonies into the same broken vending machine that ripped us off before. We sometimes think that if we press the button for a different brand it might work this time, but it's the whole machine that's busted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So what do you suggest we do then, Sinc? Should we just throw up our hands and let the degenerate power whores have their way with us or should we try and change things so they can't.
> 
> Unfortunately I think that most of us love to complain about those in power, but still keep throwing our loonies into the same broken vending machine that ripped us off before. We sometimes think that if we press the button for a different brand it might work this time, but it's the whole machine that's busted.


Proportional Representation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

the 'Nutt said:


> It's a long-shot assumption. Based on nada.


It's based on history Mr. MacNutt, I'm sure you've heard the old quote about being doomed to repeat it, etc. The long shot assumption here is that your precious Conservatives would be any different.

Look, if you want them in power because you agree with their policies, fine. Argue for their wonderful policies then. Just don't try and tell us that they will magically be incorruptible saviours the like of which the world has never seen. I don't know about you, but I wasn't born yesterday and I've seen enough BS to smell it a mile off.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Proportional Representation.


Amen, brother!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Proportional Representation.


+ Elected Senate.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That too, PB!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I've never understood what the advantages of an elected Senate could be, although maybe I haven't heard all the arguments. The old Reform party proposals of a triple-e Senate always seemed less effective to me than proposals for proportional representation. If somehow we did actually get proportional representation nationally, I don't see what an elected senate would add to that.

We manage without a second body provincially, why do we need one federally with all the additional millions or billions in cost? I would say, give 'em all their pensions and say bye-bye.

A proportional parliament would be good enough for me, if we laid off all those senators, maybe then we could add a few more MPs to increase the MP to citizen ratios of ridings, which could result in more responsive representatives who were more locally oriented.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

PR is a nice idea in principle, but it simply creates more unstable governance-more minority situations which get expensive in the end. A better way to go about it may be to split the country up into 4 regions and have both the WTO and UN negotiate and manage the interdependance that such a split would create. 
James


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

It's sort of strange that there are still some people that think that the system can be saved. Has the Reform party not taght you anything? They had some wonderful ideas that didn't catch on, so they started to change their ideas. You cannot change the system from within! If you want to get elected you have to please the most amount of people. That generally means standing for as little as possible. The new Conservatives are a perfect case in point. The Reform party actually stood for something but couldn't get elected. The new conservatives are barely standing for anything and they seem too scary to people. To actually get elected they will have to be as spineless as the liberals. That, my friends, seems to be the nature of our democracy!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm not sure I would characterize the Liberal's policy on BMD and same-sex marriage as spineless and these positions are in direct opposition to the Conservatives. If you ask me, standing up for same-sex marriage takes a lot of backbone (as does defying rights to Canadians). 

I do agree that the parliamentary system dilutes policies and leads to middle-of-the-road solutions that offend few but also often achive little, but there are a number of issues of principle that define the parties if you dig into them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

thejst said:


> PR is a nice idea in principle, but it simply creates more unstable governance-more minority situations which get expensive in the end.


Not true at all, can you provide some examples?


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not true at all, can you provide some examples?


Look at the situation in Austria- the emergence in 1999 of an influential ultra nationalist right wing (led by Jorg Heider) is a consequence of PR. It was a result of coalition building in order to sustain governing power that caused a schism within not only Austria, but the EU in general.
This turn to the right caused much turmoil in the EU- causing them to suspend relations with Austria because of the realpolitik issues surrounding Austria's shift towards (or back to) a right wing power bloc backed by religious fundamentalists and zenophobia- the same mode of logic that is spilling over into Germany today. PR has helped reintroduce political forms and outcomes that were "never again" supposed to hold popular support.
As far as the expense involved: Such a polarized domestic and foreign policy will limit a participating nation's exposure to trade and 'poltical capital' on a global scale. Since globalization is (let's be honest) the only game in town these days, A nation that purports to be practising anything but gleamingly free market and liberal democracy will not get a seat at the table. Even China has owned up to this somewhat, and are reaping the short-term rewards as a result.

James


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Let's say that the majority of people under PR vote for one of two parties (say Liberal and NDP in BC). Each of these parties then typically gets 40 to 45% of the vote each election. The wingnut parties (Adrian Carr or Vanderzalm) with special interests would each get a small slice of seats. The problem with this is that the wingnuts control the balance of power in a PR system. The parties with the most votes can't get anything done unless they carry out the agenda of the wingnuts. In my opinion, such a system would be lunacy.

I'm voting no for PR during the next election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Let's say that the majority of people under PR vote for one of two parties (say Liberal and NDP in BC). Each of these parties then typically gets 40 to 45% of the vote each election. The wingnut parties (Adrian Carr or Vanderzalm) with special interests would each get a small slice of seats. The problem with this is that the wingnuts control the balance of power in a PR system. The parties with the most votes can't get anything done unless they carry out the agenda of the wingnuts. In my opinion, such a system would be lunacy.
> 
> I'm voting no for PR during the next election.


Gimme a wingnut over a Liberal every time!


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> Gimme a wingnut over a Liberal every time!


I see you're displaying your usual sense of rational thinking once more. Do you ever actually think or do you always just type the first irrational reaction that pops into your head?

Do you honestly think that the vast majority of politicians from all political parties are corrupt or just the ones you don't like because of their party label? Don't be so naive. Virtually all politicians in all political parties in Canada have the best interests of Canada and/or their region at heart. We may disagree with them or with their platforms but they do have good intentions.

The thing that frustrates you and your ilk, as expressed here, is simply that most people don't subscribe to your authoritarian views and your desire to impose what you think "ought" to be rather than working with what is. It's why you and yours want to impose belief systems on others and why you like the authoritarian views of the current Republicans and the Past Reform/Alliance party. That being said, I disagree with you but I don't suggest that you or those parties seek to destroy Canadian society. We just have different opinions and approaches. That doesn't make either of us a wingnuts. It makes us two individuals with two viewpoints.

As for your original point of posting a disingenuous op-ed piece masking as journalism that points to the nasty Liberals as purveyors of dirty politics, to paraphrase someone you no doubt voted (indirectly) for, Brian Mulroney, "The Liberals do not have a monopoly on dirty internal party politics". Ever seen what happens at a Reform/Alliance/Conservative delegate selection meeting in north east Calgary, or southern Ontario, or the interior of BC? No party, federal or provincial is immune to these tactics but with each passing year, the process gets more open and cleaner. Dare I say, it's evolving.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So what is it exactly that you don't understand about the use of humour?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

thejst said:


> Look at the situation in Austria- the emergence in 1999 of an influential ultra nationalist right wing (led by Jorg Heider) is a consequence of PR. It was a result of coalition building in order to sustain governing power that caused a schism within not only Austria, but the EU in general.
> This turn to the right caused much turmoil in the EU- causing them to suspend relations with Austria because of the realpolitik issues surrounding Austria's shift towards (or back to) a right wing power bloc backed by religious fundamentalists and zenophobia- the same mode of logic that is spilling over into Germany today. PR has helped reintroduce political forms and outcomes that were "never again" supposed to hold popular support.


You say that it was PR that caused the rise of Heider’s Freedom Party (FPO), but I think that it was the result of his cunning exploitation of a strain of anti-immigrant racism and xenophobia that has always existed within Austria, as well as playing up the anti-EU card. This gained him more votes (27%) several years ago and thus gave his fringe party a seat at the table under a coalition. This provoked a lot of fear that Austria was falling under the grip of a more fascist oriented system. In 2002, his party lost a good deal of that support and their influence in the government has waned.

Austria has not turned into a fascist state and is back in the EU’s good graces. The brief surge in support for the FPO has now fallen to below 10%.

But how this supports your contention that PR is more unstable and expensive, I don’t know. If you are using Austria as an example, I don't think they have had more national elections than we have had.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The wingnut parties (Adrian Carr or Vanderzalm) with special interests ...


I respectfully disagree with your definition of what a wingnut is. Although I don’t believe Bill Van der Zalm is running for anything this time around, he was once the premier of BC with a majority government. I assume you’re referring to some of the parties to the right of the BC Liberals, such as the Unity party. And as far as Adriane Carr is concerned, her party, the Greens, have been hovering at about 12 - 18 percent in the public opinion polls. While 12 - 18 percent may not be mainstream, I doubt if “wingnut” is accurate. 

Those 12 - 18 percent who sympathize with the Greens don’t vote for them in the same numbers because they know that under our First Past The Post (FPTP) system those numbers won’t likely translate into seats. So they may vote for the NDP, being the least objectionable of the other two parties to them, ( although not necessarily, as many NDPers like to point out, some Greens are from the fiscal conservative side of the fence ).

Under most PR systems a 5% threshold is in place to keep out the truly extremist elements. By the way, you identified yourself as a libertarian sympathizer in a previous post. I wonder what kind of percentages libertarianism would garner and would someone else say that makes libertarians wingnuts? I don’t think so, but just wondering?

Your argument that nothing would get done, can’t be accurate because the majority of the world’s democracies use PR systems and I think many of them do actually get things done. If a smaller party does become part of a coalition or partner in a minority they don’t get to dictate terms. The voters are watching and if an election is forced and a government brought down by the refusal of a small party to negotiate, they will take the fall for it.

The mistake many people make who are only used to minority and coalition governments within FPTP systems is thinking the almost certain coalitions that exist under PR are the same thing as under FTPT. Under FPTP a minority government only exists for a short time because, the second that one of the groups within parliament thinks that they can win an election and form a majority, the minority will dissolve. You can be sure that if Martin thinks at some point that he can win a majority, he will let one of the other parties defeat his government in Parliament and then blame the resulting election on them. Until that time he will compromise with the various parties to keep his government alive.

Under PR systems winning majority governments are rare, so there is little point in prematurely bringing about another election. Elections happen no more frequently under PR systems than under FPTP.

Federally, every major party has spoken out in favour of PR, except the Liberals. Even the Liberals have members who would like to see this change and who have participated in groups like Fair Vote Canada. Are they all wingnuts?

I'll be voting YES!! for proportional representation in the May election and Single Transferable Vote (STV) referendum.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Another point just occurred to me, Vandave.

You are aware, I assume, that Gordon Campbell's reason for setting up the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, that came up with the PR option that we will be voting on, is because of his party's experience in the 1996 election. Although his party won a larger popular vote, the NDP, through the distortions inherent in FPTP systems were able to win a slim majority government and stay in power for 5 years. I'm guessing from your postings that you aren't a fan of the NDP, but tell me is this sort of result something you agree with?

And for tell me, is it fair, leaving your partisanship aside for the moment, that in the 2001 election, Campbell's party won 59 percent of the vote, yet through FPTP won 97 percent of all the seats in the legislature, leaving the NDP with only 2 seats and not even giving them official party status? How would you feel if that had been reversed?

Is it right that under majority governments, which can be had under FPTP sometimes with as little as 35 to 40 percent of the popular vote, the party in power assumes near-dictatorial control until their time is up? Lets say that in the next election the NDP squeaks in with a majority, maybe even one where they don't garner the most votes, like '96, and then sweeps all the conservative-oriented, private-sector-favouring stuff away that the Liberals enacted in the last 4 years, while blissfully ignoring their opposition, as they did from '96 to 2001. While I might agree with some of that, is it a good idea for any of us that these kind of back and forth pendulum swings occur. Wouldn't it be better if these dictatorial powers were somewhat in check?

You know, you might want to find out more information about PR and the version of PR known as STV (Single Transferable Vote) that is being proposed. There are many right wingers who support it too, such as Rafe Mair. He correctly identifies that it is the elites, both on the left and the right, big unions and big business, who are afraid of PR. Here's a quote from one of his editorials on the subject:


> Labour and management both fear that their influence will be seriously eroded if they don’t have friends in a disciplined majority government or at least can look forward to that prospect.
> 
> They would much rather only have to lobby parties that are in power or may some day be there. The thought that there might be three or four parties in the legislature with some independents as well, requiring give and take, sends shivers down the spine of the major interest groups.
> 
> Read the whole article


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> So what is it exactly that you don't understand about the use of humour?


I understand humour. In fact, I usually laugh when I read your postings.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't identify myself as a Libertarian. I would fall somewhere near the middle of the Libertarian / Authoritarian scale. For some issues, I am Libertarian and other issues not. My comment was made with a little tongue in cheek.

What do you mean the majority of the world's democracies have PR systems? That's news to me. I thought only a small number of countries use such a system.

It would have been nice to avoid the last 5 years of the NDP, but I still agree with FPTP system. The NDP deserved to win that election because they got more seats. I also think the NDP got what they deserved in 2001. I think the party that gets the most seats has the right to govern, so I would accept the situation if the tables were reversed. Official party status requires a minimum of three (or is it four?) seats. The electorate did not give the NDP that number, so the Liberals were not obligated to give them this status. Perhaps a referendum on the issue would have been more fair since it let's the voters decide.

I don't like the fact that our PM's and Premiers govern with dictatorial authority. I would like to see more power transfered to MP's and MLA's, but I don't like the idea of PR. With PR, you have people that are appointed to the legislature or parliament that are not directly elected by their constituents. I can't get past this as it seems undemocratic and seems to lack accountability. Also, you haven't really addressed my biggest concern that parties with marginal support control the balance of power. 

As far as pendulum swings go, I think you have to look further back into history. It is only recent history that left wing parties have taken power in BC. My prediction is that the Liberal party in BC will govern for at least another 3 terms (golden decade baby!). The only way the NDP will come back into power is to move further to the centre. Since unions and wingnuts are so entrenched within the NDP, this will take a long time for them to realize and actually make meaningful changes the way the Labour Party did in England. The next NDP government will have to have business friendly policies.

Rafe Mair is a wingnut also. He just needs an issue to talk about. His salmon stuff didn't go anywhere so he picked PR as a topic instead.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

daBoss said:


> I understand humour. In fact, I usually laugh when I read your postings.


Ah, the voice of maturity and reason floats to the surface.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm definitely NOT in favor of PR, either. It just creates endless minority governments that have trouble accomplishing anything because the actual solvency of the government can rest in the hands of a tiny group with a serious agenda. If they don't get exactly what they want then they walk away and everyone rolls the dice once again.

Countries with proportional representation as a part of their system are well known for their fractional "do-nothing" governments and frequent elections.

I'd much rather see some sort of a secondary "run off" election between the two highest scoring parties. Perhaps a week or so after the first election. The first party that came up with at least 51% of the total of all votes cast would then have a clear mandate to govern.

We need strong government with a clear mandate. Not fragmented ones with a whole bunch of seperate and self-serving agendas all pulling in sperate directions.

And we do NOT need to have any more governments that only represent twenty per cent of the people of the country. That is a situation that is pretty much guaranteed to please no one. And do nothing.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

At the Federal level, we need a second seperately elected body to do triage on all of the elected party's bills and legislation. We need careful checks and balances on our elected dictatorship. Just to keep their well documented theivery and bad management down to a bare minimum.

We NEED A second body! We need an Equal, Elected and Effective senate!

The Liberals will never give us one. Especially since the first thing it would probably do is begin investigating all of their many criminal activities (and probably even remove their leaders from power).

The Conservatives are still commited to this effective second body, to the best of my knowledge. And the current version of the Conservatives are also NOT a part of the horribly corrupt Quebec elite (remember, Muroney was also a Quebec lawyer in the old PC party.)

So I fail to see why some people here are still insisting that the Conservatives would be "just as corrupt as the Liberals" and that we should stick with what we know, no matter how bad they seem to be.

Heck...how COULD they be as bad as the Liberals? Nobody is THAT bad!  

Especially when they have a sober second body looking over their shoulders. One with the power to stop bad legislation or even investigate an obviously corrupt leadership.

Oh...hang on...suddenly I know why the Liberals and their most ardent supporters are so dead set against even a single Conservative term of government and the inevitable second sober body that this term would bring! 

No more "cookie jar"! No point in making all that effort to get elected if there were no more unsupervised access to masses of Canadian tax dollars! They'd have to find a new gig! Some other fat plum to siphon off of. 

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> I'm definitely NOT in favor of PR, either. It just creates endless minority governments that have trouble accomplishing anything because the actual solvency of the government can rest in the hands of a tiny group with a serious agenda. If they don't get exactly what they want then they walk away and everyone rolls the dice once again.


Hehehe, that sounds pretty much like "exactly" what we have right now! :rofl:


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GA said:


> I've never understood what the advantages of an elected Senate could be, although maybe I haven't heard all the arguments. The old Reform party proposals of a triple-e Senate always seemed less effective to me than proposals for proportional representation. If somehow we did actually get proportional representation nationally, I don't see what an elected senate would add to that.


I was going to write a lenghty reply, but the wikipedia article about the canadian senate says most of it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate said:


> Though it has many positive traits, the Canadian Senate is nevertheless one of the most unpopular political institutions in Canada. It is seen by many as undemocratic, unequal, and largely useless. Since the prime minister gets to appoint whomever he chooses, the Senate is often criticized as being little more than a "country club" for friends of the prime minister and a convenient venue for political patronage. The Senate is rarely a prominent player in Canadian politics, partially due to its well-founded reputation of "rubber-stamping" all bills passed by the House of Commons. In recent years polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Canadians are unable to name a single sitting senator. The joke was not lost on many Canadians when, for four years after the Parliament fire of 1916, the Senate sat in the 'Hall of Fossils' at their temporary home of the Victoria Museum (now the Canadian Museum of Nature).
> 
> The Senate tends to only exercise its power when the House of Commons is dominated by a rival party, such as the period during the infamous GST debate in the late 1980s. At the time, the Senate was controlled by the Liberal Party and the Commons by the Progressive Conservatives. The GST bill was important to Prime Minister Mulroney and he was determined to prevent the Senate from rejecting his party's motion. Rather than face certain defeat, he quickly began a flurry of Senate appointments, filling all vacant seats with Progressive Conservative supporters and invoking a clause in the Constitution (Section 26 of The Constitution Act, 1867) allowing him to increase the Senate's size and appoint eight more senators than normal. In a few short weeks, Mulroney was able to create a Progressive Conservative majority in the Senate and the GST bill was passed. This episode has since served as the most prominent example of the Senate's weak nature and its general subordination to the will of the prime minister.


 Basically, the senate in it's current form cannot, or does not, do it's job. SOme kind of reform is necessary to make it work, and making it an elected body seems like it would solve most problems in one fell swoop.

1. Having us elect them would take away the whole "subordination to the will of the PM" thing
1. Having us elect them would take away the ability to constantly and impossibly be dominated by one party or another (unless we choose that, of course)
1. If they were elected, they might actually attend more often than they do.
1. It would make them more accountable to their constituents
1. It would give all regions a more equal say in some matters of importance.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

PB, I totally agree. Having an elected Senate (with terms, not for life once elected), would allow true representation of the Upper House and allow for checks and balances. Even the mothership House of Lords is considering overdue reform. Our current Senate is like a floral decoration on the back of a Ford Edsel. Pretty but can't hide the expensive impracticality beneath.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ah, the voice of maturity and reason floats to the surface.


Well, after reading your plethora of posts, it's becoming rather easy to predict your responses. Moreover, I find it rather amusing that, after reading all these posts, when challenged with logic or rational words, you claim to be using humour. Hiding behind this feigned justification after the fact is, I submit, a little less than "the voice of maturity and reason float(ing) to the surface."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

daBoss and SINC, please stop fighting ladies, you're <i>both</i> pretty.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Who's fighting?

I know what I'm doing, and it ain't fighting.

If anyone bothered to READ the entire thread, they would notice I stated that ALL parties are guilty.

As for the snide comments about the credibility of a young journalist while in Ottawa, I consider the source of those comments and dismiss them.

Like I said earlier, it has nothing to do with the editorial policy of The Calgary Sun. Some people just don't get it.

As for my posting style, if ya don't like it don't read it! It's only pixels anyway.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What do you mean the majority of the world's democracies have PR systems? That's news to me. I thought only a small number of countries use such a system.


Excuse me, Vandave, I was wrong, a majority was incorrect, I was basing that on an opinion piece I read somewhere. With a bit of internet checking, I found out that the number is 45% using PR.


> Just over half (114, or 54% of the total) of the independent states and semi-autonomous territories of the world which have direct parliamentary elections use plurality-majority systems; another 75 (35%) use PR-type systems, and the remaining (10%) use semi-PR systems, all bar two of which are Parallel systems. IDEA - International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance





Vandave said:


> The NDP deserved to win that election because they got more seats.


Really? So the fact that in 1996 the Liberals had tens of thousands more votes than the NDP, but had to sit and watch from the sidelines for 5 years was fair? Hell, I have way more in common with the NDP policies than the Liberals and I don’t even think that’s fair. It’s undemocratic. I believe in democracy over gaming the system, which is something that the large interest groups, right and left, believe in. This is why today, you have some of the real NDP party hacks, who are affiliated with the Clark regime, like Bill Tielman, fighting tooth and nail against the STV referendum. They are hoping, that the Liberals have shot themselves in the foot enough for the FPTP system to give them another fake majority. I don’t know if you’re in good company with guys like that, Dave.


Vandave said:


> With PR, you have people that are appointed to the legislature or parliament that are not directly elected by their constituents. I can't get past this as it seems undemocratic and seems to lack accountability. Also, you haven't really addressed my biggest concern that parties with marginal support control the balance of power.


Dave, you're probably thinking of some versions of Multi-Member Proportional (MMP), not the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system that’s being recommended in the referendum. Anyway it’s not quite true that you don’t directly vote for those people under MMP too. In the MMP system that New Zealand recently adopted, each party publishes a list in order of priority of who their proportional members are. In your riding you vote directly for a candidate that you like, just as in FPTP and you have a second vote for a party list. You know who you are voting for, the lists are published in advance. If you don’t like a party’s list, you don’t vote for it. Under the BC-STV system that’s on the ballot, you vote for candidates in a multi-member riding, rating them, 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice and so on. You vote for who you like, directly.

But honestly, how many people actually know that much about who their individual candidate is and what he stands for? A tiny percentage, I submit. Almost everybody votes the party line, but the fact remains that if you really don’t like the candidate under STV, you don’t vote for them.

As far as addressing your fears about about the tail wagging the dog in a minority of coalition government, I think I did in the 4th and 5th paragraph of this earlier post. But I’ll go on further to say that it’s really no different than our current situation. 

All political parties are in effect coalitions of various groups with different ideas, most obviously with the recent Conservative, Reform, Alliance mergers. The horse trading that goes on is done behind closed doors mostly, but within any party their are active battles amongst various extremes. The party has to be careful that they keep to a course that will reflect what most of their supporters want or they may not be re-elected. It’s the same under PR. If a government enters into a coalition with a smaller, more left of centre or right of centre partner and then caves into everything that the junior partner demands, so that they can keep their government from falling, they could very easily alienate their more mainstream supporters and result in their own demise. The extremist elements only can have as much power as their is general public support for. And a low end threshold for proportionality keeps the real extremists from getting in there in the first place. The big difference is that under PR, the horse trading is done much more publically, which results in more accountability.

Now, many people are in favour of keeping, say, the Green Party, from having a small voice at the table, even though millions of people have voted for Green Party candidates, both nationally and provincially. In the last federal election 500,000 Canadians voted for that party, yet their voices are not reflected anywhere in parliament. Yet there are many MPs who owe their seats to having garnered just a few thousand votes. How is this fair or democratic? Are opponents of proportional representation really just afraid of democracy?


Vandave said:


> Rafe Mair is a wingnut also.


OK, so you think Rafe Mair’s a wingnut. Don’t understand how that invalidates his argument. Hmmm, staunch right winger, former Social Credit cabinet minister, hero to every Fraser Valley ******* who listened to CKNW, and enemy of everything NDP, but OK. So how about Nick Loenen, former Social Credit MLA and current head of Fair Voting BC, an organization promoting proportional representation? Or Walter Robinson, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a right-wing outfit if there ever was one? Or Hugh Segal, who was Brian Mulroney’s Cheif of Staff? Or former Canadian Alliance MP Ted White? Or for that matter, Conservative MP Scott Reid, who is the current Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform? Are all these guys who support PR “wingnuts” as well?

It’s interesting that there are two federal political parties who do not support PR. The Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois. They have done amazingly well gaming the FPTP system, to get seats far greater in proportion than their popular vote totals. It’s should be all about what is fair and democratic, not how degenerate power whores, in any party, can hang on to their bastions.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PB said:


> Basically, the senate in it's current form cannot, or does not, do it's job.


Yes, enthusiastically agree, PB!

Since they don't do anything at all for us now and are basically redundant, I just don't see why we would want to add to the complexity and cost of government by fixing them. Man, a second house, a whole raft of new politicians and a new set of elections? I'm sure the political journalists would love it.

I think that the problems of lack of representation can be solved by making our current system a fair and proportional one, with possibly some other modifications to guarantee accountability. Then we can send all the sleeping senators off to retirement and make the senate into a nice museum or something.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Man, this thread is keeping me busy! 



Wikipedia via PB said:


> In a few short weeks, Mulroney was able to create a Progressive Conservative majority in the Senate and the GST bill was passed.


Jeez, I didn't know about Mulroney's stacking of the Senate to pass the GST. I must have been living out of the country when it happened. What a frikkin' slime! And the Liberals are slime for promising to scrap it and then reneging.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

*What's with MacNutt, anyway?!?!*



MacNutt said:


> . And the current version of the Conservatives are also NOT a part of the horribly corrupt Quebec elite (remember, Muroney was also a Quebec lawyer in the old PC party.)


If I understand you correctly, all Québec lawyers, and the Québec elite in general, are corrupt? I can certainly agree that may of them are, but so are many of the Ontario elite, or (OMG) the BC elite  .
Come, come, now. Your racism is showing, again.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

GWR said:


> If I understand you correctly, all Québec lawyers, and the Québec elite in general, are corrupt? I can certainly agree that may of them are, but so are many of the Ontario elite, or (OMG) the BC elite  .
> Come, come, now. Your racism is showing, again.


Sounds like that to me too. Must be something in the water out there on The 'Wet' Coast. ;-)


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> As for the snide comments about the credibility of a young journalist while in Ottawa, I consider the source of those comments and dismiss them.


Show me the snide comment. The comment was a general view of the known editorial agenda of the Sun chain of papers, using the Calgary Sun as an example. I too consider the source.



SINC said:


> Like I said earlier, it has nothing to do with the editorial policy of The Calgary Sun. Some people just don't get it.


I read it. I get it. I know it. I commented on it. Isn't that what a forum is all about? Isn't that why you chose to post the article in the first place? I can't imagine that you expected everyone to simply accept this story as fact and respond, "Oh My Gosh! Jeez. I never knew that about a political party". The point is that the article specifically refers to The Liberal Party some two decades ago and IMPLIES that this behaviour was/is the sole realm of The Liberal Party. An objective story would have pointed out that EVERY single party in Canada has engaged in similar practices. This does not justify the behaviour in any way. I've been there and have fought, successfully I might add, against those who would engage in such practises. However, the Sun chain simply chooses to ignore that such realities occur elsewhere. THAT's why I say that they have an editorial agenda that extends way beyond the editorial pages and filters through their "reporting".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

daBoss said:


> Show me the snide comment. The comment was a general view of the known editorial agenda of the Sun chain of papers, using the Calgary Sun as an example. I too consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. I get it. I know it. I commented on it. Isn't that what a forum is all about? Isn't that why you chose to post the article in the first place? I can't imagine that you expected everyone to simply accept this story as fact and respond, "Oh My Gosh! Jeez. I never knew that about a political party". The point is that the article specifically refers to The Liberal Party some two decades ago and IMPLIES that this behaviour was/is the sole realm of The Liberal Party. An objective story would have pointed out that EVERY single party in Canada has engaged in similar practices. This does not justify the behaviour in any way. I've been there and have fought, successfully I might add, against those who would engage in such practises. However, the Sun chain simply chooses to ignore that such realities occur elsewhere. THAT's why I say that they have an editorial agenda that extends way beyond the editorial pages and filters through their "reporting".


If you cannot see the difference between a young reporter's first experience account with the Liberal Party of Canada while employed with a small weekly newspaper in the Ottawa area and The Calgary Sun's editorial stand, you must be blind to differing opinions. Like I said earlier in the thread ALL, repeat ALL political parties are guilty. Try getting your head around that simple fact.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yep GWR...as soon as anyone points out how horribly corrupt the high end Quebecois politicos truly are...like THAT is any great revelation to anyone....then some outraged resident of la Belle Province suddenly screams _RACIST!!_ 

Same thing happens when anyone questions why pretty much EVERY single leader of this country, for most of the last FORTY years, has had to be a "Lawyer from Quebec" and why the heck that no other proffessional from NO other province seems to be qualified to actually run this fair land?

EEEK.. _RACIST_...EEEK!!  

Toooo silly.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> If you cannot see the difference between a young reporter's first experience account with the Liberal Party of Canada while employed with a small weekly newspaper in the Ottawa area and The Calgary Sun's editorial stand, you must be blind to differing opinions. Like I said earlier in the thread ALL, repeat ALL political parties are guilty. Try getting your head around that simple fact.





SINC said:


> Nothing to do with the Sun. READ. It is his personal experience when working for a weekly in Ottawa.


Printed 21 years after the fact by the Calgary Sun. I understood it the first time. No mention of any other party engaging in the same practices. THAT's my point about The Sun chain. As for differing opinions, I seek them out. Makes me think more and more about my own positions. As they say, tempered steel is stronger.



SINC said:


> I suspect that all parties are guilty of the same kind of conduct, but that does not make it right.


Nowhere near as emphatic as your later statement but I agree. No party is immune but all mainline parties are getting better year after year.

I'll stop now. I don't want you to get an aneurism.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Really?


Yes. I think this is fair because each riding has equal representation by having one elected official. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But honestly, how many people actually know that much about who their individual candidate is and what he stands for? A tiny percentage, I submit. Almost everybody votes the party line, but the fact remains that if you really don’t like the candidate under STV, you don’t vote for them.


Good point. I agree that most people vote for the party. However, they do this because the Premier or PM have all the power. So, you vote for who gets the power. But, if we gave power back to the MP's and MLA's like the system originally intended, then people would focus more on the candidate.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now, many people are in favour of keeping, say, the Green Party, from having a small voice at the table, even though millions of people have voted for Green Party candidates, both nationally and provincially. In the last federal election 500,000 Canadians voted for that party, yet their voices are not reflected anywhere in parliament. Yet there are many MP's who owe their seats to having garnered just a few thousand votes. How is this fair or democratic? Are opponents of proportional representation really just afraid of democracy


I still don't buy your argument here. I think the parties that control the balance of power would have too much control over the government agenda. A party with 10% of the vote will defintely carry more than 10% of the power (probably more like 40 to 50%).



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> OK, so you think Rafe Mair’s a wingnut. Don’t understand how that invalidates his argument. Hmmm, staunch right winger, former Social Credit cabinet minister, hero to every Fraser Valley ******* who listened to CKNW, and enemy of everything NDP, but OK. So how about Nick Loenen, former Social Credit MLA and current head of Fair Voting BC, an organization promoting proportional representation? Or Walter Robinson, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a right-wing outfit if there ever was one? Or Hugh Segal, who was Brian Mulroney’s Cheif of Staff? Or former Canadian Alliance MP Ted White? Or for that matter, Conservative MP Scott Reid, who is the current Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform? Are all these guys who support PR “wingnuts” as well?



It doesn't invalidate his argument. I don't agree that he is an enemy of everything NDP. He has been highly critical of the Liberals on the fish farm issue and has supported the NDP's position. 

I don't care who supports PR, I only care about the argument. I think your response is a little bit hypocritical. You correctly pointed out that I ignored Rafe's argument by writing him off as a wingnut. But, you then go ahead to use the reputation of other individuals to strengthen your own argument. You can't have it both ways. So let's both agree to stick with actual arguments.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I still don't buy your argument here. I think the parties that control the balance of power would have too much control over the government agenda. A party with 10% of the vote will defintely carry more than 10% of the power (probably more like 40 to 50%).


I think that your estimates are just speculation on your part, Dave. I don't believe that there is any evidence among the countries that already use STV or even many of the other forms of PR to show this to be the case. And to my mind it doesn't make any sense.

If a mainstream party that has say, 36 seats in the BC Legislature, just a couple less than a majority, and partners with a smaller, less mainstream party that has 6 seats, how would it be in the interest of the bigger party to adopt the policies of the smaller one? The smaller one by partnering does get a voice, yes, and the fact that they garnered 6 seats means that even though they are less mainstream they represent the legitimate viewpoint of many thousands of people. 

Say this mainstream party was the BC Liberals and they partnered with a party like the Unity party. (Although in my opinion, the BC Liberals are an extremist party, but I'll let that go for now.  ) I'm not sure of the Unity party's policies, but let's say they are pretty much social conservatives and wanted to enact school prayer or teaching creationism. How would it be in the BC Liberal's interest to ignore the the wishes of their huge base of more centrist voters simply to hold on to a majority government? They would know that if they agreed to policies like this their votes in the next election would plummet, because most folks in BC would find policies like that abhorrent.

And what interest would the Unity party have in causing the government to fall because they won't adopt these policies. Their chance to be at the table would now end. They know that their own voter base is too small to gain major seat totals and their support could even decrease because many of their own voters who might have voted for the Liberals might be angry at their tossing away their chance at the table that they will not vote for them next time.

I have heard that in many places where PR is in place that coalition partners will actually draw up policy documents for the public, to show just where they will compromise and where they won't. I sincerely believe that PR based governments lead to less extremism, not more, because compromise and consensus become important and an expected part of the political process.


Vandave said:


> It doesn't invalidate his argument. I don't agree that he is an enemy of everything NDP. He has been highly critical of the Liberals on the fish farm issue and has supported the NDP's position.


So what is it that does invalidate Rafe Mair's argument, that it is the power mongers and interest groups on the left and the right who are really afraid of PR, because they can't as easily control their boys as they could under a disciplined party structure in one of their fake majorities?


Vandave said:


> I don't care who supports PR, I only care about the argument. I think your response is a little bit hypocritical. You correctly pointed out that I ignored Rafe's argument by writing him off as a wingnut. But, you then go ahead to use the reputation of other individuals to strengthen your own argument. You can't have it both ways. So let's both agree to stick with actual arguments.


I wasn't using the reputation of those people to strengthen my argument, I simply mentioned them to show you that there are many on the right not just people that can be labled "wingnuts", who support PR, because it is the fair and democratic thing to do. They all believe it will help their cause, but through giving voice to the citizens, not through gaming the system.

It's very telling to me that there are many within the NDP who are fighting against the STV option in the next election/referendum, saying that it is a right-wing plot. Here's an article on the BC lefty news site, The Tyee, that threatens a "right-wing lock". Also there are many on the right, doing the same, saying it is all a left-wing plot. In fact they have joined together and launched an organisation last week that will be promoting the "NO ON STV" option. It's very interesting that the party hacks from both sides seem to be now coming out against PR and STV. What have they all got to lose, under fair voting, I wonder?


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

*Say What???*



MacNutt said:


> Yep GWR...as soon as anyone points out how horribly corrupt the high end Quebecois politicos truly are...like THAT is any great revelation to anyone....then some outraged resident of la Belle Province suddenly screams _RACIST!!_
> 
> Same thing happens when anyone questions why pretty much EVERY single leader of this country, for most of the last FORTY years, has had to be a "Lawyer from Quebec" and why the heck that no other proffessional from NO other province seems to be qualified to actually run this fair land?
> 
> ...


For starters I would certainly not be outraged by any silly comments coming from you, and secondly I didn't scream _RACIST_ , I mearly pointed out that your racism was showing once again. All of the screaming and outrage seem to be coming from you. You see, a person that over generalises the way you do seems to be out of touch with reality and tends to imagine boogey-men everywhere. It's just plain old bigotry, really. But, alas, I guess you just don't see it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

GWR said:


> You see, a person that over generalises the way you do seems to be out of touch with reality and tends to imagine boogey-men everywhere. It's just plain old bigotry, really. But, alas, I guess you just don't see it.


Hey New Neighbour, 19 posts and you've already got the 'Nutt figured out, eh. Good for you.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

When I was young we used to have a dog that would bark and howl for no apparent reason. It was actually a bit of a nuissance, but we didn't want to get rid of him because we had gotten used to him. The neighbours used to complain alot about him though, but we realised that they just felt threatened by him because of his bark. We tried reassuring them that he was no threat to them, that his bark was much worse than his bite, but they didn't believe us. We still thought our old companion was completly harmless, but that didn't matter anymore. We had to give him up because the neighbours were afraid of him. We put poor old "MacNutt" to sleep because of the neighbours, but we all still miss the old fella'. ;-)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

There's nothing bigoted or racist about stating the facts that most of our recent PM's have been lawyers from Quebec. 

I think people should be careful before labelling another person as being racist. To call somebody a racist is a serious accusation.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think people should learn the difference between racism and bigotry.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think that your estimates are just speculation on your part, Dave.


Definate speculation. How would one ever measure such an intangible anyways. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> how would it be in the interest of the bigger party to adopt the policies of the smaller one?


It would be in the benefit of the bigger to adopt the policy of the minority party in order to pass legislation. The compromise between each position will be swayed further to the smaller party than their percentage of the vote should actually allow. Let's say the smaller party has 10% of the vote and the larger party 40%. Since the smaller party has the balance of power, they will demand the larger party make significant compromise to get their vote. They would likely sway policy further in their direction than their 10% support should allow. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Say this mainstream party was the BC Liberals and they partnered with a party like the Unity party. (Although in my opinion, the BC Liberals are an extremist party, but I'll let that go for now.  ) I'm not sure of the Unity party's policies, but let's say they are pretty much social conservatives and wanted to enact school prayer or teaching creationism. How would it be in the BC Liberal's interest to ignore the the wishes of their huge base of more centrist voters simply to hold on to a majority government? They would know that if they agreed to policies like this their votes in the next election would plummet, because most folks in BC would find policies like that abhorrent.


I don't think this is a good example to use as school prayer and creationism are topics that have divergent positions. You're either for it or against it. Since there is no middle ground, compromise isn't really possible. But on other issues such as spending, the minority party would have the ability to sway too much policy in my mind. Do you really think the BC Liberals are extremist? I had to laugh at that. I think they are actually quite centrist. Now the NDP......



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And what interest would the Unity party have in causing the government to fall because they won't adopt these policies. Their chance to be at the table would now end. They know that their own voter base is too small to gain major seat totals and their support could even decrease because many of their own voters who might have voted for the Liberals might be angry at their tossing away their chance at the table that they will not vote for them next time.


Marginal parties have little to lose in new elections. The support base of any marginal party is generally pretty loyal, so you end up with a similar result. If anything the support base would be motivated (pissed off) since the government didn't adopt the desired policy. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So what is it that does invalidate Rafe Mair's argument, that it is the power mongers and interest groups on the left and the right who are really afraid of PR, because they can't as easily control their boys as they could under a disciplined party structure in one of their fake majorities?


I'm not denying that there is a problem here, but I don't agree with the proposed solution that you are advocating. Rafe is probably correct that 'power mongers' have more to lose under a PR system. 

When does the information packet get sent around? I guess it would already be posted on the web somewhere. I should become more informed about it, but I am quite sceptical.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I think people should learn the difference between racism and bigotry.


Nice try smartass. Try reading my statement again. 

To be bigoted you have to have an opinion or belief first. Stating that most our PM's have been Quebec lawyers is a fact, not an opinion. Therefore, this cannot be considered as bigoted.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Or "racist" either, for that matter.

Near as I can tell...Quebecers are of the same race as I am. Correct me if I'm wrong.  

Facts is facts. Too bad some people like to hide behind outrage and fling accusations when asked a simple question like "How come only ONE province out of ten seems to provide ALL of the Prime Ministers for this geat land?"

Or..."Don't the residents of the rest of the Provinces qualify as potential candidates for leader of Canada? And if not...then WHY not??"


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> To be bigoted you have to have an opinion or belief first. Stating that most our PM's have been Quebec lawyers is a fact, not an opinion. Therefore, this cannot be considered as bigoted.


The claim was not that most of our PM's have been Québec lawyers, but that all Québec lawyers and the rest of the Québec elite are corrupt. This is clearly an over generalisation based on what would apear to be bigotry. A personal dislike of French-Canadians in general. This is what I have labled racism. I agree that it is a serious accusation, in line with a serious affront.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Vandave said:


> Nice try smartass. Try reading my statement again.
> 
> To be bigoted you have to have an opinion or belief first. Stating that most our PM's have been Quebec lawyers is a fact, not an opinion. Therefore, this cannot be considered as bigoted.


I wasn't referring to your post, I was speaking in general.

For someone to pull "the race card" where the majority of the French-speaking people from Québec (traditionally speaking) are white, while most of the English people in Canada (likewise) are white, I find it difficult to see the validity of screaming racism either way.

Call me kooky...


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

It's Cultureism... Or something like that. 

Now my girlfriend is very French, Acadian to be exact. I never knew what a horrible time the french had back in the days of expulshion and all that, but they came back and I guess the silent revolution really worked! 

See, People bonding together, with some patience and time will always prevail!

I mean, the english couldda (Not Shoudda) slaughtered them back on the Plains of Abraham, but because they were short sighted, and didn't want the Americans to take Quebec....

Maybe we should just allow the sepperation of Quebec and work from there, at least they will shut up about it for a while, and who knows, we might be able to be friends afterwards.... as they continue to succle the Canadian Teet


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Hey man... the last thing I need is to stop at the border on the way to work every day.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Why not get radical? Scrap political parties altogether. Elect individuals who you feel best represent your issues (how many Canadians are forced to pick the lesser of two or three evils among parties to "force change"?). Representatives would have to come to either majority rule or consensus to enact legislation. No lobbying of parties or ministers (MacLean's did a feature on Lobbying in Canada last year that was very disturbing).

Far-fetched? <i>They're doing it in Nunavut, Canada's newest territory.</i>
<small>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.gordonfn.org/print-IN.cfm?id=63">http://www.gordonfn.org/print-IN.cfm?id=63</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/argentina/nunavut_apr2003-en.asp">Nunavut Profile (Cdn Embassy)</a></li>
</ul>


M


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An interesting perspective CM.

Now that I think about it, I rather like it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I like it too. And I think that we may see something like this someday in the future. I'm also all for "Direct Democracy"....which is where issues are put before the public on a weekly or monthly basis and we all collectively say yea or nay. Probably via a secured email system or something.

Lots of possibilities for abuse there, I know. But once the bugs are worked out it could end up being the fairest system of them all. I seem to remember reading something about some part of Switzerland using Direct Democracy. 

One thing is for sure....the system that we now have is headed nowhere. And no one is very happy with it. Except the guys who are lining their own pockets with our hard earned tax dollars.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Glad to hear you're coming around, Gerry, since that is, after all, the electoral system they use in <b>Cuba</b>! 

<a href="http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/enero/mar4/02elec.html">Elections in Cuba</a>

<a href="http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/2005elections.shtml">Elections - April 17th, 2005</a>

<a href="http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/opinion/2005/Febrero/23-02-05.htm">Cuba Elections: A Special Project</a>

M


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> When does the information packet get sent around? I guess it would already be posted on the web somewhere. I should become more informed about it, but I am quite sceptical.


There was supposed to be an information brochure from the Citizen's Assembly describing STV and how it would work sent to every household in BC. I got mine, but I heard that there were some problems with distribution. I'm sure they can send you one.

Although I was a supporter of this before, I attended an information meeting last week, where 3 members of the Citizens Assembly spoke and described the proposed system. They were very informed and understood all the details of how it works better than I do. 

There are groups of them speaking all over the province and they plan to meet with people for the next two months as much as possible. If you have any questions or criticisms about the system, you should go to one of their presentations and ask them directly. They are open to questions, (at least the group I saw) and have taken a very non-partisan approach, so as to not alienate anybody who is interested. If these guys, who have become experts on STV, as well as other voting systems, can't address your problems with STV, then you may be on to something. 

These members of the Citizens Assembly have  a web site where they talk about the subject of STV. You can find out where they are meeting in your area on this page.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh _STOP_ Mark. You're killing me.  

Cubans with direct democracy...totally free to vote their own minds on ANY subject. ROTFLMAO. 

My sides are hurting and my cheeks are aching from the laughter. Got any more good ones like that?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The truly scary part about all of this, folks...is that Mark actually believes this stuff.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fidel gets 100% of the vote 100% of the time. No exceptions. A remarkable record.

Saddam used to get elected this way, as I recall. Same 100% vote as well. Every single time. Amazing!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I got mine, but I heard that there were some problems with distribution. I'm sure they can send you one.
> 
> You can find out where they are meeting in your area on this page.


I'm pretty sure I didn't get a copy unless my wife threw it out. I'll definately read through it so that I can make an informed decision. 

I reallly doubt it will pass as most of the electorate will know very little about it come election day.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I reallly doubt it will pass as most of the electorate will know very little about it come election day.


Yeah, this bothers me a lot. Oh well, I'll just keep telling people about it as best I can.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> I reallly doubt it will pass as most of the electorate will know very little about it come election day.


Which is precisely what some of the party insiders who oppose it are counting on as they spread distortions and outright lies about STV. Norman Spector in the Victoria Times-Colonist, and NDP insider Bill Tielman in the Georgia Straight have both printed things that are outright lies, and I know that Tielman, at least, knows the truth.

The problem is that the Citizen's Assembly was created to draft a referendum question and then to disband. There was no provision or funding put in place for them to educate the public on it, other than that brochure, which I understand was the result of some last minute pleading on the part of the Assembly members.

This is why some Assembly members have formed the Citizen's Assembly Alumni, and are making themselves available to speak anywhere they are asked to, up until election day.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I always like what Norman Spector has to say. I think he is pretty honest and generally gives informed opinions. What was the outright lie? Send him an email if you think it is a lie.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This week we are being told that there might just be a snap election in the offing.

I sort of doubt that it will actually come to this...but it is certainly a possibility given the tiny minority status of the Martin Liberals.

The top pollsters are also telling us the following two factoids:

1) -Both major parties are about neck and neck right now in popularity. Neither the Conservatives or the Liberals have any sort of a clear lead at this point in time.

2) -The Liberals continue to sink in every single poll, while the Conservatives are on the rise. This will likely continue as the Gormery Inquiry into massive Liberal corruption goes on. It may even get worse as a whole batch of Jean Chretien's old buddies come up for criminal court fraud trials in the very near future.

If the ongoing inquiries continue to attach this scandal to Paul Martin and if the scandals reveal even MORE damaging evidence of massive corruption at the highest levels of the Liberal Party...as they are almost certain to do...then the Liberals will be finished. It's only a matter of time. (and there are SOOOO many other Liberal scandals, after all!)

A snap election at this point might be a bit of a crap shoot. An election later in the year would be a massive defeat for what is left of the once powerful Liberals.

I wonder which way it will go?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> This week we are being told that there might just be a snap election in the offing.
> 
> I sort of doubt that it will actually come to this...but it is certainly a possibility given the tiny minority status of the Martin Liberals.
> 
> ...


I think the Conservatives are ready for an election. They are just waiting for the opportune time to bring the government down. Maybe they expect some interesting testimony at the Gomery commission to occur in the near future. 

I think the Liberals know this as well as they have spent a lot of money in the west in the last couple weeks.

Corruption is definately a big issue for the Conservatives to run on. Unfortunately, I think our electorate is a little apathetic towards this issue. I think the Conservatives need another big issue to run on to win a minority or majority government. I'm not sure a discussion on the Kyoto Protocol is it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I think the Conservatives would have a better chance if they'd start running on their own merits. Personally, I'd prefer to hear what they want to do for me rather than how bad the Liberals are.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

*Seems like a good place to post this ...*

Apparently, blinkered talking heads like Lynne Coulter and Bill O'Reilley notwithstanding, all is not quite lost:

Below is a commentary on Canada from Suzanne Burnett, a columnist with the Pittsburg Gazette.
**=============

You live next door to a clean-cut, quiet guy. He never plays loud music or throws raucous parties. He doesn't gossip over the fence, just smiles politely and offers you some tomatoes. His lawn is cared-for, his house is neat as a pin and you get the feeling he doesn't always lock his front door. He wears Dockers. You hardly know he's there.

And then one day you discover that he has pot in his basement, spends his weekends at peace marches and that guy you've seen mowing the yard is his spouse.

Allow me to introduce Canada.

The Canadians are so quiet that you may have forgotten they're up there, but they've been busy doing some surprising things. It's like discovering that the mice you are dimly aware of in your attic have been building an espresso machine.

Did you realize, for example, that our reliable little tag-along brother never joined the Coalition of the Willing? Canada wasn't willing, as it turns out, to join the fun in Iraq. I can only assume American diner menus weren't angrily changed to include "freedom bacon," because nobody here eats the stuff anyway.

And then there's the wild drug situation: Canadian doctors are authorized to dispense medical marijuana. Parliament is considering legislation that would not exactly legalize marijuana possession, as you may have heard, but would reduce the penalty for possession of under 15 grams to a fine, like a speeding ticket. This is to allow law enforcement to concentrate resources on traffickers: If your garden is full of wasps, it's smarter to go for the nest rather than trying to swat every individual bug. Or, in the United States, bong.

Now, here's the part that I, as an American, can't understand. These poor benighted pinkos are doing everything wrong. They have a drug problem: Marijuana offences have doubled since 1991. And Canada has strict gun control laws, which mean that the criminals must all be heavily armed, the law-abiding civilians helpless and the government on the verge of a massive confiscation campaign. (The laws have been in place since the '70s, but I'm sure the government will get around to the confiscation eventually.) They don't even have a death penalty!

And yet, nationally, overall crime in Canada has been declining since 1991. Violent crimes fell 13 per cent in 2002. Of course, there are still crimes committed with guns - brought in from the United States, which has become the major illegal weapons supplier for all of North America - but my theory is that the surge in pot-smoking has rendered most criminals too relaxed to commit violent crimes. They're probably more focused on shoplifting boxes of Ho-Hos from convenience stores.

And then there's the most reckless move of all: Just last month, Canada decided to allow and recognize same-sex marriages. Merciful moose, what can they be thinking? Will there be married Mounties (they always get their man!)? Dudley Do-Right was sweet on Nell, not Mel! We must be the only ones who really care about families. Not enough to make sure they all have health insurance, of course, but more than those libertines up north.

This sort of behaviour is a clear and present danger to all our stereotypes about Canada. It's supposed to be a cold, wholesome country of polite, beer-drinking hockey players, not founded by freedom fighters in a bloody revolution but quietly assembled by loyalists and royalists more interested in order and good government than liberty and independence.

But if we are the rugged individualists, why do we spend so much of our time trying to get everyone to march in lockstep? And if Canadians*are so reserved and moderate, why are they so progressive about letting people do what they want to?

Canadians are, as a nation, less religious than we are, according to polls. As a result, Canada's government isn't influenced by large, well organized religious groups and thus has more in common with those of Scandinavia than those of the United States, or, say, Iran.

Canada signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, lets 19-year-olds drink, has more of its population living in urban areas and accepts more immigrants per capita than the United States.

These are all things we've been told will wreck our society. But I guess Canadians are different, because theirs seems oddly sound.

Like teenagers, we fiercely idolize individual freedom but really demand that everyone be the same. But the Canadians seem more adult - more secure. They aren't afraid of foreigners. They aren't afraid of homosexuality. Most of all, they're not afraid of each other.
**
I wonder if America will ever be that cool.

Samantha Bennett is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We Canadians "aren't afraid of new things". In fact...we aren't afraid of MUCH, when you come right down to it.

The fact that we stepped up instantly in both world wars while the US population argued and protested and wavered for several years is a telling fact. An historic one. This is engraved in stone. And many Americans know it.

We Canadians are on the leading edge of a whole lot of stuff. And the Americans also know this. In the oilpatch, for instance, Canadian technology rules. American stuff is all twenty or thirty years behind. They automatically defer to Canucks at wellsite...and treat us like visiting geniuses.

(And I, for one, milked this for everything it was worth. Trust me on this.) 

BUT....

Canada is no longer able to actively defend itself. Or even patrol it's own coastlines. Thanks to the wastrels who are currently in power. And who have been, for the past decade.

Currently, we are on the leading edge of several social changes. Quite a few technical ones, as well. Especially when compared to the Americans. You might want to celebrate this moment...cherish it, even....

Because WHEN, not IF, we are a part of a major terrorist event on this continent...then all of that will change.

Because we Canadians will, at that point, suddenly become junior partners in the management and defence of our own vast land. Instantly. 

Nothing less than our own Canadian sovereignty will be at stake when that happens. As it stands right now, we will LOSE that sovereignty once something terrible happens. Because we've lost the ability to deal with it. (or tossed it away, really).

And the only people who we will be able to blame for this are the corrupt idiots who have been "governing" us at the highest levels for so very long. While stealing masses of Canadian tax dollars. And while presiding over hugely expensive do-nothing public programs that just happen to funnel millions of dollars into the pockets of their buddies.

And we can also blame the people who have so actively voted these wastrels into power for the past decades, and who have supported them so strongly once they've been placed back into power after each sucessive election.

You know who you are. One day you may be asked to explain yourselves for this travesty. Your names may even be published, just so future generations may actually see who facilitated the final end to this great land.

Are you prepared for that?

Or...do you buy into the old timeworn Liberal Party line of "What? Me Worry??" 

And do you think that being prepared is just silly? And a waste of taxpayers funds? (Better to spend those hard earned tax dollars siphoning off money to corrupt Quebec companies who are a part of the Liberal elite, after all. Because doing that is supposed to "keep the country together" dontcha know.)

My thoughts here?

Good luck on the future. You'll need it.

We ALL will.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> BUT....
> 
> Canada is no longer able to actively defend itself. Or even patrol it's own coastlines.


Wrong. 



MacNutt said:


> Because WHEN, not IF, we are a part of a major terrorist event on this continent...then all of that will change.


That could be a long long long time. If you're still subscribing to the mistaken notion that any terrorists involved with 9/11 came through the Canadian border then you better go to your local library and ask the librarian to help you look up the facts. 



MacNutt said:


> Because we Canadians will, at that point, suddenly become junior partners in the management and defence of our own vast land. Instantly.
> 
> Nothing less than our own Canadian sovereignty will be at stake when that happens. As it stands right now, we will LOSE that sovereignty once something terrible happens.


Yep...the only country we Canadians should fear is that rogue nation to the south of us..the good ol' US of A.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh...so we Canadaians ARE actually able to patrol and defend our own costlines, Ironmac??

When, pray tell, did THAT happen?

Was it on one of your flights of fancy? One of the same ones that led you to make such terrible and totally innacurate predictions about the recent events in the middle east?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Watching the CTV News right now...and they are telling us that there has been some "explosive testimony at the Gormery inquiry".

Unfortunately, we mere Canadians can't actually be told about it because of a Liberal government-mandated gag order. (don't worry...someday soon we will actually have a real democracy in Canada. I hope.)

But they are reporting that it is "terribly damaging to the Federal Liberal Party" and that it may cause a snap election. It's THAT bad.  

Gee...who saw this coming? Strike me dead. I can't believe it!

Who'da THUNK it??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm thinking that the much rumored (and widely predicted) "Part TWO" of the last Federal election may be just around the corner.

Anyone here think that Paul Martin will be the triumphant victor after this next vote? Anyone here on crack?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Oh...so we Canadaians ARE actually able to patrol and defend our own costlines, Ironmac??
> 
> Was it on one of your flights of fancy? One of the same ones that led you to make such terrible and totally innacurate predictions about the recent events in the middle east?


I notice that you didn't reply to my earlier Coast Guard questions. 

And what predictions are you talking about?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone here on crack?


I don't know but a lot of us are curious as to what you've been smoking or imbibing on the drug-addled West Coast.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I'm thinking that the much rumored (and widely predicted) "Part TWO" of the last Federal election may be just around the corner.
> 
> Anyone here think that Paul Martin will be the triumphant victor after this next vote? Anyone here on crack?


I wonder if Martin was complicit with the funneling of money to the ad firms, which is 180 degrees from what he said prior to the last election.

I think the Liberals are expecting an election because they have been throwing a lot of money around. The big question for the next election is whether Ontario will finally see that the Liberals are corrupt. If they do, the Conservatives can win a minority or majority government.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

When all is said and done, I don't think Adscam will have a major effect on Ontario voters - afterall, the last election was run under the shadow of the scandal - it will have more influence on Quebec voters but that will only benefit the Bloc. Many people simply think that all politicians are self-serving to some degree. What might have a bigger effect in Ontario is the rebuff the Federal Liberals have given the Provincial Liberals over the $23 billion "transfer deficit". This places the Federal Liberals truly between a rock and a hard place since they've counted on Ontario votes for the last decade yet if they pay attention to the claimed deficit, then the overall Federal finances will be thrown into disarray. For the Tories to make headway, they will need to moderate their rhetoric and disconcerting (to middle-of-the-road Ontarians) policies and also make it clear that a fiscal plan that sucks less out of Ontario is on the agenda.

Without a significant swing in Ontario, the most the Tories could hope for is a minority government which would likely be less stable than the Liberal minority.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The big question for the next election is whether Ontario will finally see that the Liberals are corrupt.


Vandave, I recall shaking my head at the results of the last federal election and, in a moment of anger and frustration, wanting to take out full page ads in every Ontario newspaper that asked a simple question "How many billions does it take?"



used to be jwoodget said:


> When all is said and done, I don't think Adscam will have a major effect on Ontario voters...


UTBJW, I agree here as well.

Something is starting to crystallize out of the ethos for me.

What this boils down to is that people are far more willing to go with the devil they do know as opposed to the devil they don't.

Anyone?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yup, that's pretty much it although it also comes down to avoiding slipping in the poop during the hustings (and, in the case of Stephen Harper having friends like Ralph Klein dropping a nuke in your lap).


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt said:



> Unfortunately, we mere Canadians can't actually be told about it because of a Liberal government-mandated gag order.


Wake up Macnutt, the Liberals had nothing to do with the ban other than to appoint the judge who is investigating Adscam -- Gomery himself imposed the ban.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Yup, that's pretty much it although it also comes down to avoiding slipping in the poop during the hustings (and, in the case of Stephen Harper having friends like Ralph Klein dropping a nuke in your lap).


Since Alberta is the only debt free government in Canada, it might be better if eastern Canadians actually acknowledged what we did here instead of belittling our successful leaders.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> When all is said and done, I don't think Adscam will have a major effect on Ontario voters - afterall, the last election was run under the shadow of the scandal - it will have more influence on Quebec voters but that will only benefit the Bloc. Many people simply think that all politicians are self-serving to some degree. What might have a bigger effect in Ontario is the rebuff the Federal Liberals have given the Provincial Liberals over the $23 billion "transfer deficit". This places the Federal Liberals truly between a rock and a hard place since they've counted on Ontario votes for the last decade yet if they pay attention to the claimed deficit, then the overall Federal finances will be thrown into disarray. For the Tories to make headway, they will need to moderate their rhetoric and disconcerting (to middle-of-the-road Ontarians) policies and also make it clear that a fiscal plan that sucks less out of Ontario is on the agenda.
> 
> Without a significant swing in Ontario, the most the Tories could hope for is a minority government which would likely be less stable than the Liberal minority.


I think the Liberals are trying to bring the government down to take advantage of the gag order. If the election takes place after this "explosive evidence" is released they know they are in serious trouble. This explains the recent budget amendments with Kyoto funding that they know the Conservatives would not support.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC, Ralph did the Conservatives a significant disservice by pre-announcing his intention to introduce legislation to privatise healthcare in Alberta. The fact that he backed down after the election reveals not only a misstep but a major mistake. As for the debt-free status of Alberta, good for you (really). Personally, I don't give a heck of a lot of credit for this to the politicians - rather to the billions of dollars of oil revenues.



Vandave said:


> I think the Liberals are trying to bring the government down to take advantage of the gag order. If the election takes place after this "explosive evidence" is released they know they are in serious trouble. This explains the recent budget amendments with Kyoto funding that they know the Conservatives would not support.


The gag order could be removed if the trials are postponed to November. The gag order was put in place at the request of three of the defendents lawyers due to concerns that the Gomery enquiry evidence would prejudice the three criminal trials due to their proximity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aw forget it. You guys in the east will never learn. Keep electing those corrupt guys we love to hate. It reflects your take on things political.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The gag order is useless. The recent testimony from Brault is already on the internet on some blogs. I'm not sure if I can legally post a link to it or not.

If Canadian's do not vote the Liberal Party out of power for this scandal, then we deserve what we got.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Aw forget it. You guys in the east will never learn. Keep electing those corrupt guys we love to hate. It reflects your take on things political.


Actually, it reflects on the lack to true, honest, and capable leaders that are the alternative.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Actually, it reflects on the lack to true, honest, and capable leaders that are the alternative.


Agreed, that too.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The gag order is useless. The recent testimony from Brault is already on the internet on some blogs. I'm not sure if I can legally post a link to it or not.
> 
> If Canadian's do not vote the Liberal Party out of power for this scandal, then we deserve what we got.


No, I don't think it's legal to post such a link, but such blog posts are not hard to find.

I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole gag-order business. Yes, it's an affront to free speech, but it's legitimately imposed within our system for reasons that are not trivial. So I find it arrogant in the extreme for American bloggers to violate the order "for our own good." (Not to mention the presumptuousness of the person who was at the hearing who spilled the beans.) And of course I'm not too happy about letting my own curiosity get the better of me.

As for the contents of the testimony: if the reporting is accurate and if the allegations are true (that's not one but a pair of humongous IFs), I don't see this development as representing certain doom for the Libs. (Those who do underestimate the power of scapegoating and spin-doctoring.) However, the Liberal party is in deep, deep trouble in Quebec no matter what the contents of last week's testimony, and this alone may be enough to tip the scales towards Harper's party nationally (at least for a minority). 

If that happens, you can thank both the sponsorship scandal and Jean Charest.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Since Alberta is the only debt free government in Canada, it might be better if eastern Canadians actually acknowledged what we did here instead of belittling our successful leaders.


What a crock - you've got time Sinc - get the total windfall oil revenues that flowed to the Alberta gov and eliminate them. The put Alberta on a par with a province like Ontario and you'll find you suck - you'd have 300% of the debt per capita that Ontario has.

I know I did the calculation - without oil revenue you'd be as dire as Sask or Manitoba - maybe worse.

Middle Canada want's nothing to do with Harper - mnay minority govs in store I do beleive and yes it could be a NeoCon in some odd mathematical situation but that would incredibly short lived as neither Libs or NDP or Quebec will work with them.

Perhaps the monolithic top down days are over and we start acting as a federation again.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc, Sinc,

I'm sort of agreement with both of you here. I agree with Macdoc that Alberta has had the benefit of oil revenues, but I think it's silly to remove those revenues from their balance statement and then claim the resulting debt proves they're as badly governed as anyone.

I find it very obvious though that this Liberal government is spent. Paul Martin has brought nothing new to the table and the government is dithering and delaying... and perhaps even corrupt, dishonest and thieving as the Gomery evidence suggest. Can any Liberals point to achievements or plans of this government? What do they stand for? What do they believe in? With the exception of their rejection of the US Missile Defence programme (a position it looks like they were reluctantly pushed into as a minority government) they are completely flapping in the breeze.

By comparison, I am seeing some ideas from the Conservatives that I like. Here are four of the resolutions passed at their policy convention:

"A conservative government will amend the income tax act to eliminate all tax disadvantages to families including those who care for children at home and to recognize the economic value of stay at home parents by introducing tax fairness measures such as income splitting."

***This is big... I resent the fact that my wife and I pay more tax because we chose to get married. That's absurd and counter productive.

"A conservative government will restore democratic accountability in the House of Commons by allowing free votes. A conservative government will make all votes free except the budget and main estimates."

"A conservative government will ensure that nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada will be ratified by a free vote in Parliament, after receiving the approval of the Justice Comittee of the House of Commons."

*** This is a democracy and I consider this a democratic check on the unelected and unaccountable Supreme Court.

"The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine the care needs of their children and that they should be able to do so in an environment that encourages as many options as possible and in a manner that does not discriminate against those who opt to raise their children in family, social, linguistic and religious environments. We also recognize that the delivery of education and social services are provincial responsibilities under the constitution. We believe that support should go to all parents and families raising children, especially to lower and middle income parents. All existing levels of support will be maintained and improved if necessary."

Cheers!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The hardships we residents have endured over the last ten years to eliminate the debt has been staggering. Among the casualties were health care, education, seniors benefits, physio treatments, eye examinations, orthopedic devices and the list goes on and on. Add to that the user fees imposed and you begin to get the picture that it was done in a way that affected all Albertans.

No one blinked, we stayed the course and now we are debt free. The huge surpluses from oil revenues are a side benefit, but then again one who has not lived in Alberta for the past 15 years would have no idea what we endured.

We are still not without our problems and some hardship, but we are reinvesting in fields like medicare and education to try and do it right this time around.

In spite of that, there remain those who claim to know better and who choose to condemn our leaders in their ignorance of the real truth.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc you kill me - those hardships were self imposed by a ideologue gov you elected - and you have no provincial sales tax either. Save me the river of tears.
The entire country has done an admirable job of getting the debt to GDP ratio into the world class league.....and oil revenues from across Canada has helped in both cases.

Alberta has very few immigrant costs either and farm communities have their noses in the federal trough as well.

••

FN - admirable post as usual but cherry picking the Con agenda overlooks the NeoCon aspects.

I'd look to Tory for the resurgence - not Harper. Tainted goods.

Yep the Libs have a problem - they lost someof the irrascible types like Copps and Carol to name two and are now trying to please everyone.
A minority gov SHOULD be able to incorporate good ideas ( I'm not saying the ones you listed are as they have ramifications not outlined ) from all the parties involved.

THIS parliament so far SUCKS. Too much politicking not enough governing.

Hazel for PM. :clap:


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Fair comment Macdoc... I didn't mention their opposition to same sex marriage or their hatred for the gun registry. However, you can stick a fork into this Liberal government - it's done - and it's not going to renew itself until we boot them out completely. I hope we get that chance soon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> However, you can stick a fork into this Liberal government - it's done - and it's not going to renew itself until we boot them out completely. I hope we get that chance soon.


Isn't that the truth!

I just finished Googling the words sponsorship scandal, adscam and blogs.

The so called "devastating testimony" at the Gomery inquiry is very easy to find and read.

While I won't give anyone the web site due to Canadian law, you can find it easily enough if you are persistent in your search.

Damagaing? It's revolting. The federal Liberals are dead when the public gets this information.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC, don't forget that testimony is from a guy who is facing criminal charges. What he says may be true, but to admit that, you will also have to admit what Gagliano said was just as likely to be true. To put it another way, the evidence is unproven and from someone who is trying to save his own butt. I will reserve judgement since I like to hear both sides of an argument along with evidence before making my mind up. Conservative blogs are also not my preferred source of unbiased information.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ever consider he might be telling the whole truth so as not to go down alone on the charges?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Ever consider he might be telling the whole truth so as not to go down alone on the charges?


Ever consider he might be telling lies so as not to go down alone on the charges? 

Who knows, but I do think the gag order is likely to do the Liberals more harm than having open sessions since the party has to defend itself against innuendo and rumours and the opposition parties can just fan the flames. We need to get to the bottom of the mess and to do it in public otherwise the truth will never be known.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> However, you can stick a fork into this Liberal government - it's done - and it's not going to renew itself until we boot them out completely. I hope we get that chance soon.



I see the early 80's here. Should this thing completely blow up in their faces, the liberals may be booted out come next election, but only by the barest possible of minorities. They will go off, lick their wounds, restructure, etc...

In the mean time the Conservative/Alliance minority will blow up in a spectacular fashion inside of a year. Mostly due to infighting, being too socially right wing... and most likely scaring the **** out of everyone. After the have lost, they too will go off and lick their wounds... I would foresee that either McKay or Stronach will make their way to the top. At that point, possibly... maybe we could see a conservative majority.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> ...get the total windfall oil revenues that flowed to the Alberta gov and eliminate them...


I don't understand this observation. 

You walk into a bank, the loans manager sits down with you and says, "Gee, Mr. Smith, I'm afraid we can't help you. Once we take your salary out of the equation, your financial situation really sucks!"  



MacDoc said:


> ...those hardships were self imposed by a ideologue gov you elected...


MacDoc, you are absolutely correct in this assessment. Klein's financial agenda was made quite clear, very early on. That's one of the reasons he's been in power as long as he has. He stuck to his guns, come hell or high water.

When Sinc tells of the hardships Albertans have persevered to arrive at the fiscal situation we now enjoy, he doesn't say it with his chin down in embarrassment. He says it with his chin proudly held high. How do I know? Because he, I and millions of other Albertans are generally pleased with the management that King Ralph _et al._ have given us over these past years.

Yes, Ralph Klein has a few warts, but I'd bet every penny in Alberta's coffers that if there was any other political party in power the oil revenues would not have been used to pay down our debt.

As a matter of fact, the provincial Liberals tried using that plank in their platform the last two elections. They were promising spend, spend, spend the oil revenues. The results speak for themselves, on several fronts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes and I and MANY millions of Canadian are pleased with the fiscal management Martin has given us over the past decade. And his finance minister peers around the world respect his efforts and that of Canadians across the board to get the "house in order".

Martin's problem is he is NOT a politician. That's good in some respects and terrible in others. Decent statesman, excellent finance minister, lousy politico.

Without Quebec it's real difficult to see any majority anytime soon and quite frankly I don;t mind IF the clowns start to govern - and I include the entire pack.

There is far too much focus on this tempest in a teacup and far too little on governing and politics are being played with this inquiry.
Gnawing on a stale bone is doing not one single Canadian citizen any good.
Martin set the query in motion and that's all he could do.

Get on with government - all you bunch o lamers..........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> When Sinc tells of the hardships Albertans have persevered to arrive at the fiscal situation we now enjoy, he doesn't say it with his chin down in embarrassment. He says it with his chin proudly held high. How do I know? Because he, I and millions of other Albertans are generally pleased with the management that King Ralph _et al._ have given us over these past years.


Exactly the way I meant it FeXL. No shame in tightening our belt and we knew it would come when we voted for Ralph.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Gnawing on a stale bone is doing not one single Canadian citizen any good.


Come now, aren't you forgetting a few dozen lawyers who are probably just tickled by the whole mess?


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Hey, The publication ban on the sponcership scandal was supposedly broken, Sounds pretty bad if this is true.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ummm..... Vinnie, posting that URL is illegal in Canada and might get EhMac in trouble. I kinda doubt it since its been on Google since Saturday (SINC notes this above) but you might notice that no one else posted the URL and its not listed on any media web sites. If you want first-hand information, you can personally attend the commission hearings. The ban refers to disseminating the information in a public forum. 

P.S. Am not shooting the messenger, but we shouldn't post direct URLs to this site since it is against the law. I would expect the information ban will be lifted soon, since the entire concept of keeping anything confidential in the age of the internet is plain silly. However, one consequence of not being able to provide a fair trial to the three accused is that they may get away with a mistrial. That is certainly not a desirable outcome.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Ummm..... Vinnie, posting that URL is illegal in Canada and might get EhMac in trouble. I kinda doubt it since its been on Google since Saturday (SINC notes this above) but you might notice that no one else posted the URL and its not listed on any media web sites. If you want first-hand information, you can personally attend the commission hearings. The ban refers to disseminating the information in a public forum.


That is exactly why I did not post the URL but rather gave hints on how to find it.

The exact term is "contempt of court" and having my newspaper been charged once in my career is enough to understand the very serious nature of the charges. It is nothing to fool with, so if it was me, I would edit that URL off the site pronto.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Dammit... What URL??  

Yeah, there were a lot of hints, I just didn't bother to read through the past posts before posting, My bad!

I googled a quote that I read in an artical about it, and Bam, There it was, I really didn't consider the legality as I will not be asked to make any judgement on this issue. 

I voted liberal once, I think, that was it, just once


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Must have been that weird bug Vinnie that pops up random URLs. I thought the site admins had cracked it a while ago.  Besides it will be public very soon. Gotta go, there's a knock at the door.....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Yes and I and MANY millions of Canadian are pleased with the fiscal management Martin has given us over the past decade. And his finance minister peers around the world respect his efforts and that of Canadians across the board to get the "house in order".


I'm going to plead some ignorance here, get back to my grass roots, bald ass prairie, stubble jumping upbringing. 'Course, being a "lamer" doesn't qualify me as being a genuine (sniff) critic. However, I'd like to make an observation or six. Call an official "horse feathers and bull pucky", as it were.

Where I grew up there were (are) four things which pretty much governed all the facets of life-cause and effect, checks and balances. Pretty simple, really. You got credit when credit was due. You screwed up, you owned up. You made your bed and you slept in it. And, remember, crow is a lot easier to eat warm.

I'm thinking that if Paul Martin, the star of his peers' eye the world over, and his Liberal cronies, had not let the political and financial situation get out of hand in the first place, there would be no need to get the "house in order". The horse is out in the pasture, buddy. Somebody left the gate open. By the look of the grass he's been there a while. And there ain't been nobody in the barn 'cept you for a long time.

As far as his claimed excuses of "I didn't know" are concerned, if he really didn't, then he's even a bigger laughing stock than that currently earned. Whose portfolio is it? Then get out there and run it like it's yours, and stop your whining. Take the responsibility that goes with it or get out.

I don't know if there is a system of checks and balances within the finance portfolio in federal government-serious. Does anybody have to justify their budget? No, really. I take a look at the money (just the money, not the politics) frittered away, lost, unaccounted for by the likes of Jane Stewart, the gun registry and, most recently, Adscam. There are more that are public knowledge; I won't be surprised at any more that come to light. 

"My budget last year was $5 billion. Inflation, growth, special causes, whatever...how about $97 kajillion this year? It's all responsibly managed, well spent. C'mon, Paul." "Okay."

Checks, balances?

Is that how it works? No justification, no accountability-just gimme the money, I'll spend it, thankyouverymuch. Until someone, five years (or whenever) after the fact, chances across a document (or however) recently released to the public domain that ultimately reveals the scoundrels. 

Is the system flawed or is it the people within the system? We can fix the system. However, we need to get rid of the people.

The scent in the air does not reflect the stellar nature of Paul Martin's, or other Liberals' tenure, but it certainly rhymes with it.



MacDoc said:


> Martin's problem is he is NOT a politician.


What does that mean? Is he "spin doctor" challenged?



MacDoc said:


> Without Quebec it's real difficult to see any majority anytime soon...


I'd place the timing on that 'bout the same as when you can expect Alberta's support. Despite our apparent disparity, Quebec and Alberta share many views on federal politics.



MacDoc said:


> There is far too much focus on this tempest in a teacup and far too little on governing and politics are being played with this inquiry.
> Gnawing on a stale bone is doing not one single Canadian citizen any good.


MacDoc, you are absolutely right. We should just sweep this latest Liberal boondoggle under the carpet and get on with our lives. Much the same as we have done with all the rest. And should continue to do. 

Billions and billions of dollars lost, so what, carry on. Next!



MacDoc said:


> Martin set the query in motion and that's all he could do.


I'd be willing to bet that the sincerity of this gesture had a lot more to do with his own political future (CYA) than that of actual discovery.

I'd like to refer back to a question I posed on post 147.
To you and your pleased millions: "How many billions does it take?"

Regards,
Just another "Lamer"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Attaboy FeXL! Tell it like it is! :clap:


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Amen FeXL...amen.

Thank you for your retort - you saved me the trouble.

I guess I'm a lamer too...

Mel


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Thanks, Sinc & Melonie.

Normally I wouldn't even address schoolboy attitudes (name calling).

However, the rest of the post begged a response.  

For someone who obviously endorses the ruling party, lives in the greatest province in the country and is not far from the capitol region, MacDoc seems remarkably angry (see closing emoticon, post 169). Sounds like utopia to me.  

Perhaps if a bit more of that energy was channeled eastward, rather than westward...  

Aw, well. Us westerners are a patient lot. The dog will have his day.

BTW, I guess I'm in good company, ya lamers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yo lamer, them eastern varmits will never larn!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good post FeXL!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Although I HAVE been saying pretty much exactly this since about my fifth post here at ehmac. And macdoc has been busily (and loudly) apologising for the Liberal crooks for just about as long. He calls each new Liberal scandal and massive spending boondoggle a "tempest in a teacup" and tries very hard to minimise the damage. Then he goes on to explain how there is no other party that is even remotely prepared to govern us poor naieve Canadians....so we might as well just bite the bullet an re-elect the horridly corrupt and terribly wasteful Liberals just one more time.

After all...any alternative would be too horrible to imagine, wouldn't it?  

At least, in his mind it would be. But I suspect that the majority of Canadians are beginning to think otherwise.

The next few months should be rather interesting, don't you think? Might be a bit of a test for macdoc's "faith" in his chosen religion, I suspect.

Watch and see.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Well said FeXL! Not all Easterner's are willing to drink the Liberal's cool-aid. 

Our Conservative MP was flamed for her "un-Canadian" pro-life values by the self professed champions of tolerance and acceptance in the Liberal Government and the media. The hilarious thing is, despite their best efforts to demonize her, the people returned her to Ottawa with a bigger majority than she had before. In light of recent Liberal revelations, I think the eastern Canada election map will have significantly more "blue" on it next time round.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I'm going to plead some ignorance here, get back to my grass roots, bald ass prairie, stubble jumping upbringing


You got it in one. :clap:.....the elided term is "*******".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You got it in one. :clap:.....the elided term is "*******".



Beats "pomposity" all to hell! :clap:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

When I first added my response to this thread, there were less than 3700 views. Two thousand (!) views later (5716 as I type this), the post has received 8 responses. One is my own, 4 are ringing endorsements, one is tongue in cheek , one is in defense and the second-last can find nothing else to respond with except name calling, much the same as he did earlier on.

"Of all the responses a [post] can elicit, none is as obituary as silence."

"Post" inserted for "book." This is a quote I used in an essay submitted for partial fulfillment of a university english course (OMG, an edumacated ******* lamer  ). I cannot recall the source. I searched the internet, no go. My apologies.

It's the feeling you get when you've completed a good book, when you close the cover, lean back, stretch and just grin.

To those who have smiled in understanding, your silence speaks volumes. Thank you.

Three points:
1) I have no desire to pit the east against the west in some sort of Canadian geopolitical war. This has proven, time and again, to be a dead end street for all;

2) Frankly, I could care less what political party leads this country. All I expect is accountability and responsibility. Sadly, we have not had much of either for a long time;

3) Financial mismanagement strikes me to the core. If I cannot trust you with my money (tax dollars), I cannot trust you, period. Hence, my focus on the billions of dollars the federal Liberals have squandered away.

MacDoc, MacDoc, MacDoc... (shakes his head). What are we going to do with you?

If expecting politicians to follow a system of checks and balances...
If expecting the leaders of this fine country to be accountable to the people...
If the ceaseless waste of tax dollars makes you angry...
If you want your grandchildren's legacy to be something other than bottomless debt...
If you truly want the leaders (and the people) of the world to admire us for our accomplishments, not just the fact that we're finally getting the "house in order"...
If anything any of the ruling parties has done has given you pause...
If possessing individual thought rather than a sheep's "follow the crowd" mentality...
If actually giving a damn how this country is run and how my fellow countrymen are treated...

If any of the above makes me a *******, then I wear the handle with my head held high.    

The line is long and distinguished.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

FeXL said:


> Frankly, I could care less what political party leads this country. All I expect is accountability and responsibility. Sadly, we have not had much of either for a long time;.


From my first readings on this forum and especially once the McNutt-MacDoc duelling began there were points on both sides I had issue with and agreed with as well.

I recall the Mulroney years and the general electorate dumping of the then Progressive Conservatives in favour of the "anything is better than PCs" Liberals. Such high hopes we had.

By the umpteenth Chretien "will he or won't he leave" peek-a-boo, my political apathy had risen to an all time high.

FeXL's statement above sums it up quite succinctly for me at this point in time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

As much as I would love to see a left-of-centre party take power in Canada, I recognize that this is not the current will of the majority, and I can live with the economic policies of the conservatives (I think they're wrong, but it's not something I'm passionately concerned with).

However, the medieval social policies that come with the religious wackos that have so successfully integrated themselves into the current conservative party will keep me, and many other Canadians, voting anything-but-Alliance.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

FeXL said:


> Frankly, I could care less what political party leads this country. All I expect is accountability and responsibility. Sadly, we have not had much of either for a long time;.


Welcome to ehMac FeXL 

I'll have to take issue with your statement, if by it you mean that electing the Conservatives will guarantee such accountability.

This thread started out so long ago with an article posted by SINC, where a reporter recounted his experience with "degenerate power whores" within the Liberal party and then went on to imply that this was somehow a problem for the Liberals exclusively. I disagreed and stated that degenerate power whores (lovely phrase) will rise up within any political party, if they see the opportunity, and that the current Liberal problems are merely a particularly bad example. I believe it is naive to believe that current Conservatives will not fall prey to some level of political sleaziness, if they were to became government. In the next while they will try and milk this naivety for all it's worth, promising Canadians a new era of honesty. Can you count how many times we've heard that before?

The problem is the system as a whole, which grants a party, that can somehow strategically fashion a majority government, even though they may not represent a majority of the country's citizens, almost absolute, dictatorial power until the next election. Earlier in the thread, this led to a detailed discussion on proportional representation.

It's sad that our current First-Past-The-Post political system really only allows us to vote for the lesser of two evils. For most Canadians the lesser of two evils are the Liberals even though a big chunk of Canadians are farther to the left, far bigger than the seat count of the NDP. 

I am no lover of the current Liberal Party of Canada, its policies or leaders. The fact that they have lately revealed their own hidden agenda regarding deep integration with the USA, as well as revealing plans for invasion of privacy on par with the USA's Patriot Act, shows me that they are also a corporate party, hardly much different than the Conservatives, although without some of the more extreme social conservative elements. Our country's sovereignty is at stake and under attack and while the Libs plan to give it up slowly, the Cons would have sold it yesterday.

If Canadians forget history and think that simply electing Harper's group will give us an accountable government devoid of degenerate power whoring, they are living in a dream. The only hope for our democracy is for us to participate in it more, and to push it to truly represent us, which is the real antidote to political sleaze and the opposite of what degenerate power whores from all sides want.

One of the best statements in this whole thread, post #67:


iMatt said:


> I believe our government, including the opposition, is just such a comfy clique writ large. Without citizen scrutiny and participation, any party will succumb to the lazy temptations of power.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think the operative phrase for this week is "anything but the Liberals". That's what I keep on hearing from all over this country these days. Even here on normally Liberal-friendly ehmac.

And if "medieval social policies" means a health care system that is actually sustainable in the long run...unlike what we have right now...and one that doesn't leave tens of thousands of people waiting for months for treatment..then I say, bring it on. 

And I also think it'd be a novel thing to have a Canadian Prime Minister who actually USES the Canadian public health care system himself, instead of flying down to the USA to get most of his work done. Or using private clinics here in Canada while loudly proclaiming that he will stamp out said private clinics because "it's not the Canadian way".

It would also be quite a change to be goverened by a party that _ISN'T_ constantly under investigation for massive theft and corruption...or wrestling with the latest shocking revelations about billion dollar spending boondoggles every few weeks or so.

I suspect that we might just see such a refreshing change rather soon.

I also suspect that macdoc will be less than pleased by this. Call it a hunch.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm thinking that Gratuitous Applesauce will not be entirely thrilled by the results of the soon to be announced Federal Election either. (he's not going to be very pleased by the upcoming BC provincial one, as well)  

The American elections were also rather bothersome to GA and macdoc et al, as I recall.

This stuff always comes in threes, doesn't it guys? Or....maybe the whole world is shifting a bit, politically. "Centering to the right" as macdoc has so aptly put in on several occasions. 

(now listen for the outrage and name calling and excuses to begin burning up the ehmac bandwidth.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Say...did anyone catch "Question period" in the Hose of Commons today? ZOOWEEE...that was some session! They were all but throwing the furniture at each other!  

Political correspondent Mike Duffy, who's been reporting on this stuff for decades said something to the effect of "this sort of frenzy is charcteristic during the runup to a Federal Election". He also said that CTV has all of the latest gory details that are subject to the gag order all set up and ready to be released to the public. They are just waiting for the judge to say go.

He also called them "explosive revelations about the Liberal Party that could easily bring on a snap election". And the inquiry still has several months to go...and a whole bunch more people are expected to take the stand and speak their piece. Want to bet that there won't be even MORE "explosive and damaging revelations about the Federal Liberals" as this thing goes on?

Anyone think that the Liberals will somehow be able to squirm their way out of this one and slither back into power again?

And will Chretien finally flee Canada, as I had opined several months ago? Or will he stand trial?

Stay tuned, it's getting very interesting.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

rhino said:


> ...my political apathy had risen to an all time high.


Rhino, I feel your pain.  



bryanc said:


> However, the medieval social policies that come with the religious wackos that have so successfully integrated themselves into the current conservative party will keep me, and many other Canadians, voting anything-but-Alliance.


I understand this observation entirely. I don't agree with all of it, but I see where you're coming from. Some day we'll have to sit down over a box of frost malt beverages & cover this more.  



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Welcome to ehMac FeXL
> 
> I'll have to take issue with your statement, if by it you mean that electing the Conservatives will guarantee such accountability.


Thx, GA. Long time lurker (since around a thousand members), joined up around 2200, decided to get more involved recently.

I'm not convinced the Conservatives in power guarentees anything. I've just got such a nasty taste in my mouth from all of this that I'm with Gerry-"Anything but the Liberals." Well, almost anything.  

You're right, "degenerate power whores" just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The problem is the system as a whole...


I alluded to this in an earlier post (#177):



FeXL said:


> Is the system flawed or is it the people within the system? We can fix the system. However, we need to get rid of the people.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> which grants a party, that can somehow strategically fashion a majority government, even though they may not represent a majority of the country's citizens, almost absolute, dictatorial power until the next election.


What about the Triple "E" senate theory? Would that not temper the power of the House? Or would that just be abused as well?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Triple E senate is long overdue in this country. We MUST have a secondary and seperately elected body that is beholden to no one but the voters. It would be just such a second sober body that would be in charge of investigating the sort of massive abuses of power that we are seeing these days.

Or, be able to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Canada, as it currently stands, is a conditional democracy. We are, in effect, a dictatorship for several years at a time...and all dictators abuse their absolute power. Especially if they've been in power fror a long time. I can think of no exceptions.

Time for a new federal government. Time for some fresh ideas about how to govern this country. Time for a change.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Vote NDP!


----------



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

Vinnie, sounds like a viable alternative. Neither of the other two major parties have shown much veracity during the past 25 years when each held power. There was the time of the Joe Clark PM-ship (is this a word), and he was one person that I trusted. Ed Broadbent would have made a fine PM. I would certainly vote for and even run for the NDP if they could convince Stephen Lewis to run for the leadership of the party.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

FeXL said:


> What about the Triple "E" senate theory? Would that not temper the power of the House? Or would that just be abused as well?


It could. But my problem with the triple-E senate is that it will add enormously to the expense and complexity of our current political system and electoral process. If every bill has to be fought in the House as well as the Senate, will all the attending political circus and machinations what does that do? If every election involves twice as many politicians running and increased party machinery, what does that do. I'm not sure why those who are for fiscal prudence would be in favour of bloating the size of our government.

In my mind proportional representation would give us the same benefits as well as not making the process more complex. We could then abolish the Senate and save some money to boot. Maybe we could increase citizen representation a bit, by lowering the 1 to 100,000 ratio of MPs to ridings and adding a few more MPs with the saved money.

Anyway, our antiquated political system was designed in Britain only to really give some voice to the elite. This is why it usually only reflects the wishes of the elite and the aristocrats, who are now the corporate sector and the wealthy. It wasn't designed to be truly democratic and only is at times sheerly by accident. We need to bring in a system that gives real voice to its citizens.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

As for MacNutt, rather than respond at all to my argument, he just continues with his usual rhetoric about how the world is moving to the right.



’Nutt said:


> (now listen for the outrage and name calling and excuses to begin burning up the ehmac bandwidth.)


Pardon me for nitpicking, but burning up bandwidth? This from Mr. 7000 posts? Funny. 

So anything I could say in response to MacNutt would be an “excuse” to him. Did you have anything at all to say about the content of my post, Gerry, or are you just attempting to troll the pot, as usual? 

As I said in my post above, there are those who are living in a dream. And there are also those who have an agenda, attempting to play on the naivety of others. 

What is the agenda of MacNutt? Self confessed rich guy, doesn’t want to pay more tax? Openly supportive of the concept of the “United States of North America” as he confessed to us all in this thread?


MacNutt in the “Deep Integration” thread said:


> The United States of North America is neither a pipe dream nor a horror story. It's just a matter of time.
> 
> Trust me on this.


So of course, he's supporting the Conservatives. Whatever they need to say to get themselves elected is all right by him.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually GA, that quote was in response to the Federal Liberals' latest moves towards a continental union of all three north American countries. It's been all over the news, I'm certain you've heard about it. We will almost certainly have a commonised currency rather soon, and we will likely also commonise some of our laws in oredr to maintain the flow of trade...just the same way that Europe has done.

This is a Liberal initiative, BTW.

But go ahead...take this stuff out of context if it floats yer boat. I know you are scrambling for new material to excuse the lastest shifts to the right these days. Use whatever you want to while trying to explain this...it won't make any real difference in the long run, after all.  

As for your contention that a second elected body would add costs and complexity to our political system...

I don't suppose that the current costs of the totally powerless and unelected senate have even showed up on your personal radar, have they?

So...what if we took all of that wasted tax money and those huge senate salaries and made them _actually DO some real work_ for a change? 

What a concept!

And let's make sure that the senate elections are staggered so they fall at the halfway point of the (soon to be ammended) set four year terms of the sitting government? Just like in the USA?

That way, we'd only ever have to wait two years for the opportunity to express our feelings about the direction of our elected politicians at the voting booth. Right now, we are powerless as a people for up to five years at a time...and the sitting government is usually the one who chooses the date of the election. It also is the one who invsetigates it's own corruption. Sort of.

Senators who actually have to work for their fat paychecks and who could be turfed out by popular vote. A sitting government that can't just blow huge amounts of tax money (or openly steal) without worrying about also being turfed out by a second elected body at any time during their set term. Or on voting day.

Yep. Sounds terribly "complex and expensive" all right.

So...where do I sign?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

[quote='Nutt]I don't suppose that the current costs of the totally powerless and unelected senate have even showed up on your personal radar, have they?[/quote]If you read my post you would see that I discussed this and recommend abolishing the Senate.
[quote='Nutt]But go ahead...take this stuff out of context if it floats yer boat.[/quote]If you read my post, how exactly am I taking this out of context? I spoke about how the Cons *and* the Libs are both for deep integration. The main difference is the the Cons want to move faster on it and have said so, the Libs are afraid of it tarnishing their false rep as defenders of Canadian sovereignty, so are moving more cautiously. So yes, I'm well aware that it is a Liberal initiative. Again if you had read my posts here and in the Deep Integration thread you would know this.

As for the pipe dream that somehow a United States of North America, using a common currency, having common borders, having a common defence and police forces and having shared privacy legislation and enforcement, can result in anything but the complete loss of sovereignty for Canada and Mexico, is indulging in the height of naivety or the lowest form of lying. The FTA and NAFTA were the first two steps and right now our sovereignty is hanging by a thread. 

Any party or individual that endorses this, based on the argument that we have to do this for our own economic good is basically saying that Canada can no longer exist for our own economic good. The words of quislings and the logic of prostitutes.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The only hope for our democracy is for us to participate in it more, and to push it to truly represent us, which is the real antidote to political sleaze and the opposite of what degenerate power whores from all sides want.


I agree, and iMatt's quote is also relevant. I guess my main concern about public participation is the creation of large & powerful special interest groups (who, by definition, are self-serving) exemplified in the US. Groups like the NRA, RIAA and others (whether you agree with their mandates or not), can wield tremendous political pressure which may not always be _vox populi_.

At the same time high visibility individuals (Ted Nugent comes to mind, again whether or not you agree with his views) are able to successfully lobby.

Big groups=bad, individuals/small groups=good? Not sure...

There must be some middle ground where the government and the citizenry can see eye to eye.

One of the problems with most governments is that it they are very reluctant to relinquish power (read: control) to the people. How are we to convince our politicos that by doing just that, it will benefit them?


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Hey Doctor G, 
Long Time, No See, 
I really do like the NDP

And yes, voter turnouts need to be higher, people are not doing their duty, I really think voting should be manditory, you've got to have an oppinion, even if it is none of the above. We have got to get all of the people to the pools...I mean Polls, haha, and it can't be electronic, too much room for error/fraud. 

This is quite a Dilly of a pickle, and I sure don't have the first sweet clue on how to achive this, but really, it's the way Democracy is supposed to work. Maybe you could get a Cookie after voting.... not an Oreo, but a nice big chewy Subway cookie... uh oh, here cones Jared!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It could. But my problem with the triple-E senate is that it will add enormously to the expense and complexity of our current political system and electoral process. If every bill has to be fought in the House as well as the Senate, will all the attending political circus and machinations what does that do? If every election involves twice as many politicians running and increased party machinery, what does that do. I'm not sure why those who are for fiscal prudence would be in favour of bloating the size of our government.


I seems your statements above are counter to your belief in Proportional Representation. 

Would PR not add to the expense and complexity of our political system? Of all the people I have spoken to about this, you are the only one who seems to understand it (i.e. it's relatively complex).

Imagine the political circus and machinations that would occur when the extreme left and right have a louder voice under a PR system. 

A EEE senate sounds good to me. The second best option is to get rid of the Senate altogether. The worst thing that could happen is to leave it the way it is. The less patronage appointments that we have, the more our elected officials will be able to speak their minds and more power will be removed from the PM's office.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Would PR not add to the expense and complexity of our political system?


Expenses for PR would not be any more than currently. Why would they be? But a second set of elections for Senators, as well as increased costs for running the Senate as a working body, rather than a rubber-stamping body would be massive. All these new politicians would need research staff and assistants as well as increased costs for the Senators going home and outreaching with their constituents. Billions?

As for complexity, what we have now is complex, in that the voter has to think strategically, and make some guesses, as many do. If I like party A, I have to guess whether they have a chance of forming government or whether my vote for them will be thrown away, maybe I should vote for another party just to keep the party that I really disagree with from getting in. So I watch polls and guess. Then in my riding I have to make some more guesses. Does the party A candidate have a chance here? Unfortunately, polling info doesn't usually cover individual ridings, so that's a real crap shoot. Under FPTP incumbents generally have a better chance because they have proven they can win, so the bets often go with them.

Under PR systems, you know that your vote will result in some representation in parliament, unless you are really on the fringe (most PR systems have 2 to 5 percent thresholds). You can vote strategically if you wish, but you can also vote your mind and conscience, knowing that you will have a representative. Under the Single Transferable Vote PR system that is being proposed for BC, you don't have to worry about how your vote will be counted, you just rank your choices, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Nothing complex about that.



Vandave said:


> Imagine the political circus and machinations that would occur when the extreme left and right have a louder voice under a PR system.


Well first off, I don't buy the argument that PR results in extreme left and right power. We had this discussion earlier. Under PR systems the choices made by Canadian citizens are actually reflected proportionately in the Parliament. The undemocratic nature of our current system is reflected in your statement. Are you opposed to democracy, our should only those that can attract middle of the road or status quo support, with the approval and monetary backing of the elites only have any voice in government? This is the system that the English aristocrats designed to disenfranchise the commoners and it does its job amazingly well.

Under PR a party that gets 500,000 votes across Canada, might be able to get 5 seats, whereas under FPTP, they would never have a chance and those that agree with them would be effectively silenced, unless they get involved in the backrooms of the current parties. 5 seats isn't much, but it is a voice and it is representation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not sure if proportional representation will ever get off the ground in this country. I'm virtually certain it won't out here in BC, and we are almost the only ones actively pursuing it these days.

And the only people who seem to be pushing it along as the latest and greatest new salve for the wounded system are the radical greens and far leftish types. That's likely due to the fact that the've finally come to the realisation that their particular brand of ideology is a dying swan....and that there is no way to ever get the country to adopt any of their ideals unless some leftish splinter party holds the sway of power in one of those jumbled up messes that passes for "government" in PR countries.

It's a distant hope for them. But it's the only one they've got left (pun intended).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As for GA's latest ramblings about the senate...

As far as I know, senators are paid a healthy (read FAT) salaray. As far as I know they already have chambers and desks (mostly vacant) and offices. As far as I know they already have staff and secretaries and even this nifty big room that they all are supposed to meet in to make momentous decisions or something. (Not that many of them ever bother to show up or anything...being powerless and all). So most of this stuff just lays idle and costs all of us taxpayers a bundle.. 

So what's so terribly wrong with taking all of this existing infrastructure and putting it to work as a second sober body? Just like it was originally intended to be?

An extra election and the costs associated would be a cheap deal compared to some of the massive waste that we currently have in our Federal system. And this second sober body would, after all, be charged with the solemn duty to it's electors to filter all of the governments wilder flights of fancy. It would also have the power to look into any of the workings of the sitting government, and lay charges where they find wrongdoing.

The threat of this alone should have the Liberals cutting wayyy back on their usual skim. To the point that the extra elections would seem like one heck of a good deal.

They'd also guarantee a considerably closer shot a real democracy in this country.

Which would be a nice change.

The Triple E senate has a much better chance of really working than any sort of new PR system. After all...the infrastructure for the Seante is already there.

We Canadians pay for it every single day, as a matter of fact. We need to put it to work.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Expenses for PR would not be any more than currently. Why would they be? But a second set of elections for Senators, as well as increased costs for running the Senate as a working body, rather than a rubber-stamping body would be massive. All these new politicians would need research staff and assistants as well as increased costs for the Senators going home and outreaching with their constituents. Billions?
> 
> As for complexity, what we have now is complex, in that the voter has to think strategically, and make some guesses, as many do. If I like party A, I have to guess whether they have a chance of forming government or whether my vote for them will be thrown away, maybe I should vote for another party just to keep the party that I really disagree with from getting in. So I watch polls and guess. Then in my riding I have to make some more guesses. Does the party A candidate have a chance here? Unfortunately, polling info doesn't usually cover individual ridings, so that's a real crap shoot. Under FPTP incumbents generally have a better chance because they have proven they can win, so the bets often go with them.
> 
> ...



I think the expenses for PR would be slightly higher than our current system (e.g. funding provided to more parties, registering parties, etc.), but I don't think the cost is really the issue here. I am willing to pay for a system that works. So, if a EEE senate can provide accountability to Parliament, then I think it could pay for itself. 

I think PR is complex because I don't understand how it works. I haven't given it a fair chance though because I haven't read up on it. On the surface, I would imagine its more complex for the voter. Having three votes seems more complex than just voting for one person / party.

I agree with McNutt's analysis that the looney left supports PR because they realize the mainstream will never adopt their policies. The only way to ever get power is to hold the balance of power with a left wing government. 

I disagree with McNutt on having midterm elections for Senators. I like the idea of voters being able to express their views on a more frequent basis, but I don't like the idea of fixed election dates. What ends up happening is that you have a year long election campaign like in the US. And then another campaign starts for the midterm elections. I like the idea that a government can call an election when their mandate runs out. Sometimes this happens in three years, other times in five.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I'm virtually certain it won't out here in BC, we are almost the only ones actively pursuing it these days.





MacNutt said:


> And the only people who seem to be pushing it along as the latest and greatest new salve for the wounded system are the radical greens and far leftish types.


Completely and utterly wrong on both counts, my friend.  I guess if you can't come up with facts, just make 'em up, eh?

Outside of BC, PR is being looked at in 4 other provinces:

• Ontario: the McGuinty government tabled legislation to support formation of an Ontario citizens’ assembly on electoral reform. 
• Quebec: a form of Multi-member Proportional Representation (MMP) has been suggested by Quebec's Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions.
• Prince Edward Island: Islanders will vote on a proposed MMP system in late 2005.
• New Brunswick: the province’s Commission on Legislative Democracy recently proposed an MMP system.

Federally, every major party, with the exception of the Liberals and the Bloc, the two parties that gain the most under FPTP, have endorsed a move towards PR. 

Here's a list of right-wing PR supporters, from post #99 of this thread, which I guess Mr. MacNutt, didn't bother reading:

• Rafe Mair, staunch right winger, former BC Social Credit cabinet minister, hero to every Fraser Valley ******* who listened to CKNW, and enemy of everything NDP.
• Nick Loenen, former Social Credit MLA and current head of Fair Voting BC, an organization promoting proportional representation.
• Walter Robinson, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a right-wing outfit if there ever was one.
• Hugh Segal, who was Brian Mulroney’s Cheif of Staff.
• Former Canadian Alliance MP Ted White.
• Conservative MP Scott Reid, who is the current Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave,

I think that the triple-E idea, could help, I just think that PR is a better idea. Some would have us adopt both, which I think would be the position of those in the Conservative party who want PR.

I think almost everyone is in agreement that the current Senate doesn't work and is a waste.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So now that we have firmly established that the leftoids are pretty much the only cheerleaders in the PR camp...and now that we all realise that it really doesn't have a ghost of a chance of being adopted, at least in OUR lifetimes (if ever)...

Then why not work towards getting some real value for the giant cash that we currently waste on a totally useless Canadian senate? Make it REAL! Make it WORK!

Do it NOW!.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> So now that we have firmly established that the leftoids are pretty much the only cheerleaders in the PR camp...and now that we all realise that it really doesn't have a ghost of a chance of being adopted, at least in OUR lifetimes (if ever)...


Re-read above posts, please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I did. Quite carefully.

In it you managed to scrape together a few names and noted that several other jurisdictions are "studying" the idea of PR.

Is this like we Canadians used to "study" socialism? And marvel at the wonderful things it could do for us, if we just adopted it wholeheartedly?

As we all know, that one was a dead end. So is PR. And, since they are coming from exactly the same place...and most people can see that they are...then I simply wrote it off. Just as the majority of Canadians will.

Again, watch and see. (you'll get a nice preview of this right here in BC rather shortly, I'd bet).

Prepare yourself for yet another "Big Disappointment", GA.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> As we all know, that one was a dead end. So is PR. And, since they are coming from exactly the same place...and most people can see that they are...then I simply wrote it off. Just as the majority of Canadians will.


Yes, yes, MacNutt, we all know PR is a big commie plot. 

To confirm this I found a quote from your favourite pudgy, smug little leftist, Stephen Harper, from October 2004, in a news release announcing his proposed amendment to the Throne Speech, he called for: “the establishment of a non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly to examine changes to the electoral system, including proportional representation”.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, www.conservative.ca

Now I’m sure you and Harpo see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff, so why are you disagreeing with him now? Is he a commie, too? Please enlighten us.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Say...any else notice how strangely silent macdoc has been on this subject lately?

Ever since the latest revelations about massive Liberal corruption began to surface, he's either desperately tried to minimise them...or has resorted to name calling in short runaway posts....or has actually vacated the thread to avoid any further personal embarassment.   

Hey whatever works for you, old buddy. Reality can be a tough pill to swallow sometimes. Too bad you didn't see it coming.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again with the "studying" stuff eh, GA. Too funny. 

The very BEST way to completely disarm an obviously flawed idea is to take it under "serious study". This makes the wild-eyed adherents believe that something is being done...and it gives you some traction later on to explain just exactly why you decided that it was as dead as socialism or esperanto. Or the Great Auk.

I'm surprised that a smart guy like you couldn't figure this out on his own. Too blinded by the latest ideological teachings, I'd suspect. Or rantings, as the case may be. 

Tell you what...if PR is happily accepted by the majority of British Columbians as a viable alternative in the upcoming referendum, I'll buy you a beer. And listen to all of your ramblings on the subject.

If not...you're buyin. Fair enough?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The very BEST way to completely disarm an obviously flawed idea is to take it under "serious study". This makes the wild-eyed adherents believe that something is being done...and it gives you some traction later on to explain just exactly why you decided that it was as dead as socialism or esperanto. Or the Great Auk.


So your explanation of Harpo's endorsement of PR is that he's lying? And that PR is just a commie plot and Harpo is only trying to act as if he's doing something about it? But just to be clear, you are happily endorsing this liar to head our government? Interesting.

As to the STV proposal winning the May referendum, my guess would be that it won't pass. I am hoping it does, but the hurdle is too great. It requires a 60% Yes vote overall across the province as well as at least 50% in 60% of all the ridings. Although opinion polls show overwhelming support for the concept of PR in general, they also show that only a small portion of BCers know anything at all about this particular form of PR. Of those who do the Yes vote will be high. Also the Citizen's Assembly was not given any budget to educate people on the subject, so the information about it will depend on whatever the media can muster up.

Many party insiders who have access to the media are actively campaigning against this proposal. These people hail from the left as well as the right. It's hilarious to see NDP party insider Bill Tielman quoting BC Liberal Christy Clark to spread his FUD about PR. And former NDP minister Paul Ramsey shacking up with former Socreds and other right wingers. What is it that the party hacks have to fear from PR? Democracy, maybe? An electorate that is not so easily under their thumb? Nothing more than the actions of degenerate power whores once again.

But PR's not going away. As long as the fake majority governments and virtual one-party dictatorships that result from our antiquated, unfair system persist and that ultimately result in abuse like the current Liberal scandal, citizens will be pushing for it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt as with most, I find your rants puerile and boring. You have nothing new to contribute and even your fantasies cease to amuse.

••••

We have a split political setup with minority govs for the forseeable future and I have no problem with that. I called it last time as what most Canadians wanted and I did as well.
Martin is a lousy politician and a good manager and statesman.

All parliament is doing right now is politics and that's not good - throw the whole pack of em out.
The effective processes in Canada are currently at the regional and provincial levels and the shift away from too much power at the federal and PM office is a good thing as I've stated many times in the past.

Politics has been and always likely will include a form of pork barreling and it's rife in Quebec. I could care less about politics unless it gets in the way of good governance and management. Politics is a carny side show.

The inquiry is tabloid amusement for small minds, and past history as far as anything cogent. Martin called the inquiry as he should have.
It's progressing and it's old news.

Boring, irrelevant, like your views and grade 4 attempts at dissing.

Tory and Stronauch show some seeds of a true middle ground conservative renaissance but as long as the mouthy neoCons like you keep flappin' - you're the Liberals best friends.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I'm surprised that a smart guy like you couldn't figure this out on his own. Too blinded by the latest ideological teachings, I'd suspect. Or rantings, as the case may be.


Wow, if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Ideology, thy name is MacNutt. Perhaps it's more accurate to call you a dogmatist. It's so easy to predict your responses that I could write them with just the right amount of self-righteousness, so commonly reflected in your holier-than-thou, bombastic harangues. Life must surely be great when you have all the answers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reality check.



> : Liberals 38%, Conservatives 29%, NDP 17%, Bloc 11%, Green 5%
> 
> SES NationState Poll 2005Q1 - 1,000 Canadians, +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20
> 
> Best PM: Martin 34%, Harper 18%, Layton 12%, Duceppe 7%


end of March

http://www.sesresearch.com/main.html

The numbers aren't going move - it's a locked situation for the moment until somebody does something stupid in parliament.

If wishes were horses...Harper would be king.....>>>>> *18%  *- not even his own party thinks highly of him.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Reality check.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A 3% swing of voters from Liberal to Tory could make a huge difference in the number of each party's MPs. When the publication ban is dropped, I don't think such a swing is unreasonable. Also, if an election were to happen soon, I could see a lower turnout from Liberal supporters as a vote of non-confidence. I can also see many lefty Liberals going to NDP in the next election, which will cause vote splitting and more Tory seats.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

daBoss said:


> Wow, if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Ideology, thy name is MacNutt. Perhaps it's more accurate to call you a dogmatist. It's so easy to predict your responses that I could write them with just the right amount of self-righteousness, so commonly reflected in your holier-than-thou, bombastic harangues. Life must surely be great when you have all the answers.


Yeah too bad so far all his answers are the wrong ones.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I would go so far as to suggest that there is a huge swing away from the federal Liberals in the offing. Even long term Liberals who have been indoctrinated from birth to follow the party no matter how bad they screw up (or how much they steal) are beginning to hold their noses and turn away from the constant stink of scandal and corruption that's wafting throughout Otrtawa these days.

Once the publication ban is lifted and the lid really blows off this mess, there will be hell to pay. And the Liberals will be the ones paying that particular bill.

Poll results after that singular moment should more accurately reflect the current will of the Canadian people. By that time we could already be into a snap election, BTW.

Anyone here besides macdoc think that the Liberals will win that election?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone here besides macdoc think that the Liberals will win that election?


I do, if the Neo-Cons win a majority it would mean US butt kissing for at least 4 years a la Mulroney 

Laterz


----------



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

K_OS, Bush have less than 4 years left in his term (thank God!!!!).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Actually the Liberals are already heavily involved in US butt-kissing via their plans for "deep integration" that they are cautiously rolling out. Monetary union, merged customs, border, defence, secret service and more goodies are already on the drawing board.

With the Cons, the attitude is more like, "Let's just skip the preliminaries, drop our pants, bend right over and be done with it." As MacNutt likes to tell us, the United States of North America is soon to be a reality.


----------



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

GA, should ever the notion of monitary union ever come about in reality, we would have to say goodbye to Canada as a soverign nation. The US is facing rising interest rates merely because the lenders of the money that keeps them afloat are demanding higher rates.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Kos...

Do you think that the Liberals will win...or are you just hoping that they will?

Next question: Have you read the American bogs that have revealed the extent of the corruption in the Liberal party? And are you prepared to speculate what the Canadian public will have to say about the Liberals once the publication ban is lifted?

Personally, I think that they are finished as a political party. Toast. Done.

Which leaves only the NDP and the Conservatives as possible choices in the upcoming election. And the Bloc in Quebec, of course.

Looks to me like a Conservative majority is coming.

Note to macdoc: This stuff may be "old news" to you, and I can see why you want to sweep it under the rug ASAP....but it is also BAD NEWS for Chretien/Martin and Co. And the fact that it is, indeed, "old news" is indicative of how very long it's been going on in the Liberal party. Graft and corruption and organised crime practices have been a big part of the Liberals for several decades. This is fact, not speculation.

Read em and weep.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sadly, Dr. G., I agree.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Best to get used to the idea of monetary union with both the US and Mexico, GA.

This is a Liberal party initiative...not a Conservative party idea, and it is similar to the one taken by the European Union. For exactly the same reasons, BTW.

I'll bet we see a similar monetary union between the asian countries not too far down the road. Eventually, there will only be two or three currencies in circulation on the whole planet. Probably only one, sometime after that.

And there will always be someone out there rending their shirts and crying "No Way!" at each progressive stage of this logical move towards the future. These people have always been with us...and probably always will. (they certainly made a large stink about the European monetary union...but that seems to have evaporated now.)

Just background noise, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



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

GA, my students joke about using their Fifth Amemdment rights when I ask them a tough question, until I tell them that this is in the US Constitution and NOT in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. Sadly, our culture is being undermined by US TV.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The crushing inevitability of it all got you down, Dr G? 

Now...back to the Truth about the Liberals. Which is the subject of this thread, after all. 

Anyone doing a countdown to today's decision about lifting the ban? Anyone want to speculate on how long after that a Federal Election is called?

Anyone want to speculate on the future of the Federal Liberal party in Canada, once all of this becomes public knowledge?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Looks to me like a Conservative majority is coming.


Is this another one of your famous predictions? and yes I do think the Liberals will win.

Laterz


----------



## pilo (Apr 5, 2005)

Let's see we have the Martin family's shipping company - head office in Barbados (corporate tax is only 2% there)
Then we have Magna international on the other side of the house - head office Barbados
And they reside in the same house with a Labor Party that calls themselves democrats
And a federal party that wants to separate from Canada.

Meanwhile Canadians are so complacent that we elected these people.
Is it any wonder that Canada has become a haven for terrorists and drug dealers ?
Liberals are just trying to maintain the status quo and believe they have to be skimming, stealing and lying to do so.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If you mean is it another of my famous predictions like all of the correct ones I made about the Afghan invasion and the Iraqi invasion and the US elections etc.....then yes.

If you are referring to the inexplicable result of the last moment fear-mongering that let the Liberals cling to the last scraps of their power, and my obvious failure to predict how easily frightened the people of southern Ontario would be ...then no.

Conservative majority. Count on it.

And it should have happened months ago.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Looks like the publication ban has been partially lifted. I'm watching the news right now and they are giving us a live feed from Justice Gormery.

Let the games begin!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> If you are referring to the inexplicable result of the last moment fear-mongering that let the Liberals cling to the last scraps of their power, and my obvious failure to predict how easily frightened the people of southern Ontario would be ...then no.


I didn't see any fear mongering, what I did see was the opening of the electorate's eyes and finnally reading between the lines and seeing what Harper's Neo-con agenda was about.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow...the stuff is already hitting the airwaves! 

Millions of dollars in untraceable cash kept in envelopes as kickbacks to the Liberals...the PMO's office implicated at the highest levels...Jean Chretien's own brother a part of the scam...holy snappin ar***h*les!

Tomorrows newspaper is going to be a "keeper" I'll bet.


----------



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

Sounds like the early days of Watergate.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It's pretty hard for even the most unrepentant Liberal supporter to try to explain away what is now well known by all.

The Liberal Party is a part of a major criminal conspiracy to steal Canadian tax dollars. In vast quantities, no less. And it looks like they've been doing it for ages too.  

Meanwhile they seem unable to actually govern the country very effectively. They go from massive spending boondoggle to massive spending boondoggle.

It's almost like they were distracted or something. Gee...do ya think?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Watergate was a simple break in on the opposition party headquarters.

THIS is a massive country wide, decades-long, ongoing large scale theft of Canadian tax money. While the infrastructure falls apart and our own soverignty is threatened due to the bonehead moves that the Liberals have made over the years. You'd almost think they weren't really paying attention or something.

Like I said...it's almost as if governing wasn't what they were really here for after all. It's like they really had a seperate second agenda that they weren't telling anyone about. Especially when they fought so hard to win each election, and then tossed every single promise that they'd made out the door once they were safely back in power.

You don't suppose.....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It looks as though much of the money that the Liberals used to win the last two elections was actually stolen from the Canadian taxpayers. That's what they're saying in question period right now. (and it's not just the Conservatives who are saying this, either).

If that is true...and I think it is likely to be...does that not negate the results of the past two Federal elections?

A scam party that used stolen money to buy an election or two? What is this...a banana republic?  

The Liberals are toast. They need to call an election immediately and Paul Martin should hang his head in shame. While retired.

Jean Chretien should be tried for his crimes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The testimony is certainly shocking all right.

Envelopes stuffed full of untraceable cash being left on a restaraunt table while a guy goes to the can...and then it is gone when he gets back. Big government contracts bought for a set amount...and lost if more "protection money" isn't paid out to the Liberal in charge. Fake employees on the payroll. Two of the Liberal participents meeting each other and one makes sure the heat is turned way up so that the other will have to remove his coat....just to make sure that the guy isn't wearing a wire! 

So....I just have to ask any of you who still support the Liberals this simple question:

At what point do the "activities" of your favorite federal party begin to look a lot like the activities of organised crime?

Or are you still in denial about all of this?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Boring, irrelevant, like your views and grade 4 attempts at dissing.


ROTFLMFAO!    

An old saying about a pot and a black kettle comes to mind...

MacDoc, does this mean that you are up to grade 5 now?

No, really. Why are other people's comments dismissed as childish and your own infantile antics (name calling, cartoons) and irrelevancy somehow justified? Is there truly an "adult" way to dis someone? Please, enlighten all of us.

This is hilarious!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If you want a real chuckle, then here's a jewel of a quote from an old thread where macdoc was up on his high horse loudly predicting the triumphant rise of the Liberals. These are his actual words.





"Canada Liberal for as far out as I can see.

Better get the funky blue glasses off cuz that looks like a flood of red power ties.

Canada has a new big dog and we are heading into OUR century.

Martin today

"He vowed Canadian cities would get a "21st-century" new deal, Parliament would be energized and important, and that Canada would reach beyond its borders, beyond even the United States, to be a leading global force .

"We will set high goals for Canada. Because there is no limit to how high Canadians should set their sights," Martin, 65, said

We are a people who will not hunker down in fear behind our borders.... We are a people who, where others are shutting doors, open them."

This is leadership. That is one of the most succinct national visions ever put forth. 

Martin shares lofty vision 

Open for business.....NOT open to be bullied  

Martin wants the west onside. "Quitcher bellliachin" [/QUOTE]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It's no wonder the old guy is hiding in his cave right now.  

Say...did he actually say "leadership" and Paul Martin in the same breath? Did he predict that the Liberals would rule Canada for as far out as he could see?  

That quote was from about two years back. Guess macdoc needs to get a better telescope.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You can have quite a bit of fun with this if you have a few spare moments. Just use the ehmac search feature and look up Liberal Corruption. You'll come across pages and pages of posts, on seveal dozen different threads, where I was claiming that the Liberal part of Canada is deeply corrupt...and you will also find macdoc and a few of the other diehards claiming it was all my imagination. Or "something in the water" out here on Salt Spring island (that was a favorite theme, as I recall). Lots of dissing and insults and name calling. LOTS of denial too.

It's a fun read. Especially in light of recent events. Better than reality Television.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> You can have quite a bit of fun with this if you have a few spare moments. Just use the ehmac search feature and look up Liberal Corruption. You'll come across pages and pages of posts, on seveal dozen different threads, where I was claiming that the Liberal part of Canada is deeply corrupt...


actually you claimed nothing all you did was assume that there was corruption, you didn't provide any proof (ie: links, or newpaper articles) before hand to support your theories and you still don't to this day. I've been reading all of the recent blogs and other media from around the world and it's been covered by a few media outlets from across the globe and so far I haven't seen or heard a shread of evidence that Paul Martin was involved and very litle about Jean Chretien aside from his brother being involved but on Jean we will only know after the enquiry is finished and the reports are all published.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A little tough to provide URL's etc. when the participants in this crime are actually the guys running the country. (They were keeping it a little quiet, as you might expect.)

Lots of that about now, though. Lots more to come, too.

Read em and weep.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Macnuttl said:


> it's almost as if governing wasn't what they were really here for after all.


Why are they here, well....

To take our money, to exert control over us, to pass laws that are costly and redundant, to take more money, to help their private business ventures, to pretend to care about it's citizens, to take more money, and to finally embezzel the money that they have taken from us so that they do not have to pay tax. 

Do you think anyone in the government really cares if it's citizens are suffering, H. E. Double Hockey Sticks NO! As far as I can tell in my studies, governments world wide are just a farce, seriously. I have no faith in a government run by humans, Stupid, Stupid Humans.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Some governments are worse than others. The governments who are under investigation for massive corruption are not qualified to be re-elected IMHO.

Especially if they've used some of that stolen tax money to buy an election or two in the past (as we are now being told the Liberals have done). In fact...that would make them not actually a valid government in any jurisdiction outside of sub-saharan Africa.

Since this is Canada and not Zimbabwe, I would suggest to all of you that we loudly demand that these bums be ejected from their places of power so that we may investigate how much MORE corruption has really been going on. (LOTS more, according to the rumor mill)

Then we need to elect a fresh new government. One that has promised to alter our Canadian political system to provide a second sober ELECTED body to act as a watchdog over any and all future governments. Including themselves. Just so this sort of criminal behavior never happens again.

The sooner the better.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here is something I wrote almost exactly a year ago, here on this forum. As we all know now, this was just the tip of the iceberg.



As I just noted on the "Shame on the Liberals" thread...

Jean Pelletier, former Cheif of Staff for Jean Chretien, and lately the head man at ViaRail has just been fired by Paul Martin. 

About time, too.

Okay...let's look at the scorecard so far:

-George Radawanski...former speechwriter for Jean Chretien, and one of his personal friends, fired from his post and under investigation. His extravigant lifestyle and tyrannical ways are becoming a legend around Ottawa. The RCMP is also looking into why, exactly, his debt to Revenue Canada of half a million dollars was pretty much written off the day before Jean Chretien appointed him.

-Alponse Gagliano...former head of Public Works and one of the guys who started the Sponsorship Program. Also a close friend of Jean Chretien. King Jean put him in charge of the whole money laundering scam...and when Auditor General Sheila Fraser first set off the alarm bells, Chretien had him sent off to Denmark as the new Canadian Ambassador to that distant land. Just so's he would be far away from any Canadian reporters who might want to ask him some very pertinent questions about the large scale theft of Canadian tax dollars.

Then, as King Jean was leaving office..he gave Gagliano a big fat raise in pay. A RETROACTIVE raise in pay. Just to ensure continuing silence.

Gagliano is also now under investigation. He is no longer Ambassador to Denmark.

-Jean Pelletier has now been fired as head of ViaRail. And is now under investigation. The above posts in this thread explain exactly why. He was ALSO a very close friend of Jean Chretien and is one of the key figures in the theft of taxpayers dollars that the Auditor General exposed in her report.

So...who's next in this particular den of thieves? The President of Canada Post? The head of the BDC?

There's a BUNCH of them! And they ALL need to be fired and then investigated.

And I wonder how soon it is before one of them decides to speak out about who was behind all of this? Who actually used his absolute power to make it all possible?

Quiet a "legacy", Jean Chretien.. 

Stay tuned. There's more to come.

MUCH more.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The above post was written long before we knew that Jean Chretien's own brother Gaby was a big part of this criminal activity.

Hmmm..let's see now.... most of Chretien's closest friends and aides were deeply involved in this large-scale theft of Canadian tax dollars. So was his own brother.

And Paul Martin was the both the Finance Minister (in charge of the cash) AND the senior Quebec Liberal during this period of Quebec based corruption.

But neither of these Liberal leaders knew anything about it...right? It was going on right under their very noses (and right in the PMO), but they were totally oblivious. Right?

Yeah.... _RIGHT!_  

Odd that macdoc has not chosen to step up and make any of his now famous excuses for the Liberals since the publication ban was lifted, eh?

He's usually so verbal on these things. Always ready to tell me I am "way out to lunch" on this stuff. But he seems to be absent right now.

Must be busy at home in the cave. "Incommunicado", so to speak. (Or weeping quietly in a corner of his dark refuge, perhaps? With the TV and radio unplugged, no doubt.).


----------



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

I stand by my prediction made long ago. When all is said and done, the cost of the inquiry and legal prosecutions shall be twice the actual money stolen/misdirected/misplaced. And, the result of all these inquiries and trials??? No jail time for anyone and no money reclaimed. My wife keeps telling me that someone will go to jail and some money will be recovered. I still stand by my prediction. I have a better chance of winning the 6-49 lottery than anyone serving jail time or any of the money sent back to the people of Canada. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr G...if the current inquiry into high level Liberal corruption were to run up the same huge bills as the now-failed investigation into the Air India bombing...which was the most expensive in Canadian history...then it STILL wouldn't even come close to matching the massive amount of tax dollars that were stolen by the Liberals in just ONE of their major scams. Nor would it come close to matching the vast amount of tax dollars that were WASTED by the Liberals during the very same period, on any one of a whole raft of massive spending boondoggles.

I tend to agree with you when you say that no one will actually go to jail or suffer very much from this, no matter how much criminal activity they have indulged in while in power over us.

BUT...that might just change if the Liberals were ejected from power and no longer were investigating _themselves_ for these crimes. If some other totally independant group were following the money trails here...then we might just see some truly awful revelations about the Liberals.

This could happen. It certainly looks like the Liberals may be turfed before the investigation is actually completed.

And there is SOOO much more stuff to be investigated, after that is done. These guys have been crooked since day one...and all criminals leave some sort of a trail from the scene of the crime. 

Especially the really dumb ones.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

ah you know dat Jean Cretin wit da talking out of de one side o he mout, he da one to blame. hahaha we were so duped by those guys. 

I say we rage, I want Liberal blood runnin in the street, that's the only thing those fools understand. You have got to be standing over a politition with a bat in order to get the truth. I've got a big hate on for those greedy bastards, so effin selfish, think of the people that money could of helped. 

Instead GAGliano gets a new Ivory back Scratcher. So greedy, I don't understand, I don't make a lot of money but my needs are met and I really want for nothing. Why do these guys need all that money... Fat Cats??? No, those guys are Overweight Mammoths on the consumption train to hell, good luck in the afterlife as a hungry ghost dude! Get rid of the Governor General too.

Is it any wonder why people don't wan't to vote, Who wants to run the risk of guilt if they accidentaly vote for the More Corrupt evil.

Governments treat people like me (us) like cattle, "we don't give a Flyin Monkey about your well being, but we will bleed you for every thing you have, and then use it hovever WE see fit", I don't see this changing between Liberal, Conservative or any of those funky Quebec Parties.

Alexa McDonough came to my Highschool Poli-Si class and talked to us for the afternoon, I think she should be PM.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I tend to agree with Vinnie on at least one point here....

We should all be standing over the nearest Liberal politician with a baseball bat in hand! And demanding some ANSWERS!!  

Then...we should all calmly proceed to our nearest polling station and make our outrage known. In a very Canadian way.

We should all turn these theiving wastrels into a sad footnote in Canadian political history. Make em GO AWAY!

We need to do this pretty much right away. Unless we want to give these criminal Liberals full approval to continue to steal from us on a HUGE scale.... and to flagrantly WASTE our precious hard-earned tax dollars on giant do-nothing programs. ("Public Programs" that might ALSO be a cover for the massive stealing of Canadian tax dollars as well!).

Want to give the corrupt old Liberals a "second chance"? ( a "fifteenth chance", really)

Or is it time for a fresh new Government in Canada?


Your choice. Think about it.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Want to give the corrupt old Liberals a "second chance"? ( a "fifteenth chance", really)
> 
> Or is it time for a fresh new Government in Canada?
> 
> ...


But who Gerry? Is there really another choice that will stand for the values of 71% of the population and not steal from us. We need to throw all of them out and start fresh in Canadian politics, because IMHO the entire system is broken and corrupt.
I can't vote for the Cons, just based on the lunatic behaviour of some and an underlying distrust of Harpers agenda. What does that leave the average Central Canadian? The NDP?
Also, one mans testimony, a man who is fighting for his own survival, does not necessarily make for the truth.
We need to wait for the whole story to unfold, as it will, at the behest of the current Liberal regime..


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Funny....

I and several others were expecting to spend this evening confronting macdoc about his long-established pro Liberal stance. We were all looking forward to roasting him over an open fire while actively questioning him about his favorite Canadian political party.

We had lots of terribly signifigant and penetrating questions for him to answer. LOTS. 

But he seems to be in hiding these days.

We were also looking forward to grilling Ironmac about the total failure of his latest political predictions. Just to add further insult to his well-established public injuries..

Gratuitous Applesauce was also expected to show up. We had some pretty pertinent questions for him, as well.

But...oddly enough...all of these left/lib guys seem to be taking the week off from this forum.  

Despite the fact that they have ALL been so very vocal on all of the political threads at ehmac in the past.

But, suddenly, they've ALL decided to "take an extended vacation" away from this forum this week, during the major troubles for their chosen political party, no less.

Odd about that, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Many hours later, and there is STILL no sign of the most vocal defendants of the Canadian Liberal Party.

They seem to be taking a powder right now. And they are ALL choosing to remain totally silent...for the very first time in living memory, here at ehmac.  

Odd about that. They are normally so very forthright about this stuff. Especially when they are defending their cherished Liberals from the latest corruption scandal or the very latest massive Liberal spending boondoggle.

In fact...they usually are telling me that my long-held convictions about massive long-term Liberal corruption are simply a result of "bad water" or something. They even question my sanity on this subject. With some regularity. They also call me all sorts of names when I broach the subject of Liberal corruption.

But tonight? NOTHING!!   

Wonder why that is?

I also wonder if these long term Liberal supporters might become even MORE silent as the latest revealtions from the Gormery Inquiry become public knowledge.


These guys are pretty much cut loose and adrift right now. Wandering, centerless, without a real viable ideology to claim as their own. Just massive corruption and the long-term waste of public monies to cling to. Which is not much, when you get right down to it.

And their chosen political party is going through a very public meltdown into irrelevance...as we speak.


We all should feel for these poor souls right now. 

They're hurtin...no doubt about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still, there is complete and total silence around here from the usual hard-line Liberal supporters.  

Macdoc is noticeably and suddenly silent on this thread. For almost the very first time since it was first posted at ehmac.

So is Ironmac. And so are many of the others who have been so loudly supporting (and apologising for) the Federal Liberals over the past few years or months.

Cat got their tongues? Or...has cruel reality come up and suddenly bit them in the butt?

I wonder...now that we know that the Federal Liberal party was pretty much as corrupt as any mafia family in north america...

Does anyone here actually think that they have even a GHOST of a chance of bveing returned to power after the upcoming election?

If so...then please feel free to explain why you think this.

Miught be quite insightful. For ALL of us.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt, MacDoc has his own sandbox now, remember? We got kicked out of it.

GA, has been largely incommunicado these last few weeks, not just this one.

What I find a little funny is that if you don't get a reply in a few hours then people must be avoiding you, but when you go missing for days on end it's because you have a thriving business that needs attending to.

Anyway, about the Liberals I'll say two things:

1. While the sponsorship thing certainly is a big deal, I find it hard to paint the entire party with the same brush. That'd be like branding all republicans as crooks based on the actions of Nixon and his cohorts. That considered, basically all the major players during the scandal are now out of power, either resigned, reassigned or fired by Paul Martin in his (fairly good) attempts to make it clear that his Liberal party is not Jeans Liberal party.

2. While it's true that Martin was the Finance Minister at the time of the scandal, it is entirely possible that something could happen like this without his knowing. Since the bureaucracy is so large and since the minister is more responsible for saying where the money is supposed to go and not actually making it go there, there are lots of ways and opportunities for the middle men to be corrupted and whatnot. 

I'm not really trying to defend Martin, just point out that it is indeed possible he wasn't involved. Since he was out of Jeans good graces for most of it, it provides an even more likely story as they probably wouldn't want a guy they are not to happy with benefitting from their misappropriation of millions of dollars.

Either way, though (and as I've indicated to people before), I'll wait until the findings are released before celebrating or more likely just continuing to be apathetic about it. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched, as the saying goes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well put and well said PosterBoy. I would expect no less from you. 

Now...where do I start?

Paul Martin was the actual Finance Minister in charge of the cash. Especially in Quebec. He was also Deputy Prime Minister for quite a time. Second in command, by all accounts, In every possible way. 

But...somehow...we are being told that he didn't actually know ANYTHING about this massive and long-term skimming of hundreds of millions of Candian tax dollars into the pockets of prominent Quebec based supporters of the Federal Liberals. He probably also had NO knowledge of the vast numbers of stolen tax dollars that were being kicked back into Jean Chretiens deep pockets either.

Is that right?


So...was Paul Martin simply a total bonehead who didn't see what was going on right under his very nose for so many years?

Or did he know all about it and choose to ignore it because this was simply "business as usual" for high-end Quebec Liberals? Had he been raised with this sort of corruption as an accepted part of the Canadian political process? And is THAT why he didn't see anything actually wrong with it?

Either way...he's not actually fit to govern this country. But anyone with a pulse already KNOWS that Paul Martin isn't really fit to govern...so it's no giant surprise.

The Liberals were all in on this grand scam. Hordes of them have benefitted personally from this big skim over the years. Mostly the guys from Quebec, BTW.

They consider it "Their Due". A payment from the hated English or something.

This sort of massive money transfer from English Canada to French Canada has been going on for about four decades or so. In a BIG way!

This is how the Liberals under Chretien justified this massive long-term theft of Canadian tax dollars. They simply thought if it as some sort of extra-curricular wealth transfer from the "rich Engish speaking" parts of Canada to the "Poor" French speaking" parts...

It was only a small part of this long-term teft that allowed them to line their own Liberal pockets with Canadian taxpayer money, after all. Just a part of "the game".


So...anyone else around here think it's high time for a change at the top, here in Canada? A BIG CHANGE! Speak up...or forever be thought of as a bunch of simplistic weenies who couldn't actually TELL when some superior group was going ahead and stealing the shirts off their very backs. Or screwing them blind, for that matter.


Your choice.

Trust me on this.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I would say that the most likely outcome of the next election is a Conservative minority government. I don't believe the Liberals will be too far off. Why?

- Quebeckers are likely the most offended by the Liberals. But they will not run to the Conservatives.
- Liberal supporters in the rest of Canada are used to government trying to buy Quebec votes. I'm not saying they don't care what has happened, but I think you overestimate the impact.
- Liberal supporters are more likely to vote for the crook they know rather than the devil they fear.
- Minister of Foreign Affairs Stockwell Day  - need I say more? 

Methinks you're seeing this through rose (err... blue?) coloured glasses...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough.

But I think that it is quite possible that we are witnessing the first stages of a nuclear meltdown of the Federal Liberal Party, as it is now known.

What we now see as the "Liberals" will be no more...once the really serious investigations actually begin. There will be so few of them left after all of the criminal charges that the party itself will actually collapse.

Plus..most Canadians would rather slither across hot coals using their tongues than to actually vote for what's left of the Federal Liberals. Especially after what we now know.

The Liberals are done. Toast. Gonzola.

This means a Conservative majority to me. Given the fact that the Liberals won't actually be a viable choice in the upcoming Federal Elections.

Call me crazy if you want...but that's the way I see it.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> That'd be like branding all republicans as crooks based on the actions of Nixon and his cohorts.


Good point. A much more reasonable approach than MacNutt's histrionics. 

MacNutt, perhaps it's time to enrol in some anger management counselling. Either that, or there must be something awful in the water out there in lotus land.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tequila management that would be.

•••

I made my analysis of the current situation as I view it in a couple of paragraphs - supported it with current stats of the voting mood and my opinion that we are in for a long stretch of minority govs and that that's an okay thing by me and many other Canadians.

Reviewing the tired old mantra Macnutt spews on and on and on for page after page after page simply confirms he's the Liberals best voice. 

When there is relevant actionable issues to discuss based on reality instead of wishful thinking - I'll happily participate. Right now it's tabloid with a "reporter" with nothing new to ....pardon the pun.....harp on.

Not ONE NeoCon here has stepped up to the plate and analysed why the dismal view of Harper as PM - barely more than half of his own party's vote % and no one has discussed Tory and Stronauch.

Andy relayed the comment today that was adroit.
*The Liberals are ethically bankrupt and the NeoCons intellectually bankrupt.*

No better proof than this thread. The NeoCons can't even focus on their best chance to regain some deservedly lost ground with middle Canada.

Keep up the NeoCon lipflapping - I'm sure the Liberals appreciate your ...."effort".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But I think that it is quite possible that we are witnessing the first stages of a nuclear meltdown of the Federal Liberal Party, as it is now known.
> 
> ...


Your Crazy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> This means a Conservative majority to me. Given the fact that the Liberals won't actually be a viable choice in the upcoming Federal Elections.


Maybe, perhaps a Conservative Minority... No way they will get a majority. Can't happen. You just don't understand how much the Alliance/Reformers are mistrusted and seen as a bunch of right wing wack jobs.

If by some miraculous fate on behalf of the Conservatives that McKay or Stronach get elected as leader then maybe a Conservative Majority.

You guys just can't win while Harper and his demon cronies are strangling that party.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm at work talking to my friend Eran right now, he's from Turkey. He says that this happens all the time in Turkey. We also dicussed the IMF for a bit too, what a bunch O' BS!!!!

I am under the impression that Freedom is an illusion and we are all slaves for the Goverments of the world! What a Crappy exsistance! It's not like we can collectivly choose to not pay our taxes, we need our schools, hospitals and social programs, but I know that we pay to much, for so very little. The education system is a shambles, same with Hospitals.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just to re-iterate, I didn't say Martin wasn't involved, just that the bureaucracy involved is large enough that it's possible he might not have been. It seems unlikely, but there it is.

Of course, MacNutt didn't really read what I said or he'dve known that. Woo for tarring all Liberals with the same brush.

As for whether the Conservatives will win the next election or not, I don't see that it'd be anything to celebrate about. It's not like people are going to be voting so much for the Conservatives as it is they'll be voting against the Liberals, and personally I'd rather see a party get in on their own merits rather then the shortcomings of their only major competition. In other words, I'd rather see people vote for who they want rather than against who they don't want.

But that's just me.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Well Exactly! that's why we have to be brave and vote for who we really believe in, but who can we believe... haha, see, no one, well...Maybe Dr.G and his team of Doxie MP's! They get My Vote!!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I stand by my prediction made long ago. When all is said and done, the cost of the inquiry and legal prosecutions shall be twice the actual money stolen/misdirected/misplaced. And, the result of all these inquiries and trials??? No jail time for anyone and no money reclaimed. My wife keeps telling me that someone will go to jail and some money will be recovered. I still stand by my prediction. I have a better chance of winning the 6-49 lottery than anyone serving jail time or any of the money sent back to the people of Canada. We shall see.


Doc, I agree. I think that many of us would say the same about most fines, sentences and financial recovery the land over.

The one benefit that I perceive from this inquiry is to ferret out as many lawbreakers as possible, politicians or not. Let their names and faces become general knowledge. A little public humiliation may be good for the soul.

Perhaps the inherent flaws in the system will be enough to foster public interest in a system of checks and balances that will hold future politicians and governments accountable.

I was going to petition you to send out the Doxie Squad to fetch the ones that have gone subterranean. However, on second thought, they probably wouldn't touch a skunk.


----------



## Ingenu (Jun 4, 2003)

FYI, in a letter sent to Gommery, the PQ has announced they will reimburse staff and shareholders of Groupaction who gave money to PQ since 1994. They've asked the commission the names of these donators so they could proceed.

They don't want to be related in any way to Groupaction, which is understandable when you think they pass the Act on political party financing back in 1977.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

*Harper wise to bide his time*

Calgary Herald
Friday, April 08, 2005

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is right to avoid a reflexive reaction to Jean Brault's amazing allegations before the Gomery Commission, and allow time to pass before deciding the future of Prime Minister Paul Martin's struggling minority government.

Had scriptwriters for the West Wing and the Sopranos colluded on a juicy Canadian-themed production, they could hardly have contrived such a world as former Groupaction president Brault now describes: Viewers would have wanted something more believable.

Yet, here it is. Envelopes of cash left in restaurants, party fixers making unrefusable offers. Liberal party activists hired as ghost employees in his company.

While Brault's allegations have yet to be tested in court, a reasonable person could suppose the Liberal party fought elections in Quebec with money stolen from the taxpayers.

Typical of a Canadian scandal, all that is missing is sex. It horrifies westerners to consider the possibility, but enough Canadians may yet decide they still prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives.

Still, they should not make that choice in ignorance, nor upon Brault's evidence alone.

Canadians should have time to reflect upon the full implications of Brault's testimony and upon his credibility.

True, the longer the Opposition waits to hold this government accountable, the greater the possibility of public boredom.

However, that's a manageable risk. Gomery's commission would continue even during an election, and other key players will soon testify.

Then, the lawsuits begin. On April 25, Ottawa will launch its civil action against Chuck Guite, Brault and nine others. Six weeks later, criminal fraud trials begin for Guite, Brault and one other.

There will be no shortage of headlines: Canadians may well get to the bottom of the scandal, just as Martin promised.

And, that will be the time to judge this government.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt, even if the Liberal Party of Canada did dissolve (which is only a very remote possibility), it would simply create a vacuum for the formation of a new party that represents middle-road politics. The simple fact that the Liberal Party have held office for 12 years despite a variety of mis-handled programs, allegations of corruption, etc. must tell you something about how the majority of Canadians view their politics. The country is doing extremely well and there have been major successes compared to where we ranked 13 years ago. The problem is, the alternatives to the Liberals have been, and remain, unpalatable. Stephen Harper is an unelectable leader based on his actual political beliefs. I base this on the chasm between his stance on a variety of issues (privatized healthcare, abortion, church vs secular state, the Supreme Court - even same-sex marriage/homosexuality). His only chance is for middle-of-the-road voters in the East to either not vote, or to vote to punish the Liberals (which is like cutting off their nose to spite their face).

Besides, I seem to remember the Progressive Conservatives being reduced to 2 MPs from governing in 1993 yet they did not disappear from the planet. 3 name changes and a merger based on a deception in the meantime. Talk about ethics.....

I do find this all very sad. Even if only a handful of Liberal Party managers were involved, this is a slap in the face to all Canadians. That said, I will still vote Liberal, as I cannot vote for the Conservatives based on their policies and I think voting NDP would likely just increase the chance of a Tory being elected in my riding.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> MacNutt, even if the Liberal Party of Canada did dissolve (which is only a very remote possibility), it would simply create a vacuum for the formation of a new party that represents middle-road politics. The simple fact that the Liberal Party have held office for 12 years despite a variety of mis-handled programs, allegations of corruption, etc. must tell you something about how the majority of Canadians view their politics. The country is doing extremely well and there have been major successes compared to where we ranked 13 years ago. The problem is, the alternatives to the Liberals have been, and remain, unpalatable. Stephen Harper is an unelectable leader based on his actual political beliefs. I base this on the chasm between his stance on a variety of issues (privatized healthcare, abortion, church vs secular state, the Supreme Court - even same-sex marriage/homosexuality). His only chance is for middle-of-the-road voters in the East to either not vote, or to vote to punish the Liberals (which is like cutting off their nose to spite their face).
> 
> Besides, I seem to remember the Progressive Conservatives being reduced to 2 MPs from governing in 1993 yet they did not disappear from the planet. 3 name changes and a merger based on a deception in the meantime. Talk about ethics.....
> 
> I do find this all very sad. Even if only a handful of Liberal Party managers were involved, this is a slap in the face to all Canadians. That said, I will still vote Liberal, as I cannot vote for the Conservatives based on their policies and I think voting NDP would likely just increase the chance of a Tory being elected in my riding.


What policies can't you vote for? I think corruption is a very significant issue for you to consider. If the Liberals get re-elected, it sends the signal that Canadian's don't care very much if their leaders are corrupt. That's not the signal I want to send.

If you are left leaning, then you should strongly consider voting NDP. I hate to say it but an NDP government would be more preferable to me than another Liberal government. If we allow corruption to continue, it would eventually rot our country away.

People like yourselves really make me concerned as a Canadian. I have to ask, how many billions will it take for you to realize these guys are corrupt and wasteful and don't deserve our votes? Please answer this. Do you hate the right wing so much that you would allow our country to remain corrupt?


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

I can understand some people being fearful of the Conservatives (what with all the liberal propaganda in the media), but to actually consider voting for what you *know* is a corrupt government because of that fear seems downright paranoid! I have to agree with Vandave on this one, we simply cannot allow corruption to continue! *That* sends a very frightening message.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> That said, I will still vote Liberal, as I cannot vote for the Conservatives based on their policies and I think voting NDP would likely just increase the chance of a Tory being elected in my riding.


That is the single most mind boggling statement I have ever read.

What you are advocating is to re-elect corrupt people with possible ties to the mafia and drugs, never mind all the other allegations.

My opinion of your views just slid a whole bunch south UTBJ

Surely you can't be serious?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps YOU don't seem to understand that while Canada is not perfect it is NOT corrupt.
This inquiry is ten year old news that is being dealt with properly and the NeoCons have NOTHING to offer except wailing and gnashing about corruption.
The vast bulk of Canadians realize that Canada has little corruption amongst the worlds nations.

ALL Large organizations are subject to abuse and over sight controls need to be introduced - they have been. The auditor generals report saw satisfactory improvement in four areas including Human Resources which WAS a real cess pool and was not satisfied with progress in 4 other areas....more work is needed.
Chretien as an "old style" politico saw no need for such oversight and paid lip service to any efforts along those lines. He clearly stated all along his goal was to keep the country together and he would do whatever it took to achieve that.

Martin as a lousy politician but a good manager does put those controls in place and pays heed to the Auditor Generals recommendation as that's HIS reson'detre - good management. Keep Canada prosperous and well managed. He's done the first we'll see if the latter comes to pass.

Canada ranks 12thin the world on the international corruption scale.



> *The 2004 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index*
> 
> According to the annual survey by the Berlin-based organization Transparency International, the world's least corrupt country is Finland and its most corrupt countries are Bangladesh and Haiti. The index defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain, and measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among a country's public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, drawing on 17 surveys from 13 independent institutions, which gathered the opinions of business people and country analysts.....
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
> ...


If you think that poltical systems are open and above board, that any large systems where a lot of money is involved is free from scandal and abuse you are hopelessly naive.

We do well, we can do better. Around the world more transparent governance at large corporation level and the the national level is a high priority in many circles.
Corrupt governments don't lead the world in economic performance - we do.

NeoCons have nothing to offer but complaint and retrograde social policies....so warts and all - Canadians vote Liberal and will do so until a valid centrist conservative option ala Bill Davis develops. Economic scandal and mismanagment can be corrected..........bankruptcy of policy as in the case of the NeoCons.......much much harder - they've been trying for what...since their 2 seat fiasco.... to put ANYTHING cogent together.

They had their best shot with a scandal plagued tired Liberal gov at the helm and an election that should not have been called when it was.

They could not even get the vote percentage the two separate parties had.

Policy bankrupt-----you bet.

Now you know why close to 40% of Canadians would still hold their nose and vote Liberal...there is NO alternative offered with policies acceptable to them.
Tome and time and time again the Cons have been told they neds to move to the centre and lose the radical lipflappers that we seem to see here.

Tory knows it - even Harper tried it at the "stay away from social issues" policy convention.

If the Cons have 29% of the vote and only 18% think Harper is the right guy for PM........are you THAT arithmetically challenged not to the see the problem with NeoCon policy and who is presenting it.???

I guess indeed you are.

The lipflappers are the Libs best friends.


----------



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

Macdoc, I had that arguement no more that a few hours ago. While I am livid at the corruption of some Liberals, I don't see what the Conservatives have to offer in a positive manner to get me to vote for them. I would vote against the Liberals in favor of the NDP to voice my objection.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

All politicians are corrupt the Jean Chretien Liberals just got caught that is all(Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Trudeau), I just refuse to paint the whole Liberal party with the same brush, in the end the party's platform will be who I decide to vote for.

Laterz


----------



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

K_OS, this is my point. I want to vote FOR a party, not vote against a certain party. Luckily, the NDP platform is usually closer to my own social views, but the Liberals are closer to my economic views.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> K_OS, this is my point. I want to vote FOR a party, not vote against a certain party. Luckily, the NDP platform is usually closer to my own social views, but the Liberals are closer to my economic views.


Now, if only we could convince others to actually vote FOR the party of their choice then maybe we could have the left divided between the liberals and the NDP and then the Conservatives could win!!! The right has more support in Canada than does the left, if only you darned leftists would vote according to your conciences!!! Please, show your true colours, let us see that you are nothing more than closet socialists! Then maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country would vote for the common good, wich today just happens to be the Conservatives.


----------



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

I would like to see the NDP have a chance to run this country. I would run as a candidate for the NDP should ever Stephen Lewis somehow become leader of the party.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There have been political scandals forever in Canada



> Railways, Rifles and More
> 
> Previous scandals to shake Ottawa included Sir John A's railroad imbroglio and the Sinclair Stevens affair
> 
> ...


No party is immune and pork barreling goes on in every election. That's not in any way to condone the acitvity - just an acknowledgement of reality.
I THINK that aspect is changing and being curtailed - the power of the PMO was far too high - I prefer to move back to a more Federal system with the PMO first among equals with the provinces - that's a bit more relevant now with a minority gov and several strong premieres.

Martin's version of Canada is fiscally conservative and relatively socially progressive when he allows he can afford it an that combo kept Liberals in power despite Chretiens clear propensity for Trudeau style "Liberal mafia" style gov - especially in Quebec.

Politics is about getting into and staying in power and that often conflicts with "good governance" as politics is too often a popularity contest based on specious reasoning and short term views and pork barrel buying votes even if the latter is damaging in the long run.

I THINK we may be seeing a move in Canada to gov more like the relatively sterling Nordic govs who tend to be squeaky clean.
It's about time. 

The social direction, the economic performance is generally approved by the political middle of Canada.........cleaner gov on the plate and deal with the crooks and corruption as they are uncovered.
Canadians are not about to toss the first two but they WILL want the latter to BE SEEN to be dealt with.

The additional financial controls have already been placed and more can be done according to Frasier.

Sometimes it takes a strong woman.... or two......Hazel for PM, Frasier for Finance Minister ....then we'd have it all. :clap:


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I do not equate the whole Liberal party with this (alleged) deception. I also believe that any illegal activity will be rooted out and that the Liberal Party will be under intense scrutiny. I do not believe Paul Martin would tolerate corruption any more than the other party leaders. I also happen to think they've done enormous good for this country as a whole and while I would never condone any level of corruption, I do think this involved only a few misguided/greedy/stupid/arrogant individuals. Throw the baby out with the bathwater if you like. Me, I prefer to weigh the whole perspective. I was willing to look at the Conservative platform but what I saw had some clear non-starters regarding our universal healthcare, social progress and an irrational objection to our legal system when concepts such as human rights go against "traditional" values.

The Liberals have a significant problem and they must correct it. Paul Martin established the Gomery enquiry to get to the bottom of the issue and the country can judge his considered findings as a neural observer. I weigh that opinion enormously more than rants from those with their own agenda.

Sorry to disappoint the right wing ranters, but I do think much of this country wants to know the whole story and many are willing to "hold their noses" rather than risk throwing away their deeply held respect for policies such as socialised health care. 

When it comes down to it, I actually trust the Liberals, with their allegations of corruption, more than the Conservatives....

FWIW, I do think that the Liberals will be "punished" at the polls but I, for one, cannot change my political opinions. Offer me a party with similar policies to the Liberals, and I'll vote for them. Since there is none, I do not subscribe to supporting more extreme (from my point of view) parties.


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

I agree with used to be. It was Martin whose first act was to cancel this Chretien program and call for this inquiry in the first place. What has come out so far is something that many have known for a long time but no one will say because it is politically incorrect and that business in Quebec is often conducted very differently than elsewhere in Canada especially at the interface of government and service businesses. I am glad to see as well that there is emerging evidence that these types of kick back deals were also occurring with the ever sanctimonious PQ. And in my view it is about time that all this is fully exposed.

my hope is that cooler heads prevail. If we want to see effective government we can't be having back to back elections. In many ways the feds have been paralysed ever since Chretien said he was going to leave and then stayed for two years and that was three years ago. there are a lot more important things to be done than bringing down a government that is actually trying to stop this type of horse****.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I do not equate the whole Liberal party with this (alleged) deception. I also believe that any illegal activity will be rooted out and that the Liberal Party will be under intense scrutiny. I do not believe Paul Martin would tolerate corruption any more than the other party leaders. I also happen to think they've done enormous good for this country as a whole and while I would never condone any level of corruption, I do think this involved only a few misguided/greedy/stupid/arrogant individuals. Throw the baby out with the bathwater if you like. Me, I prefer to weigh the whole perspective. I was willing to look at the Conservative platform but what I saw had some clear non-starters regarding our universal healthcare, social progress and an irrational objection to our legal system when concepts such as human rights go against "traditional" values.
> 
> The Liberals have a significant problem and they must correct it. Paul Martin established the Gomery enquiry to get to the bottom of the issue and the country can judge his considered findings as a neural observer. I weigh that opinion enormously more than rants from those with their own agenda.
> 
> ...


Arghhhhhhhh!!!! I had to get that out before responding. 

I don't equate the whole Liberal Party with this deception either. To state that this only involves a 'few' bad apples is pretty naive. The article in the Globe and Mail exposed money flying in all sorts of directions involving lots of different people. This scandal has now crossed into other departments like the Gun Registry.

This scandal goes very high up the Liberal party chain. MacNutt specified all these details already.

What don't you like about the Health Care policy of the Conservatives? Was it the increased funding they proposed, which was higher than any other party? What social policies do you object to? Gay marriage? The Liberals can hardly claim the high ground on this issue. They have shown no leadership at all. Our judiciary beat them to it because they were to chicken to take this issue on. I also bet they won't try and pass any proposed legislation on this issue either because they will want to save it for the next election (knowing that they did well on it in the last election). Is this the human rights issue you are refering to? 

Did Paul Martin start the inquiry because he wanted to? No. The Conservatives forced the issue in the last election. 

Do you actually think the Conservatives want to get rid of Universal Health Care? I think that's playing cheap politics on your part. Universal Health Care is a major component of the Conservative platform. No party in Canada wants to get rid of Universal Health Care. The debate is about delivery of health care. Why does the left have to fear monger on this issue?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my main question and I ask it in all sincerity. How many billions in waste, mismanagement and scandal will it take to change your vote?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Perhaps YOU don't seem to understand that while Canada is not perfect it is NOT corrupt.
> This inquiry is ten year old news that is being dealt with properly and the NeoCons have NOTHING to offer except wailing and gnashing about corruption.
> The vast bulk of Canadians realize that Canada has little corruption amongst the worlds nations.
> 
> ...


I guess a person's interpretation of corruption depends on their personsal values. To me patronage is a form of corruption. Canada is institutionally corrupt. Ottawa is filled with 1000's of people that are appointed through patronage. The Prime Minister has appointed many such people himself. Therefore, I consider these actions to be corrupt. Our entire Senate is made up of patronage appointments. These people get appointed by being mindless drones that follow party policy. That's corrupt to me. I'll harp on about this until the day I die or until it gets changed.

In any case, these surveys you offer are useless. If we can't audit half of Ottawa's spending, how do we know what is corrupt and what isn't. To me, I think the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is profoundly corrupt as well. We are pumping billions into reservations only to have the Chiefs living the high life and travelling around the world on our tax dollar. In the meantime, the people that need the money are left out to dry. Why does the left fear auditing such a department? It seems like political correctness to the extreme. Does your survey account for this? I don't think so. What about the Gun Registry? Creating a make work project for the Maritimes is another corrupt action. It's spending our money on something useless just to get votes. What about the CBC, the best friend of the Liberal Party? Give the Liberals good stories and they give good funding. For the entire day, the Sponsorship scandal didn't even make the front page of their webpage. It's on there now but probably only because people like me emailed to complain.

At least you agree that we can do better. A good start would be not voting for the Liberals again. Would you agree that a Conservative minority with the NDP is preferable to our current situation?

What 'retrograde' social policies of the Conservatives are you talking about?

I can't wait to see some polls next week. I think we will see some different numbers than you offered earlier this week.

Voting for a party does not mean you support every issue they offer, nor does it mean you agree with every member's point of view. I am interested to hear what problems there are with Conservative policy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I can't wait to see some polls next week. I think we will see some different numbers than you offered earlier this week.


The polls are actually out already http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050409.wxgampoll0409/BNStory/National/)
No big surprise to me.

Liberals 34%
Conservatives 30%

This will get more interesting as the inquiry progresses.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Voting for a party does not mean you support every issue they offer, nor does it mean you agree with every member's point of view. I am interested to hear what problems there are with Conservative policy.


The problem is when people have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with socially conservative policies. It's much like expecting a catholic to convert to another religion when they learned about widespread child abuse by priests.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The polls are actually out already http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050409.wxgampoll0409/BNStory/National/)
> No big surprise to me.
> 
> Liberals 34%
> ...


2004 election:

Liberals 36.7%
Conservatives 29.6%

Hardly cause to jump for joy (yet). Of course, the poll was ridiculously small (1000 people).

The only good news for the Conservatives is that they did make inroads in Ontario (3% gain) while the Liberals dropped 7% since the election.

The most interesting thing to me is where the vote is swinging. Liberals down 2.7%, NDP down 0.7%, Conservatives up 0.6%. Then consider that the BQ is down almost 8% in Quebec since the election. That means there's more than 3% unaccounted for.

Could it really be that the Greens are polling 7-8% across the country? Could the Greens and Liberals split the centrist vote?

Or is it just that 3% margin of error giving goofy results?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Judging by the mood of the "man in the street" interviews that are being broadcast by local news stations all across Canada...

....I'd say that the Libereals are in for a fast swan dive off the high board into a completely dry swimming pool. Probably happen rather shortly as well. Big KerSPLATT coming for Chretien/Martin and Co. in the very near future. It's definitely past time for these wastrels and crooks to vacate the halls of power. And to stop looking at the Canadian taxpayer as a patsy that simply needs to be lied to once every four or five years in order to maintain their iron grip on this fat source of easy money.

What really blows me away is that there are rather bright (but obviously naieve) people here in Canada who STILL count themselves as "supporters of The Liberal Party"!!

Even after all of this organised crime activity has been revealed for all to see!! 

Un_FRIGGIN_believable ! 

And I have to echo Vandave's comments here: Just what WOULD it take for you guys to finally _WAKE UP??_ How many more billions would have to be stolen? How many more horribly expensive and totally worthless government spending programs would have to be publicly exposed as a total farce (or as a carefully planned theft of Canadian tax money), before you guys finally see the light??

Oh..wait....it's actually the Liberal _POLICIES_ that keep you guys coming back for more, isn't it?

But...hang on a sec here...the Liberals don't really HAVE any policies of their own! Do they?

I mean, even a casual observer of Liberal politics will tell you that they always make all sorts of bold policy statements in the runup to an election...and then toss them all out the window once they are safely back into absolute power. (and then go back to stealing tax money on a grand scale). They've been doing this for more than a decade, as a matter of fact. 

This is historical fact. Look it up for yourself.

The only Liberal policies that have ever made any real difference...or that have been actually successful...were copied whole from the Conservative party or it's forebear, the Alliance. (The Liberals always adopt these policies from the Conservatives....after a substantial period of loudly ridiculing them in Question Period, of course. That's because their highly paid PR types have told them that this is how it should be done...in order to not ruffle the feathers of their most devoted followers. Wouldn't want to disturb "The Religion" after all.)

This is, apparently, what it all boils down to. A "Religion".

Which _MIGHT_ just explain why some otherwise bright people around here are still unable to see the totally corrupt theiving Liberals as anything truly "bad".  

The Liberals...as least in SOME people's minds...are simply "misunderstood" and slightly errant these days. They'll get back on track real soon. Promise!

We just have to give them "one MORE chance".

As IF!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One wonders if the lipflappers get paid by the word. 

It's the thought that counts Gerry.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice, macdoc.

You seem to be woefully short of comments or rebuttals right now.

You even seem to be fresh out of excuses that might take some of the pressure off of your cherished Liberals at this pivotal moment in their "coloured" histotry.

Especially since all Canadians now realise that this is the biggest batch of organised crooks that we have ever known. They've been stealing from us on a massive scale for several decades...while completely mismanaging all the rest of the important government programs.

And that all Canadians now know that a rather smallish group of us have returned these thieving clowns to power, over and over again.

I'm bettin that this cycle of ridiculousness is now OVER, here in Canada. Once and for all.

Call it a hunch.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rebuttals for what Gerry? I've stated my views of the current political situation, I don't need to repeat myself ad nauseum as you do. Seems you think quantity a substitute for quality.

You seem downright obsessed - perhaps a visit to the local shrink is in order. Maybe it's just the Tequila.


----------



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

Macdoc, you would be wise to pause for a moment and consider a point made in "The Quotations of Chairman Macnutt" -- "Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all."

Take care, my friend, in trying to use reason. For, as H.L. Mencken once wrote, "It is the mission of the pedagogue, not to make his pupils think, but to make them think right, and the more nearly his own mind pulsates with the great ebbs and flows of popular delusion and emotion, the more admirably he performs his function. He may be an ass, but that is surely no demerit in a man paid to make asses of his customers."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: The gentle sage of the east....


----------



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

Merci, Macdoc. For, as it is written in "The Quotations of Chairman Macnutt", "No person can be a good teacher unless he/she has feelings of warm affection toward his/her pupils and a genuine desire to impart to them what he himself believes to be of value."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the results of the inquiry to date don't change the minds of Ontario voters about the federal Liberals, then nothing ever will. And that is sad indeed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc - you really can't seem to understand that the NeoCon element of the current Conservative party is an anaethema to a large majority of Canadians.
IF someone like John Tory or Charest headed a party that had policies liek those of Bill Davis or even Jo Who then there would be an accetable alternative.....something Canadians including myself long for.

Harper gains only 18% of votes as best PM - that means a large number in the Conservative party don't view him as an asset to Canada.

Financial scandal happens to all parties - policy and performance are different aspects in choosing a party. Both policy AND performnace by the Liberals have pleased enough Canadians to keep them in power.
Cleaning up scandal and poor management is a must do and Martin appointed Sheila Fraser as part of that process and called this inquiry.

It's a good and needed look into the seamy side of the political process.

The results COULD change votes in a major way IF there was a viable alternative that di not mess with what's right with Canada in many minds.

The Conservatives do NOT have that alternative and while Layton might there is a lingering suspicion of undoing Martin's sterling economic record.

So it's watch and wait until a real alternative comes along. Look to a possible move in Ontario next election and from there maybe a rebirth of small c conservatism with appeal to the mainstream.

Harper knows it- that's why the "social engineering" was taken out of the Conservative policy convention........leaving.......nothing.

This whole lipflapping reminds me of champagne on aircraft.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The results COULD change votes in a major way IF there was a viable alternative that di not mess with what's right with Canada in many minds.


Some of the things that you may consider "right" with Canada are very wrong in the views of many of us, and are in dire need of change.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I firstly want to just say how much I appreciate this kind of thread, and how revealing it is of our political situation.

I wanted to post on something which caught my attention which was the voters who were on the fence between the Liberals and NDP. More specifically I wanted to confront this talk of personal incentives and perhaps explain what the implications of that notion are.

The though that Liberals are a just balance between left and right, is I think a bit out dated. Accordingly I think our political spectrum is out dated, in that the terms left and right are not supposed to be applied to a whole spectrum. The etymology of those terms is that in the French National Assembly which was created during the French revolution in 1789. The king sat in the throne, with the privileged lords on his right side, and the common working folk on his left. This more specifically says NOTHING about the "centre". The king had the working left there but only because they fought to be there! The king "centre" ultimately only appeased the left to avoid revolt, he would ultimately help his own kind, those on the right. If this at all reminds you of Paul Martin and say for example the $4.4 billion tax cut to large corporations, just shout out.

Secondly, I should mention that I have been doing a radio documentary for a university course on poverty and homelessness, which means I am well prepped to discuss issues of our society. Namely the notion that our rights and our personal incentives are achieved without harm to others. This is flawed. It often comes out that our SUPER competitive system leaves people behind, as a direct result of people's thinking "what's in it for me". I think we must recognize that these issues are not the faults of victims of poverty and discrimination (eg. homeless people ARE NOT just "lazy"). Ultimately, I cannot see how we can discuss politics without addressing these issues. I'm not confronting anyone as a person, simply this idea. This requires discourse and debate, but bringing up issues of things such as the environment, natives, homeless, etc. is not a bunch of radicals "imposing their views on honest folk", rather those who are sensitive to these issues asking that we look at the consequences of our liberties.


----------



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

Ravijo, your comment that "It often comes out that our SUPER competitive system leaves people behind, as a direct result of people's thinking "what's in it for me". I think we must recognize that these issues are not the faults of victims of poverty and discrimination (eg. homeless people ARE NOT just "lazy"). Ultimately, I cannot see how we can discuss politics without addressing these issues.", is so very true. This discussion needs to take place in our society in that oftentimes the "victims of poverty" lack the voice to express their plight to an audience that has the power to change this sad situation. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the awful truth about the Liberals is that they are simply the lesser of evils

do you want the NDP and their private enterprise destroying ways?
see Ontario under Bob Rae and how he snubbed a major pharaceutical company when they dared asked for an audience with him to discuss building a production facility in Ontario
Jack Layton will never form a gov't. PERIOD.

do you want Stephen Harper and his war mongerers who would have us in the middle of the Iraq ware/invasion where our fighitng men and women would be dying for oil profits? Do you want private medicare? Do you want the kind of American ass kissing not seen since the days of Mulroney? (let's not discuss the whole airbus scandal because his lawyers might sue me)
Are we better off after NAFTA? Ask the softwood and cattle people.

What Martin has successfully done is to re-capture the "light right" or Red Tories away from the Conservatives (note: NOT the Progressive Conservatives)
Remember their "unification" where they allowed Reform/Alliance (it's so hard to keep up with all those name changes) vote twice to make it look like an overwhelming majority supported unification?
Rembmer Peter McKay's PROIMSE to NOT join the Alliance/Reform?

The federal Liberals, even with their Quebec based scandals, have firmly entrenched themselves into the middle of the Canadian political landscape, thereby attracting the most votes and seats across this country.

The question that should really be asked of Harper/McKay is why I, a self employed entrepeneur, am NOT voting for them. Shouldn't I be their poster child? Shouldn't I be the one clamouring most for tax breaks as it is I who gets the least in terms of gov't support?

Bring back the Progressive Conservatives of Bill Davis and Robert Stanfield and maybe we can talk.

This "hellspawn" of the Conservative right wing neocons is certainly NOT the Progressive Conservatives that I knew and grew up with.

People voted for the Liberals because the Conservatives scared the hell (pun intended) out of them. Let's remember that the Liberals were buried in the, still currenty, AdScam scandal and still got elected.

What does that tell you about the Conservatives? Most people not only do not like their politics, but are scared that the Conservatives will erode the very social fabric that we have come to know as Canada.

That is the truth about the Liberals.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacSpectrum,
The truth about the Consevatives is only partially known. I agree completely with your assessment, as distasteful as I find it. If Bill Davis or his ilk were around, the Cons would win in a landslide. It is the McKay's and the Stronachs of that party that have to wrestle it left and get rid of the neocon loons.
Until then, there is no choice, much to the chagrin of many westerners who, in my opinion, deserve a change in there favour. However, it would seem that westerners are prepared to pay "any" price to achieve their objective. I have always felt that this was a short sighted approach to nation building. But who am I, I'm not a westerner, I just lived there for 8 years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good post Ravijo.



> Some of the things that you may consider "right" with Canada are very wrong in the views of many of us, and are in dire need of change.


YOUR problem is Sinc and the problem with the Cons you support......., not enough Canadians agree with you...and are very very unlikely to in any near future. Keep your "desired NeoCon changes to Canada"?? - lose the ability to command a majority in Canada. Manning knew it, Joe Clark knows it.

The missing 8%. The Liberals have their demons to deal with......so do the Cons.

Quit pointing out the obvious about the Liberals and fix what's wrong with the Cons.

There are many here who are NOT "Liberals can do no wrong" diehards - I'm one of them - but they ARE "No NeoCons need apply" diehards, I'm one of those too. I'll be voting for an Independent this time.
I don't belong to any party, I voice the praise of an effective mayor who is a conservative. I praise previous conservative govs like Bill Davis and current US ones like Californias.
Radical centrism is the order of the day.......the Cons in Canada at the Federal level do not offer that,

Give us that moderate conservative approach as a viable alternative and the Libs would be toast. IT'S NOT THERE.....an no amount of lipflapping will make it so.

The Libs need a house cleaning and that's severely in progress and has been since Martin took office.

The Cons need a policy housekeeping if they ever want to see a majority and THAT has been attempted since the merger - ineffectually.

Minority time....indefinitely and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

•••

Excellent summary of the situation iPetie. :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Unfortunately McKay has very little political collateral left. (no pun intended)
His "about face" on the Alliance/PC joining left many PCers with a terrible taste in their mouths and is no longer able to lead the Cons out of the right wing
political wilderness.

i.e. "he's spent"

From what I have seen Stronach's speech lessons are paying off and my sources out West said that she more than sold out speaking engagements when she was running for the Conservative leadership.

It was a good thing for her to not win that election, because the hard core right wing would have pointed their fingers with a loud "told ya' so" and booted her out of the big chair.

She needs to distance herself from daddy, who still pulls strings and pulls them hard. She needs to stop trying to pretend she is a typical "single mom" and feels their pain.
Whether or not she can stand up to the political vipers in the big leagues is still left (no pun) to be seen.
The Western right wing don't seem to be eager to get rid of Harper even thought the last election should have been a slam dunk. Remember that champagne and lobster celebration on his jet? Do the right wingers really want a woman to lead? Yeah, ain't that an awful question in today's day and age, eh?

Conservatives should really look at Ralph Klein as, I think, his late in the election statements about "possibly contravening the Canada Health Act" put the final nail in the Conservative loss coffin.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I've not participated in this thread as there are enough voices to represent both sides. I feel compelled to make a comment after reading the endless bantering. My perspective of the Liberal Party (and I'm not a faithful follower of any party per se, just the policies) is that, like other organizations, some previous members of the Liberal "old guard" have committed some unforgiveable offenses. They should be dealt with in full legal terms and I commend Paul Martin for initiating the inquiry. The party may suffer dire consequences for the airng of the dirty laundry. 
I don't, however, see the need to turf out the current leadership, as they have a much more credible agenda than the alternative parties. In fact, I'm nor sure the Conservatives even have an agenda. Martin has had the guts to stand up to George W and the country is in pretty good shape overall (always room for improvement), so why jeopadize things by electing another lacklustre leader and party with nothing better to offer. To turf the Liberals (or any party) because of anger over former members actions, is short-sighted in my opinion. Would you cancel business with every company who ever had an employee commit a fraud? If the person(s) were dealt with and a new management were in place, I'd give them a second chance if their services were otherwise satisfactory. I'm hoping that the Gomery inquiry will fully expose the culprits, that the law will deal with them and that we can move on with the best governance choice we have. The current Liberal gang needs to prove themselves to many and beg forgiveness for the misdeeds of the past. I think they're up to the job and will perform well under the microscope of scrutiny.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Rebuttals for what Gerry? I've stated my views of the current political situation, I don't need to repeat myself ad nauseum as you do. Seems you think quantity a substitute for quality.
> 
> You seem downright obsessed - perhaps a visit to the local shrink is in order. Maybe it's just the Tequila.


How about rebuttals to my questions? 

I'll make it easy for you and summarize our posts. You said that corruption in Canada was not very significant based on a study. I said that our system in institutionally corrupt and provided many examples of this. Did your study account for this and the 50% of our bureaucracy that can't be audited? 

Also, what social policies of the Conservatives don't you like?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter Scharman said:


> I don't, however, see the need to turf out the current leadership.


But tell us how a finance minister (Martin) at the time could not possibly have known what was happening. He had to release the funds to get the scandal going. Therefore does he too still have credibility? I very much doubt it.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

SINC said:


> But tell us how a finance minister (Martin) at the time could not possibly have known what was happening. He had to release the funds to get the scandal going. Therefore does he too still have credibility? I very much doubt it.


It's no secret that Cretien and Martin were at barbs and that Martin was "out of the loop" on many issues. In a beaurocracy as large as the government, there's no way everybody can know what everybody else is doing. The Sponsorship Program was a known to all, but the inner dealings of those who controlled the funds was kept under covers. That's where the corruption lies, not with the finance minister who was apparently was at a distance from the inner dealings. It's like saying a bank manager should be aware of an employee fraud scheme before it is discovered two years later during an audit.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Peter Scharman said:


> f the Liberal "old guard" have committed some unforgiveable offenses. They should be dealt with in full legal terms and I commend Paul Martin for initiating the inquiry. The party may suffer dire consequences for the airng of the dirty laundry.


You realize the Sponsorship program was $250 million and that Martin was the Finance Minister don't you? If he is such an effective manager that some of his apologists would suggest, then why didn't he know what this money was for? This isn't small change. Also, this scam extends into other Departments like the RCMP, Via Rail, the Gun Registry, etc... Who knows how much money is tied into this.

Martin shouldn't be commended for anything. An RCMP investigation was already under way and the whole thing was public before he started the inquiry. Parliament had already started an inquiry, but Martin shut it down. He was heading into an election and this was going to be the big issue. By starting the commission it allowed him to deflect all questions regarding Sponsorship because he could say the commission would get to the bottom of it. This was political opportunism at its worst! He avoided the debate altogether and now people commend him for it. He also got to pick the judge!!!!! If all prosecuted criminals could be so lucky. Based on the above, do you still think he deserves commendation?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Peter Scharman said:


> It's no secret that Cretien and Martin were at barbs and that Martin was "out of the loop" on many issues. In a beaurocracy as large as the government, there's no way everybody can know what everybody else is doing. The Sponsorship Program was a known to all, but the inner dealings of those who controlled the funds was kept under covers. That's where the corruption lies, not with the finance minister who was apparently was at a distance from the inner dealings. It's like saying a bank manager should be aware of an employee fraud scheme before it is discovered two years later during an audit.


Based on your anology, you agree that Martin was in charge of the money. In that case, he should step aside until the Commission's findings are completed. 

Look at BC and Mike Harcourt. The NDP was illegally raising money for their elecctions through bingo revenues meant for charity. We are talking about 1000's of dollars here, not multi-millions. The Premier still did the right thing and stepped down when it all came to light. The Sponsorship is WAY bigger than bingogate, but Martin refuses to take any level of responsibility like other politicians have done in the past.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> 'll make it easy for you and summarize our posts. You said that corruption in Canada was not very significant based on a study. I said that our system in institutionally corrupt and provided many examples of this. Did your study account for this and the 50% of our bureaucracy that can't be audited?
> 
> Also, what social policies of the Conservatives don't you like?


As with our financial standing in the world I can only rely on the assessment of respected external agencies to assess our gov on the same basis as they do others with respect to corruption. If you have questions about their methodologies I suggest you take it up with them.
••••••
Current Cons social policies and directions I want nothing to do with

Promulgating closer ties with the US and US foreign policies - pandering to US fear mongering and unilateral action.
Heavy spending on traditional military
Wishing to withdraw from Kyoto
Restricting the independence of the Court

Same sex marriage and womens rights issues abortion issues


> While CLC is disappointed that the party chose to narrowly endorse Stephen Harper's pro-abortion position, we are neither surprised nor discouraged. The vote was SO CLOSE that there is actually reason for optimism: with a bit more work next time, and with more support from CLC supporters - especially in Atlantic Canada - we expect to be able to reverse this vote at the next CPC convention expected in 2007. In the meantime, the CPC position acknowledging the right of MPs to vote freely means that we must redouble our efforts to ensure the nomination of many more pro-life candidates - from all parties - as we prepare for the next federal election


*How do you think stuff like this plays in middle Canada???........not well at all.*
Just look at the lack of women as Con MPs 

Privatization as an ideologue mantra ( see Mike Harris et al )
Tax reduction as an ideologue mantra ( see Mike Harris )
Pandering to the religious right
Approach to minorities - the party is rife with problems

most of the above.....see "lipflappers"....the Liberals best friends.

••••

ANY party that forces and election right now risks enormous backlash.



> /8/2005 4:56:46 PM
> 
> Voter support for federal parties is holding steady, with the Liberals maintaining their lead over the opposition
> OTTAWA: Despite a highly charged political environment that has characterized the past few months in Ottawa, Canadians? support for federal political parties has changed very little, with the Liberal Party maintaining its lead in voter preference over the opposition, according to a recent survey by the Environics Research Group conducted over the past month.
> ...


 complete report > http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=576

Get on with governing and let the courts and inquiry run their course.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Arghhhhhhhh!!!! I had to get that out before responding.
> 
> I don't equate the whole Liberal Party with this deception either. To state that this only involves a 'few' bad apples is pretty naive. The article in the Globe and Mail exposed money flying in all sorts of directions involving lots of different people. This scandal has now crossed into other departments like the Gun Registry.
> 
> ...


Vandave, since you wanted some direct answers, here they are. 

The rants on this site tar all Liberals with the same brush and demand overturning of the government as "retribution". In other words punish them all for the alleged deeds of a few. In the case of Martin as Finance Minister, there is a clearly defined wall between the finance department and the programs that the finance department funds. In other words, that Finance Ministry is insulated from lobbying by the government. This is not a policy of the Liberal Party, but a fact for all Canadian (and likely other) governments. Otherwise the Finance Minister would be more powerful than the Prime Minister and would be the centre of attention for all lobbyists. This is not the case. Martin was, ironically, as insulated as one could possibly be from the political machinations. His department has to respond, not initiate or even question. It was his job to find the money for the budget. If you cannot believe that, so be it, but its a fact of government. I think its pretty clear that Jean Chretien has to take responsibility. If he did not know of the shannigans and illegal activities, it was because he chose to ignore them, or set up a scheme to isolate himself. Either way, he fathered the sponsorship program and was the guy at the top. I personally doubt he directly benefitted (he's not that stupid or short-sighted) but he must take responsibility for a program he initiated and was conducted on his own watch.

Coming to the health policies of the Conservatives. I have no doubt that the Conservatives plan to undermine the principle of the Canada Heath Act that guarantees equal access to healthcare in this country to all Canadians regardless of ability to pay. Stephen Harper has not eliminated this as a possibility and by not doing so, makes it clear what his intention is. I know that once opened up to for-fee service, that the barn door cannot be closed and will result in a two-tier system.

Social policies: the Conservatives play to social conservatism. While the Liberals stand on gay marriage is heterogeneous, tell me that a legal motion to recognize same-sex marriage would ever have been tabled by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. Regarding religious freedoms, I have no problem in people believing whatever they like, as long as they keep those religious beliefs well away from their professional duties. The Religious Right has too much influence on the Conservative agenda. Human rights issues extend beyond same-sex marriage. Indeed, the equal access to healthcare is also a human right. Further, the Conservative policy of reducing taxes of those who are in a better position to pay them (per capita dollars, not percent income) will result in reduction of services and increased debt. If you doubt this, take a look at our history (or to the South). I'm in the highest income bracket and I view my higher tax rate as a necessary and important contribution to maintaining the values of Canadian society. I understand why some people resent paying higher taxes, but I see it as a fundamental reason why our society is more just and stable than many others.

I am not "on the Left". I am very much middle of the road that is not driven by a single ideology. I believe in proportional values and compromise. I do not subscribe to any one agenda, be it Right or Left.

As to your billion dollar question, the sponsorship scandal involves $20-25 million. That is $20-25 million too much and it is unacceptable. However, there is abuse and waste in all levels of private and public life, no matter what the political party or system. I will not tolerate anyone who is criminally corrupt. However, I am waiting to see who is. I sincerely doubt my Liberal MP is corrupt. If she was ever shown to be so, she would not get my vote. 

I hope that answers your questions.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Vandave, I think UTBJ pretty much gave the response to the qustiuon you posed to me. I guess we all have our own slant and reaction to the inconsistencies anr errors of governments and its players.


----------



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

Jim, your comment "In other words punish them all for the alleged deeds of a few" got me thinking about how I voted (Liberal) in the last election. The person who ran for the Liberals here in St.John's was a decent person, one who supported such issues as childcare and housing. I can't imagine why he should be "punished" for the "alleged deeds" of some who came before him. Luckily, the person who won (a Conservative) is also an honest and decent person. In that sense, we still have a good person representing us in Ottawa.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> If the results of the inquiry to date don't change the minds of Ontario voters about the federal Liberals, then nothing ever will. And that is sad indeed.



It's the CONservatives that need to change so that they better represent Canadians.
That's how they can win an election.
As long as the CONservatvies hang onto their flawed agenda, they'll keep losing.

Canadians DON'T WANT private health care. PERIOD.
Canadians DON'T WANT war. PERIOD.
Canadians DON'T WANT an end to multiculturalism. PERIOD.
Canadains DON'T WANT the gov't in their bedroom.

I don't think the CONservative party can change its spots. The Progressive Conservative Party may have been able to, but alas, that party was hijacked by the religious right.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - unlike the US we don't vote for a national leader here we vote for a representative in our riding. MIne will be an independent because she called a spade a spade in matters of US foreign policy and got turfed from the Liberal Caucus. Her views represent the riding - she'll likely get elected even without Liberal support and maybe being away from the Libs is a good thing.

Chretien and the inner circle built incredible power into the PMO as the US Executive has done with the Whitehouse and that power needs a better check and balance.

Every party faces trying to balance allowing MPs or MPPs to state their views and yet still present enough of a united voice to be elected and govern.

Tory told the Ontario lipflapper NeoCons to shut up in no uncertain term and by staying off social policy at the convention Harper effectively did the same.

Centrist Canadians are deeply suspicious of the agendas of the right regardless. More suspicious of screwing up what's right about Canada than any "same old, same old" financial scandal would justify changing policy horses.

Seeing the NeoCon environment in the US just makes the situation worse trying to establish a centrist conservative presence in Canada that is electable to the majority.
Every time Harper looks south Canadians roll their eyes and say "see told ya".

The current parliament has a unique opportunity to develop some common ground legislation and show their ability to the country under "compromise" conditions.

It's a "show me" situation.

Right now - it's all politics and ANY party engineering an election will likely see the wrath of the voters. That's been the tradition.

Canadians want good governance and clean up....NOT wholesale policy shifts. THIS minority parliament CAN do both.........so far.........ugh


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> You realize the Sponsorship program was $250 million and that Martin was the Finance Minister don't you? If he is such an effective manager that some of his apologists would suggest, then why didn't he know what this money was for? This isn't small change. Also, this scam extends into other Departments like the RCMP, Via Rail, the Gun Registry, etc... Who knows how much money is tied into this.


Do I honestly think that Paul Martin and the majority of liberal insiders did not know what was going on? Of course not, in fact I think that Martin had a very good idea of what was going on. I also know that for a period of no less than 10 years, Martinites were trying mightily to oust Chretien and his cronies. The moronic thought process that once money is allocated to government dept. that the finance minister signs the cheques seriously baffles me. Combine this the fact that the sponsorship program reported directly to the PMO and I again have to question the thought process. Combine again with the fact that the only reason that Martin lasted as long as he did as finance minister was for Chretien's political credibility. Combine yet again that Martin and Chretien were bitter political rivals. Would you not think that any disclosure by the Chretienites to Martin would have immediately meant their political extinction. Combine on top of all of that the fact that anyone, and I mean everyone who ever even smiled at Chretien is today politically extinct. Guilty or not of anything but association. Who do you think did that? Steven Harper?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Here's a CBC article that puts Government scandal in a historical perspective. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss as far as scandal goes. How soon we forget Mulroney and the 'Progressive Conservatives.' I'll link the story and quote the Mulroney bits.

CBC article 



> 6. All the other Mulroney ministers: Pity poor Brian Mulroney. The Progressive Conservative prime minister lost an average of one cabinet minister to allegations of wrongdoing during each year of his 1984-1993 reign.
> 
> First there was Robert Coates, who stepped down as defence minister in 1985 after it was revealed that he had visited a strip club in West Germany while in that country on official business. Communications Minister Marcel Masse left over an alleged violation of the Canada Elections Act (he was later exonerated), followed closely by John Fraser.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting stuff. Now we all know where we stand at least...

Macdoc is busily defending the klepto-Liberals as he has always done (gotta give him credit for loyalty...if not for actual intelligence). He claims that it was just a small group who were stealing all of this money and then goes on to claim that Paul Martin is actively ferreting out all of this massive ongoing political theft, and is actually dealing with it. (???)

None of which is actually true, of course...but macdoc has bought into this farce in a big way, and he seems to be terribly paranoid of even the THOUGHT of anyone else running the country. A scant few others are also buying into the macdoc fantasy world as well.

And he keeps on telling all of us that the Liberals are the ONLY political party fit to run Canada. No matter HOW much money they steal along the way. Or how many times they screw up! And then he goes on to point out how terrible the Conservatives would actually be, once they had taken power from the disgraced Liberals.

He seems to be willing to stand out there all alone on that bald prairie next to that dying horse and loudly INSIST that it will actually get up and run again. Despite all of the obvious evidence to the contrary. Gotta give him credit for blind loyalty...if nothing else. 

So, we should all give the old guy a bit of slack and let him run with this. He IS so terribly committed to it, after all. 

Meanwhile...does anyone else here besides macdoc think that the Liberals will again manage to form a government after the upcoming election? Especially given the fact that the polls show them to be sinking FAST?

Speak up. Here's the chance to make your point.

And seal your fate forever, on this forum. Almost five thousand people may be listening to whatever you may say on this subject, so speak your mind and make your thoughts about the corrupt Liberals known to us all.

Go ahead...be my guest.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I just watched Sunday Morning on Newsworld, Francoise Boivin , a new Liberal MP brought up some interesting points. Not tarring the whole party, especially new members, about giving the Bloc Party a step closer to breaking up Canada. and how we should wait to see the whole picture; as we should, to make judgement. I'm going to wait and see before I make any more silly remarks.... For now anyway!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Promulgating closer ties with the US and US foreign policies - pandering to US fear mongering and unilateral action.


I don’t there is much we can do about our geography. We are always going to be tied to the US. Therefore, our foreign policies will always have to be co-ordinated in some way, whether Bush or Martin likes it or not.



MacDoc said:


> Heavy spending on traditional military


I think when we spend the lowest amount per capita on our military in NATO (aside from perhaps Luxemberg), and when we can’t secure our own borders and coast lines, then we clearly have a problem. We definitely need to bump the budget higher. Even the Liberals realize this and have increased the budget.



MacDoc said:


> Wishing to withdraw from Kyoto


I originally supported the idea behind Kyoto. However, I am now changing my mind and I think we should pull out of it. With the US, China and India not part of this agreement, it will have little effect of actually doing anything. Is it worth billions (or trillions) of our money just to make a point to the world? I just don’t buy the argument that China shouldn’t be a part of the solution. They are busily dumping cheap products into our markets, have a hot economy, are pumping money into their military and are planning to go to the moon. Why should Canadians foot the bill for reducing CO2 when we can’t afford to support our military the way we should? It just doesn’t seem right to me.



MacDoc said:


> Restricting the independence of the Court


I assume this is about minimum sentencing. I think the public and parliament should have a big say in what minimum and maximum sentences are. 



MacDoc said:


> Same sex marriage and womens rights issues abortion issues


I support same sex marriage and a women’s right to choose about abortion. The Conservatives also support a women’s right to choose and they believe the government should recognize same sex partnerships. It’s really not too far from the Liberal (and my) viewpoint. 

If the Liberals believe so strongly about same sex marriage, then why haven’t they passed the bill yet? I bet they won’t do it either because they will want to keep it as an election issue because it is a wedge issue. The also didn’t show leadership many years ago when the province judiciary beat them to it. The courts even critized the federal government for not providing direction. 




MacDoc said:


> Privatization as an ideologue mantra ( see Mike Harris et al )
> Tax reduction as an ideologue mantra ( see Mike Harris )


I don’t like ideologues from any side of a political debate. I like whatever policy works. I don’t see Harper as being an ideologue, nor do I see Martin as such. I do see the NDP that way though. 



MacDoc said:


> Pandering to the religious right
> Approach to minorities - the party is rife with problems


I think the recent policy convention showed that the Conservatives were not going to pander to the religious right (e.g. abortion policy). I’ll admit that some Conservative supports have had a problem with their approach to minorities. I do not believe for a second that the leadership of the party shares these views. People with that mentality will unfortunately gravitate to conservative parties.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Do I honestly think that Paul Martin and the majority of liberal insiders did not know what was going on? Of course not, in fact I think that Martin had a very good idea of what was going on. I also know that for a period of no less than 10 years, Martinites were trying mightily to oust Chretien and his cronies. The moronic thought process that once money is allocated to government dept. that the finance minister signs the cheques seriously baffles me. Combine this the fact that the sponsorship program reported directly to the PMO and I again have to question the thought process. Combine again with the fact that the only reason that Martin lasted as long as he did as finance minister was for Chretien's political credibility. Combine yet again that Martin and Chretien were bitter political rivals. Would you not think that any disclosure by the Chretienites to Martin would have immediately meant their political extinction. Combine on top of all of that the fact that anyone, and I mean everyone who ever even smiled at Chretien is today politically extinct. Guilty or not of anything but association. Who do you think did that? Steven Harper?


If they knew something was up and didn't trust the Chretienites, then why did Martin and the Liberals give Chretien a standing ovation in Parliament? Why continually elect the guy to lead the party? I think the party should take responsibility for the actions of its leaders. If you don't agree with this, then why shoudl Harper be responsible for some of the stupid things that some Conservative MPs have made in the past. Let's face it, Martin really played up the fear tactics in the last election (e.g. Randy Whites comments that were taken out of context).


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> ........And he keeps on telling all of us that the Liberals are the ONLY political party fit to run Canada. No matter HOW much money they steal along the way. Or how many times they screw up! And then he goes on to point out how terrible the Conservatives would actually be, once they had taken power from the disgraced Liberals.
> ........Meanwhile...does anyone else here besides macdoc think that the Liberals will again manage to form a government after the upcoming election? Especially given the fact that the polls show them to be sinking FAST?
> 
> Speak up. Here's the chance to make your point.


From my armchair, I agree with macdoc (mark that on your calendar) that the Liberals are still the best current choice. If Joe Who were running for PM, I'd likely vote for him, but Harper (and his party) does NOTHING for me. I can't predict that the Cons would be "terrible", but I don't have a positive feel about them.
Political patronizing and corruption has been part of politics with all parties over the years. This time it's a bit big and deeply investigated. Has everybody forgotten the sleeziness of the Mulrooney government. What party were they again??
I'll go with the cutrrent party with the most potential to lead the country ads a whole. Martin has my vote so far. Maybe a real bombshell will change my mind later.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vandave - do you think YOUR views - coincide with those of enough to Canadians to form a government under Harper???

How do you deny Harpers background and published articles and quotes previous to being leader??
He would have had Canadians in Iraq.
He would have us closer to Bush - a regime which is pariah to much of the rest of the world.

A financial scandal is not a policy plank. Martins sterling financial management is something Canadians wish to continue.
Even the Globe was severely critical of Harpers "budget" - which looked exactly like the kind of nonsense Bush is practicing leading him to unbelievable deficits 1/2 a TRILLION DOLLARS!!! 6% of GDP!! Harper offered the same voodoo economics.

BTW the judiciary?? - the Cons want Parliament to have control over judiciary in matters like the same sex bill. They don't appear to like an independent judiciary - wanting it subject to parliament......an idea that is ludicrous in a modern democracy.

Harper shows far too much propensity to "tinker" - look how poorly he does in polls against Martin as who would be the best PM.

As for Chretien/Martin - the former was oneof the canniest politicians the nation has seen - both within his own party and the nation. He stayed in power despite everything and in the main because there was no effective POLITICAL power to oppose him within or without.

Your focus needs to be- Why was the popular vote 8% less than the two conservative parties combined?

Look to what's wrong with the Cons - we all know what's wrong with the Libs.

I notice you did not reply to the lack of women in the Con party.
You can't dress the current Con party in centrist conservative overcoat and expect Canadians to believe it.

WHAT has Harper done in this parliament???


----------



## Brian Scully (Jan 23, 2001)

*well I for one*

Voting for a party of which the Deputy leader lied to regain his power is not one that I would trust to lead my country. Stephen Harper would do ANYTHING to gain POWER. His party, being western based, on the religious right and creationists will never resonate with Ontario and the Maritimes and while the Liberals in Quebec may indeed suffer its not to the benefit of his party. 

This scandal can only be tied to the former leader and its a dog that cannot hunt for SH. JC is no longer in power and there is nothing to link to Paul Martin 

Like the voters in Ontario will never forgive Bob Rae the majority will never forgive Brian Mullroney and the party of the right.

Or god protect us if they gain power. An unholy alliance with the Republicans that will only result in Canada losing more of their soverignity. The longest undefended border now requires a passport for the first time in history. I wonder how this new law will resonate with Americans who will for the first time have to have a Passport to return to their country 

What will this do for tourism to our country from the greatest country on earth


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Interesting twist from an Ottawa columnist 



> Sun, April 10, 2005
> 
> Ask not for whom the gate tolls ...
> By DOUGLAS FISHER -- Sun Ottawa Bureau
> ...


Ottawa Sun

Now I remember why I detest politics.........can we getting governing INSTEAD of politicking.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If they knew something was up and didn't trust the Chretienites, then why did Martin and the Liberals give Chretien a standing ovation in Parliament?


 All Parties, including the Cons participated in that standing ovation.


Vandave said:


> Why continually elect the guy to lead the party? I think the party should take responsibility for the actions of its leaders.


 They tried on several occasions. However, Chretien ruled the party with an iron fist.


Vandave said:


> If you don't agree with this, then why should Harper be responsible for some of the stupid things that some Conservative MPs have made in the past.


 Because, in large part, it was indicative of a long string of stupidity and insensitivity to many groups.


Vandave said:


> Let's face it, Martin really played up the fear tactics in the last election (e.g. Randy Whites comments that were taken out of context).


 No, the election literally turned on the Cons accusation that Martin supported Child Pornography. That was a mistake and could have easily been fixed by Harper coming out and apologizing. In what was quite possibly the largest political blunder during a Canadian election campaign, Harper chose not to, instead, making the situation worse. Liberal strategists were dumbfounded as were most Canadians for that matter. It was a clear indication that Harper was not ready to lead, nor did he have brains behind him to run a country. 
Do you think that Canadians are in any mood to go into Neocon tax cut and spend agenda after suffering through getting the country back on a solid financial footing?
I have said in the past in this thread that this scandal makes me sick. If I had a credible choice, I would not vote Liberal. Maybe the Bloc should field candidates in Ontario, because as far as I'm concerned, they are a more palatible choice than Harper and the Cons.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Brian Scully said:


> His party, being western based, on the religious right and creationists will never resonate with Ontario and the Maritimes and while the Liberals in Quebec may indeed suffer its not to the benefit of his party.
> 
> Like the voters in Ontario will never forgive Bob Rae the majority will never forgive Brian Mullroney and the party of the right.


Well, they got 24 seats in Ontario in the last election, which is a big improvement from before. 

It's funny how people say the Conservatives don't represent 'Canadian' values, while somehow the Liberals do. The Conservatives got 30% of the vote in the last election, while the Liberals got 37%, only a 7% gap. The latest polls show the gap to have narrowed by half. It seems to me the Liberals and Conservatives represent a relatively similar number of Canadians. You can't discount the views of either party. 

I'm not a big fan of Mulroney. The patronage in Ottawa under Mulroney was worse than the current Liberals. But, this is a new party with new people. This is a similar argument you presented me by saying Martin has nothing to do with the Chretien crowd. Except in my case, we are talking about an entirely different party with different policies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Be accurate - the Cons got 29% the Libs 38% last election. Same old NeoCon propensity for inaccuracy....something in the water maybe.

The current polls show the Cons at 30% - some surge.
34 or 36% for the Libs - some plunge.

and the pre election polls were wrong last time.

Put into the mix that the party that pulls the plug tradtionally gets hammered by voters and you've got a who knows mix.

••••



> Except in my case, we are talking about an entirely different party with different policies.


and there in lies the problem.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Well, they got 24 seats in Ontario in the last election, which is a big improvement from before.
> 
> It's funny how people say the Conservatives don't represent 'Canadian' values, while somehow the Liberals do. The Conservatives got 30% of the vote in the last election, while the Liberals got 37%, only a 7% gap.


 Not ot keep harping on you Vandave but what so many Con supporters seem to forget is that the other 33% of the popular vote went to the left of both parties you mentioned. So in my opinion, and the opinion of 70% of Canadians, the Cons don't represent Canadian values.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vandave - do you think YOUR views - coincide with those of enough to Canadians to form a government under Harper???


My views aren’t identical to the Conservatives, they are only similar. The Conservatives have 30% of the vote right now, while the Liberals have 34%. I can see another 5 to 10% of people realizing they are a viable alternative. So, I can see the Conservatives winning a government under Harper. A think a Conservative minority is a lot more likely than a majority.



MacDoc said:


> How do you deny Harpers background and published articles and quotes previous to being leader??
> He would have had Canadians in Iraq.
> He would have us closer to Bush - a regime which is pariah to much of the rest of the world.


I would have to see which quotes you are referring to in order to comment. 

As far as Iraq goes, I didn’t support the US going into Iraq without the support of its allies. Had they put effective pressure on Iraq and waited, perhaps the war could have been avoided. But, what’s done is done and I base my vote on future issues, not past ones. I am not a supporter of Bush, his administration or the Republican Party. If I was American, I would be a Democrat. I think the Conservative Party’s values are closer to the Democrats than Republicans (I know many here won’t buy this).



MacDoc said:


> Martins sterling financial management is something Canadians wish to continue.


I give Martin credit for reigning in spending. But a lot of this credit should also go to the Reform Party for pushing this issue so strongly. As far as a good financial manager, I have to disagree. Cutting spending is easy. He just gave each department a percentage cut and they had to rationale why the deserved extra money, if it was really needed. This wasn’t innovative in any way. He did not make government more effective or efficient. He just downloaded a lot of costs. The federal government in the past 5 years has grown at a very large rate (above GDP growth) and is a concern to me. 

We are also overtaxed IMO. Its easy to balance a budget with high taxes. 




MacDoc said:


> Your focus needs to be- Why was the popular vote 8% less than the two conservative parties combined?


It’s tough to run an election when the ruling party doesn’t give you a chance to have a policy convention. Let’s see what happens now that the Conservatives have a policy on paper.




MacDoc said:


> I notice you did not reply to the lack of women in the Con party.
> You can't dress the current Con party in centrist conservative overcoat and expect Canadians to believe it.


There is no lack of women, there is proportionately less women compared to other parties. I don’t know why this is the case. I wouldn’t attribute it to chauvenism without something to back it up. 



MacDoc said:


> WHAT has Harper done in this parliament???


I think he’s been busy forming a new party and getting geared up for the next election. I agree that he hasn’t been in the public view very much. The Conservatives have tried to pass legislation on minimum sentencing (e.g. Carly’s law). Another positive is that they didn’t take down the Liberal government over their budget, thereby taking a lot of flak from members in doing so. 

I think the bigger question is what has Martin done (besides passing a budget)? He is the PM and the one who commands Parliament. He has been hiding out of country for most of this Parliament.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Not ot keep harping on you Vandave but what so many Con supporters seem to forget is that the other 33% of the popular vote went to the left of both parties you mentioned. So in my opinion, and the opinion of 70% of Canadians, the Cons don't represent Canadian values.


The same can be said when looking at it from the other side. 85% of voters chose to not vote for a left wing (NDP) platform and instead voted to the right. By the same logic, let's negate the NDP and Bloc (because they don't represent Canadian values given their low support numbers), and the Conservatives have almost half of the remaining vote.

I don't think you can assign 'Canadian values' in this way.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The same can be said when looking at it from the other side. 85% of voters chose to not vote for a left wing (NDP) platform and instead voted to the right. By the same logic, let's negate the NDP and Bloc (because they don't represent Canadian values given their low support numbers), and the Conservatives have almost half of the remaining vote.
> 
> I don't think you can assign 'Canadian values' in this way.


Agreed, but your previous statement would then seem to be a contradiction, No?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Agreed, but your previous statement would then seem to be a contradiction, No?


No. I presented the statement in response to Brian's statement that their policies would not resonate in Ontario or the Maritimes. What I meant to say was that you can't claim the Conservatives don't represent Canadian values, while somehow the Liberals (or other parties) do. 

In my opinion, all parties represent the legitimate viewpoints of Canadians. In the case of the Conservatives, their policies have resonated enough in Ontario and the Maritimes to get a significant number of seats.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No. I presented the statement in response to Brian's statement that their policies would not resonate in Ontario or the Maritimes. What I meant to say was that you can't claim the Conservatives don't represent Canadian values, while somehow the Liberals (or other parties) do.
> 
> In my opinion, all parties represent the legitimate viewpoints of Canadians. In the case of the Conservatives, their policies have resonated enough in Ontario and the Maritimes to get a significant number of seats.


Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I would however disagree that it was policy which garnered seats east of Manitoba. For instance, my Father voted Con for the first time in his life. His was a protest vote against the Libs. I think there was a significant number of people who voted in this fashion.
Not Scientific by any means, but a common theme just the same.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Quotes!!!! Harpers!!!!!! oh my such an invitation. :clap: Do youy not know the background of the leader you want to elect???? Other Canadians DO - hence the 18% figure.



> We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system."
> 
> - Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, October 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Want more - THE moderate conservative voice - Joe Clark



> "In a sense, people are so enraged at the Liberal government, that they're giving Stephen Harper and his government a bye. They should take a look at what he proposes."
> 
> - Former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark, April 26th 2004, accusing Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of harbouring a "hidden" agenda. Reported in the Globe and Mail.
> 
> ...


Now how closely do you align with these positions??Do you perhaps see why there is such a low regard for Harper as possible PM.

How do you think these positions play in moderate minds??? It's neoCon all the way and one thing alone .......Canadians DO NOT want to like the US or integrate with the US.....especially the current regime.

Martin's financial and international track record is sterling. He inherits a terrible political situation within his own party and so far he has not shown himself to be a good politician calling an unnecessary election and getting hammered for doing so.

This parliament so far sucks.
But few Canadians including moderates like Joe Clark want anything to do with Harper's version of Canada.

The Libs have things to fix....so do the Cons.....the first thing is their leader....there is only so far "voting to punish" will carry.

Think about the conditions on the last election and the Cons STILL could not reach the combined % of the previous two parties.

NOW do you see that while the Libs have much to answer for the alternative represented by the current Cons is far too scary even to contemplate.


----------



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

I met Joe Clark once in Calgary. He is a fine person, who deserved better (and a longer stay as PM).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Geez, MacDoc, give it a rest. You are after all, only ONE Canadian.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Vandave: As far as Iraq goes, I didn’t support the US going into Iraq without the support of its allies. Had they put effective pressure on Iraq and waited, perhaps the war could have been avoided. But, what’s done is done and I base my vote on future issues, not past ones.


So, by those criteria, are you saying you going to ignore the Adscam debacle in basing your vote???? I'm confused.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent summary of the situation in the Star today and it nails it exactly - it's up to Harper to make Ontario comfortable.

_BTW Sinc- I didn't start the Liberal bashing again. Look to your lip flappers for that dubious distinction. They already likely put off a few dozen might have been Harper voters........champagne on the plane n'all_



> Apr.*9, 2005. 08:29*AM
> 
> *Liberal fortunes tied to Harper
> PM done if Tories do well in Ontario*
> ...


If the Bloc tables a non confidence then it will be up to Harper to make the call....and THAT may hurt him one way OR the other. Duceppe's pretty canny.
Anyone know the exact split these days.

This is a perfect description....._And while I suspect that few actively dislike Martin, I'm also picking up a growing feeling of disappointment in him — a sense that he's a fine fellow, an able finance minister, but not someone who's up to the top job._

Quite frankly I'm disappointed in the entire parliament right now tho Layton has little say in the matter.

Could there be a Bob Rae style surprise in the wings??? Ontario did it once when an unnecessary election was called..........  

Wouldn't THAT be a fitting ........pox on them all.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Could there be a Bob Rae style surprise in the wings??? Ontario did it once when an unnecessary election was called..........
> 
> Wouldn't THAT be a fitting ........pox on them all.


Oh god, you just gave me a headache, where's the Advil, no wait, Bob Rae scenario will require Tylenol 3's.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well there is a glimmer of that situation. The NDP are up 5.5% as of today's polls and the "anybody but the Cons" voters may be showing up there.

Libs and Cons have swapped places 25 versus 36 for the Cons if an election were held now with the NDP at 20.5%.

So the edges of the Lib support are shredding - 5 to the Cons 5 to the NDP.

•••

Ugh this is not going to be good for the economy - the "Quebec factor" is already being discussed. What a mess. !! 

Somebody do up a poll with separate questions
Party
Leader
and Second choice of party

Might be interesting.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Brian Scully said:


> His party, being western based, on the religious right and creationists will never resonate with Ontario and the Maritimes and while the Liberals in Quebec may indeed suffer its not to the benefit of his party.


Never sure came along quickly. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals in Ontario with 40% support to the Liberals 33% support.

Wow, the public's response to the latest Gomery findings are much greater than I would have guessed. I wonder if the anger will last until the next election. The NDP and Bloc are probably salivating for an early election. I think the Conservatives are now going to be in the drivers seat for the remainder of this Parliament since the Liberals will do anything to avoid an early election.

Who commands Parliament now?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Who commands Parliament now?


I would suspect the Liberal's if smart enough will just focus the debate in parliament on issues where they know they can count on the support of the NDP and the Bloc.

Think about it, what do the NDP and Bloc have to gain by allowing an election to be called?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Bloc has a lot to gain if it becomes the senior partner - the NDP perhaps as well as they will get the Red Liberal vote.

It's whether the Cons could survive 3 left of centre "partners" in a minority situation.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Very surprising numbers today. I think Duceppe has pretty much come to the conclusion (based on his statements on Question Period) that any form of Con government is not in the best interest of Quebec. That being said, he has got to be thinking that a Con government is in the best interest of sovereignty in the not so near term. However, Charest has 3 years left, so defeating the Liberals now is not in his best interest until the PQ is in Government and can call a referandum. Short term Quebec goals are much better served by the Libs.
Pretty interesting times in Canadian politics. Harper has got to be beside himself, salivating for an election he probably won't get. Layton would never bring the government down, given the polls as they stand today. Unless he's blinded by power, which is not the impression "I" get. He's not in a position to do so anyway.
Harper and Martin, and it's all about Duceppe!


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Who commands Parliament now?


Duceppe!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Very surprising numbers today. I think Duceppe has pretty much come to the conclusion (based on his statements on Question Period) that any form of Con government is not in the best interest of Quebec. That being said, he has got to be thinking that a Con government is in the best interest of sovereignty in the not so near term. However, Charest has 3 years left, so defeating the Liberals now is not in his best interest until the PQ is in Government and can call a referandum. Short term Quebec goals are much better served by the Libs.
> Pretty interesting times in Canadian politics. Harper has got to be beside himself, salivating for an election he probably won't get. Layton would never bring the government down, given the polls as they stand today. Unless he's blinded by power, which is not the impression "I" get. He's not in a position to do so anyway.
> Harper and Martin, and it's all about Duceppe!


The NDP have increased their numbers by 33% (from 15% to 20%). I am not sure how this would translate into seats for them, but I bet they are crunching the numbers right now. If it does translate into significantly more seats for them, then I think they might push for an election.

Right now, the Liberals and NDP combined cannot pass legislation (less than 50% of seats). This dilutes the power of the NDP. However, if they were to get more seats and could join with another party (Liberal or Conservative) to get greater than 50% of the vote, then I think they would prefer that situation.

I guess the question to ask is whether the NDP would be a willing partner with the Conservatives to form a minority government after the next election? Or would the Conservatives have to pander to right of centre Liberals to pass legislation? (I'm assuming the Conservatives are going to win a minority government.)

As far as the PQ goes, the next few years will be their last kick at the can. Younger Quebecors want to stay in Canada and PQ supporters will slowly die off. So maybe you are right that they prefer a Conservative government. But, the Conservatives have similar thoughts as the Bloc when it comes to increased provincial authority. Perhaps the Bloc believes they could obtain more power for Quebec under a Conservative government.

Yes it is interesting times. I really wonder if Martin has the ability to command the commons right now. I wonder if some of the backbench MPs are getting worried and would consider crossing the floor (if not by party, by vote). I know the MP from Edmonton is considering it.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> (I'm assuming the Conservatives are going to win a minority government.)


Don't know about that, 40% in Ontario plus the western power base = Majority! They would probably need to pick up a few in the Maritimes but not many.
That possibility is not on Layton's wish list. But Layton and the NDP are irrelevant to this particular situation. It's up to Duceppe what happens.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*last poll and election night results*

just in case y'all forgot

HORSE RACE - FINAL RESULTS:
Liberals: 26.67%
Conservatives: 37.32%
New Democrats: 32.51%
Bloc Quebecois: 1.66%
Other: 1.84

ACTUAL RESULTS:
Liberals: 36.7%
Conservatives: 29.6%
New Democrats: 15.7%
Bloc Quebecois: 12.4%
Other: 5.6%


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Won't happen again.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Champagne on the plane.

Don't discount a backlash - It takes two parties not Liberal to pull the plug - one is NOT going to be NDP.

and Harper is NOT popular in Ontario or with women so it would be up to individual Con candidates to pull the load. NDP also split votes with the Libs in some Western ridings so THAT might change too.

Where are 155 seats going to come from - they only currently hold 99 - that's a 56 gain for a majority.....tough row......watch out for those champagne bubbles....they're deadly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never underestimate the intelligence of average voters. They can see right through Liberal immorality, unlike dyed in the wool Liberal supporters of old. Voters will change their spots and cast a protest ballot in a heart beat, even in Ontario where Liberal support is at a 12 year low.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Tonight's neswscasts are all saying that as many as five or more Liberals are on the brink of crossing the floor to sit with the conservatives and the comments all seem to be along the line of "Martin and his sinking ship".

We should also note that the recent poll results...the ones that show a clear lead for the Conservatives while the Liberals are fading down to NDP numbers...were all taken within 24 hours after the gag order on Breault's testimony was partially lifted. Not much time for the outrage to really sink in.

And the word is that new, even more damning testimony, is still to come.
Given all of this, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Martin himself decides to roll the dice and call an election in order to limit further damage to his already shattered party. No sitting PM ever want's to go down in history as the LAST leader before the party vanished from the political scene forever. The guy in the driver's seat when the whole bus drove off the ledge and fell into the canyon. Never to be seen again.

Trouble is....a decision like that would take real leadership. And we all know by now that Martin isn't much of a leader. Merely a manager. And this thing is too big and ugly to "manage" any more. Bold steps are what is needed now...time is their enemy. But Paul doesn't have any bold steps in his dance routine.

So, he simply gets dragged along by the scuff of the neck as the Liberals go from crisis to crisis and stagger, deeply wounded, towards the inevitable end.

Must say though, Martin's certainly got that deer-caught-in-the-headlights look down pat by now. Getting really good at saying "I knew NOTHING!", too.

Hopefully that'll help him in his next job. Whatever that might be.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Martin will not call an election. That would play directly into the Cons hands. What most right-wingers seem to be forgetting is that while the public may be pissed off at the government, they are also in no mood for an election at this time. At present, the opinion polls mean little until an election is called.

As pointed out above, Duceppe is playing a very interesting game. Will he pull the plug (in which case the Cons will vote with the BQ and the Libs will lose the vote of no confidence), or will he wait? He has little to gain at this point as he's more likely to gain concessions from the Libs than a Con government. But he also must be tempted just for the sake of it.

My feeling is that the Cons maximise their seat gain by defeating the government sooner rather than later. Indeed, even though pulling the plug may cost them the consternation of voters, they may do it since waiting may lose a lot more potential seats.

My prediction is that Harper will table a vote of no confidence within the next couple of weeks because he knows that to wait would allow more time for the Libs to ameliorate the damage (as well as more time for the Libs to point out where Stephen Harper is hiding his policies). Gilles Duceppe may still beat him to it....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Quotes!!!! Harpers!!!!!! oh my such an invitation. :clap: Do youy not know the background of the leader you want to elect???? Other Canadians DO - hence the 18% figure.


Thanks for all the quotes MacDoc. It’s not fair to cut and paste from other webpages  

I can’t possibly go through them all and rationalize what he said. I probably agree with about half of the quotes and some of them are of concern. However, I imagine many of these concerning quotes are taken out of context (e.g. culture of defeat...). 

To be fair, I’ll pick and choose a few that I like and dislike.

Likes:

Harper - "What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]." 

Me – Great idea. Health care to me is about ACCESS, not delivery. I don’t care who delivers it. If it can be done a more effective way in the private sector, why not do it this way?

Harper - "It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

Me – I disagree that we are not a bilingual country, but he has a valid observation in that it is different than some other countries (e.g. in Europe). Practically speaking, Quebec is really the only bilingual province in Canada. Most English Canadian’s outside of Quebec don’t speak French. I support Quebec in their desire to preserve their language as it is an integral part of their culture and therefore, Canada as well. However, the language police go a little to far at times. 

Harper - "I know this is a dangerous subject. My advisors say don't talk about it, but the fact is sometimes provinces have allowed in the past few years, they've brought in private services covered by public health insurance... Why do I care and why do we care as a federal government how they're managed? What we care about is whether people can access them. This is just an ideological agenda."

Me – I love it. See above. If you agree the budget has a limit, there are only two fundamental ways to change Health Care (presumably you agree we have a problem). One is Access and the other is Delivery. Most Canadians don't want to change the Access part of the equation (including Conservatives like myself). So, why are so many people scared of trying different delivery options. I am not saying we shoudl privatize everything overnight. Let’s experiment in different regions and see if it works. If it doesn’t then let’s try something else. At least we would be trying something new. He’s right that the Liberals and NDP are pushing an ideological agenda.

Harper - "Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan... Collect our own revenue from personal income tax... Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts... [E]ach province should raise its own revenue for health... It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta... "

Me – 70% of funding for Health Care is provincial. I think the provinces should have the most say in how it is delivered since they are footing the bill.


Dislikes:

Harper - "You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."

Me – This sounds a little intolerant to me. I imagine the PQ spouts this type of stuff every day but never gets taken to task. However, the quote about integration is a fair statement. Many immigrants choose not be involved in Canadian culture or even try to learn English or French. It’s the debate of melting pot vs. multiculturalism. I don’t believe in either extreme. I think if you come to our country, you should want to integrate (to some extent) into our culture and learn our language. My grandparents came to Canada as immigrants and they only spoke English in public even amongst other immigrants from the same country. 

Harper – Many quotes – Support for the US invasion of Iraq.

Me – As I said before, the US made a big mistake going into Iraq alone and not respecting the requests of its traditional allies. Looking forward, I think we should support the US and send troops to help rebuild the country and prevent it from turning into a civil war.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do you understand the implications of NAFTA in opening up Healthcare in certain ways to private concerns. I do, Harper does........I don't like the consequences....he does......he likes the US as a model....I don;t, many don't.

••

The quotes were simply to show you WHERE the suspicions arise from. If you took the same look at say John Tory or Joe Clark or John Charest you would not get a similar ideological history.
I'm not meaning to debate each point - it's been done.....only to illustrate the discomfort source......he cannot validly claim he's centrist when he's clearly been in the NeoCon camp from an ideology standpoint.

Nothing wrong with being a NeoCon - just very unlikely to play well in central/eastern Canada.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Do you understand the implications of NAFTA in opening up Healthcare in certain ways to private concerns. I do, Harper does........I don't like the consequences....he does......he likes the US as a model....I don;t, many don't.
> 
> ••
> 
> ...


I think we need to get beyond thinking everything the US does is bad. If there are positive aspects of their Health Care system, why are we so afraid of adopting them. Stephen Harper is further to the left on the Health Care issue than the Democrats are. Harper believes in universal access. No party in the States really believes this. The Democrats give it lip service, but in 8 years, Clinton didn't do anything on it.

I don't believe that Harper thinks the US is a model of Health Care that we should follow. I would take our system over theirs in a second. But, we can still improve what we are doing. Let's quit looking south and instead look to Europe.

I had coffee with a recent immigrant from Germany and I remember him saying they had aspects of private health care delivery in their country and that it worked well. Their concept was access, not delivery. On the other side, I understand that partial privatization hasn't worked well in England. Let's learn from the success and failures of others. 

What are the implications with NAFTA? More competition? Sounds good to me as a taxpayer.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Europe is, indeed, the model that we should be looking to. I doubt if anyone on either side of the political fence wants to summarily end our Canadian Health care system. We would just like to see it work. And to become sustainable. Something that it is clearly NOT at this point.

Back to the failing Liberals:

It's almost miudnight now and all of the news services seem to be talking about the Liberal party being in deep crisis. And most are also reporting that there are "at least five prominent Liberals who are about to flee the party and go over to the Conservatives". Apparently Paul martin has sent a letter out to his MP's in a desperate attempt to hold together his demoralised and damaged party.

Good luck on THAT.

Also, some people here seem to think that this will all blow over as the months go by...and that many shocked and appalled Liberal voters will slowly wander back to the fold and resume their support for Canada's so-called "natural ruling party". They seem to be saying that, once cooler heads prevail and everyone stops and thinks about how utterly TERRIBLE that a Conservative government would be, then Liberal poll numbers will stop their freefall and begin to rise again.

Trouble is...the worst may be yet to come. There is still quite a bit more testimony that we haven't yet heard from Breault, and there are a quite number of other people still waiting to testify. And, from the looks of things, once the whole sordid mess really begins to unravel, some new people are likely to step up and begin to spill their guts about the affair. If only to skewer some higher up Liberal who was about to leave them swinging in the wind.

Then there are the upcoming criminal trials. With more criminal charges to be laid, in all probability.

The Liberal apologists are saying that their favorite party is just about at the lowest point in this particular inverted bell curve, and that everything from here should be "up". But I'm bettin that the Libs are just on the cusp of a major dive. Into a VERY deep black hole. One with with no real bottom. Just obscurity.

Chretien left quite a "legacy" all right. I just wonder if he will flee the country...or will he stay and face criminal corruption charges once the real deep investigations begin. (on other programs BESIDES the Sponsorship scandal. This is just the small tip of a very big iceberg, after all)

Those new investigations in long-term Liberal corruption at the highest levels would likely begin not too terribly long after the next federal election, BTW.

I can't wait.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What are the implications with NAFTA? More competition


.......you mean the kind of competition that has Americans streaming to Canada to buy drugs?????

.......the kind of competition that has Americans with higher per capita healthcare costs yet 20% with no healthcare and another 20% in desperation of losing their coverage which in some cases amounts to 30% of their income???

No thanks and NAFTA takes away too much control from the gov in managing the mix 

•••

BTW for the lipflappers this shoudl give some pause - especially in Ontario potential results



> *Do Tories have the guts to wait?*
> 
> By BRIAN LAGHI
> Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page A4
> ...


more>>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050412/POLLANALYSIS12/TPNational

Hmmmmmm not another Bob Rae morning in the works????? 

_[Despite the Liberal government's almost overwhelming difficulties, the survey still found that * 48 per cent of respondents are more likely to trust Paul Martin than Mr. Harper to run the country.*, regardless of what is revealed at the Gomery commission_

Fat lady n all....


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Out of all the questions in that survey I think that this is the most important one and the one that political parties should be looking at before they agree to bring down the minority government of Paul Martin.



> The Gomery Commission must be allowed to complete its investigation over the next few months before we have a federal election.
> 
> Agree: 87%
> Disagree: 11%
> ...


Laterz


----------



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

K_OS, add to this the following, and it makes for an interesting discussion topic re the actual numbers behind a decision to force an election:

Regardless of what's being revealed at the Gomery Commission, I'm more likely to trust Paul Martin as Prime Minister than Stephen Harper.

Agree: 48%
Disagree: 46%
Agree strongly: 28%
Agree somewhat: 20%


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Quote:


The Gomery Commission must be allowed to complete its investigation over the next few months before we have a federal election.

Agree: 87%
Disagree: 11%
Agree strongly: 67%
Disagree strongly: 11%
Disagree somewhat: 21%
Don't know: 2%

So, what did they do to get these numbers, survey 199% of Canadians?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

SINC said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> The Gomery Commission must be allowed to complete its investigation over the next few months before we have a federal election.
> ...


at the bottom of the Globe article there is this.

"*figures may not add to 100% due to rounding"

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> K_OS, add to this the following, and it makes for an interesting discussion topic re the actual numbers behind a decision to force an election:
> 
> Regardless of what's being revealed at the Gomery Commission, I'm more likely to trust Paul Martin as Prime Minister than Stephen Harper.
> 
> ...


Looking at the results of that survey the only conclusion that I can come up with is that the Liberals would be returned to Ottawa with a minority government but with fewer seats and the NDP and Bloq would go in with stronger numbers as they would steal seats from both the Liberals and the Cons. If there is an early election hopefully the party's can debate there vision for the future of the country instead of the mudslinging that has tarred the previous elections.

Laterz


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hmmmmmm not another Bob Rae morning in the works?????
> 
> _[Despite the Liberal government's almost overwhelming difficulties, the survey still found that * 48 per cent of respondents are more likely to trust Paul Martin than Mr. Harper to run the country.*, regardless of what is revealed at the Gomery commission_
> 
> Fat lady n all....


Does that mean 52% of respondents trust Haper equally or more than Martin?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Um no -read the survey.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Kos and macdoc are dreaming in technicolour...and clinging to whatever faint hope they can find in all this mess.

The Liberals are finished. Done. Toast. Gone.

Once the election campaign starts in earnest the poll numbers will show a Liberal Party in a deep internal upheaval. And one that has lost the moral authority to even form an effective opposition.

Further, many of the ridings that usually go to Liberals (such as in Atlantic Canada) only do so because the residents of those ridings want a local MP sitting on the Power side of the house (better chance at the trough, or something like that). Once it becomes abundantly clear that electing a Liberal will mean NOT having a local MP in the ruling government, then there will be a fast migration to some other party. Perhaps even at the last minute.

The Liberals are facing a wipeout, simple as that. It SHOULD have happened in the last election, and would have if it weren't for the fear-mongering that spewed forth during the final days.

That won't work this time around. (it shouldn't have worked LAST time out, either...but some people are very easily frightened, or so it would seem).

Understand THIS:

There is _NO WAY_ that the Canadian public are going to express their outrage against the deep corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada by _Re-ELECTING_ them to a position of power! Not a CHANCE.

Deal with this and make your peace with it. Because that's the simple reality in all of this.

And no amount of "lip-flapping" is going to make it all go away.

Trust me on this.


----------



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

Macnutt, be careful with your words. Stating "The Liberals are finished. Done. Toast. Gone." may come back to haunt you was the case with your last prediction. And, as you state "...no amount of 'lip-flapping' is going to make it all go away." The hounds of ehMacLand shall track you down and make you "eat your words". Still, last election's crow did not seem to phase you, so predict away. 

I still say that if the Liberals cannot get voters like myself strongly considering voting for them again, they shall lose. I don't see a Conservative majority govenment, in that this would take a collapse of the NDP, and I don't see that taking place either.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmmm Iron Mac maybe you should note this "prediction" and line it up across from the last election........... Macnutt as oracle series.

Macnutt does not seem to understand the his Cons haven't gained any traction. Stalled.
Notice the relative SIZE of the ball and chain.

Keep those lips flappin' :clap:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr G...the massive mistake that some people made by holding their nose and voting Liberal in the last Federal election is now becoming apparent. Even to them.

I don't expect many of them to make that same error twice.

Again...Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...just keep on clutching and clinging to studies and surveys. They might just help in flotation while you guys do the last few circles around that drain hole in the bottom of the bowl.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> There is _NO WAY_ that the Canadian public are going to express their outrage against the deep corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada by _Re-ELECTING_ them to a position of power! Not a CHANCE.


and there is no way that the Canadian public will paint all the Liberals with the same brush, with any hope this whole mess will come to an end by the time the next election is called and Paul Martin is smart enough to abide by his promise that if he is found to have been involved in AdScam then he will quit as leader. 

At worst if an election is called and the Neo-Cons do win I see them only getting in with a minority and either the NDP or the Liberals holding the balance of power in Ottawa, and after that hopefully new leadership for the Liberals should be found (ie:Brian Tobin).

Laterz


----------



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

K_OS, Brian Tobin for the Liberals, Stephen Lewis for the NDP, Joe Clark for the Conservatives..............I would vote for any of them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So *87% of those polled said they want to wait until the Gomery Commission is complete before an election is called.*

What does Mr." win their hearts and minds" Harper do??????



> Gomery's report not needed for vote: Harper
> Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Updated at 1:57 PM EST
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


What was that about "respect for the wishes of the voters yadaydayda

Nooooooooo Harper knows best.................why would anyone doubt??? 

Hey Sinc is he abiding by the wisdom of the people???????...........87% is a pretty big number of Canadians to tell to piss off.

••••

I wonder how this is going to sit in Captain America Harper's craw. That's hitting pretty close to home base. 



> *US Accused of hiding mad Cow cases*
> 
> Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Updated at 2:32 PM EST
> 
> ...


----------



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

"Nooooooooo Harper knows best.................why would anyone doubt???" Macdoc, I thought that Macnutt knew best? You'll have to get your act together if you want to play with the big boys. 

Your mantra shall be "Macnutt is correct.....Macnutt is correct". Meditate and clear your mind of all non-Macnuttian thoughts.....................See the light..............relax and be at peace with yourself and one with the universe.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Careful...Dr. G's been taking some extra eye meds today. Sombody pull him down from the ceiling before he hurts himself. Just grab his tie and tug gently...he'll drop slowly back to earth.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Dr G...the massive mistake that some people made by holding their nose and voting Liberal in the last Federal election is now becoming apparent. Even to them.
> 
> I don't expect many of them to make that same error twice.
> 
> Again...Trust me on this.


Wrong, kilt boy!
I wouldn't have voted for Chretien and his buddies again, but I _would_ vote for Martin and the current crew again. If you think voting for people with no track record and with questionable policies is an intelligent way of seeking revenge on a past government, then go ahead. Please don't expect me to be a blind follower of you. I despise what the handful of crooks did with the Sponsorship dealings. I hope they get the full justice coming to them. I'm not going to punish those that came after, or who were innocent dupes, for their predecessors wrong-doings. If I thought the current government was incompetent, I'd not vote for them again. The Liberals are not perfect, but then I can't remember a government that was. I think their best suited for running the country now, so they'll get my vote. I'm not inclined to punish myself and country for what the previous government did. Simple as that! I may be wrong, but then, maybe you are too...it's all a matter of perception and intuition.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Quick bulletin here for you, Peter:

The core of the Liberal party was VERY deeply involved in this massive scandal. Pretty much ALL of the people who are closest to Paul Martin right now got a piece of it, at some point or other.

In order to actually sperate the wheat from the foul chaff here...you'd have to pretty much gut the whole Liberal Party down to the bare chassis. And even THEN you'd still have some serious work to do with the plasma cutter.

Martin may not have had anything directly to do with this mess (he didn't need the money, after all)...but almost everyone else in any sort of a close power position in the Liberal Party certainly DID. We can either dump them and punish them for their theft of our money...or let them back in and tell them that it is actually all right to steal from us. Again and again.


And...by the way...got ANOTHER big bulletin for ya, while we are at it:

This is NOT the only massive corruption scandal. This is, actually just the small tip of a very BIG iceberg. Much of this huge iceberg will be revealed to all of us as the months and years go by.

And you won't like it one little bit. None of us will. It's worse than you could possibly imagine.

Still want to support the Liberals? Still think that there is anything good in that tainted group that's worth supporting?

Your choice.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Martin may not have had anything directly to do with this mess (he didn't need the money, after all)...but almost everyone else in any sort of a close power position in the Liberal Party certainly DID. We can either dump them and punish them for their theft of our money...or let them back in and tell them that it is actually all right to steal from us. Again and again.


See, Martin already dumped pretty much everyone who was in a position of power during the Chretien period, and instituted the commission which will likely find them out and punish them.

You have to two choices in the matter: 
a) continue to tar all liberals with the same brush
b) be reasonable

Make up your mind.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not even close PosterBoy.

Several major Canadian political pundits and reporters have been asked this very same question in the past few days. It's been all over the news BTW.

The same answer that we keep on hearing?

The people who are now running the show...often beind the scenes in positions of serious power...are the VERY SAME LIBERAL workers and appointees who were doing these jobs when Chretien was looting the place. Nothing has changed. Only a few prominent sacrafices have been made at this point in time. The big and small players are still very much in place. And likely doing what they have always done.

Removing all of them would GUT the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. It would tear the very core right out of the whole party and leave it a wasted shell of it's former self.

Which is EXACTLY what I fully expect to happen...right after the upcoming Federal Election. 

Should be quite a spectacle. I plan to get a six pack and some popcorn and a very comfortable chair to watch it all.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> The people who are now running the show...often beind the scenes in positions of serious power...are the VERY SAME LIBERAL workers and appointees who were doing these jobs when Chretien was looting the place. Nothing has changed. Only a few prominent sacrafices have been made at this point in time. The big and small players are still very much in place. And likely doing what they have always done.


That's quite possible, but the size of government is quite large and many would have specific jobs that would not give them privy to the darker secrets of the operation. Most were probably "just doing their job". That's like saying if a bank had an embezzlement scandal that all tellers, clerks, loan officers and the manager would have known and should be fired. If someone manged to sabotoge/taint one of your water loads, it may hurt your company reputation for a while, but should you never be permitted to sell water again?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Just an observation, but I might just agree not to vote for the Liberals if MacNutt agreed not to continue the deluge of rhetorical tripe. Of course, I wouldn't be voting for the Cons either since their message seems to be restricted to the same destructive rhetoric as MacNutts.

I am very worried about the Canada Health Act. Harper has the potential to unravel a truly defining Canadian value through an election based not on his policies but by an exaggerated scandal and its consequent retribution.

Indeed, what authority would a Conservative government have if it was elected based on what it wasn't rather than what it is? It would certainly NOT represent a shift in thinking of the people to the Right - no matter what the shrill former Reform party psycophants would have you believe. Indeed, I'm most pissed off at the Liberals for recklessly putting the country at risk of fundamental political changes that will not have been adequately considered by the electorate.

The least Harper could do is to present his true vision for the country. At least that would give people something to vote for (or against).


----------



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

Gerry, re your comment "Careful...Dr. G's been taking some extra eye meds today. Sombody pull him down from the ceiling before he hurts himself.", I'll make a deal with you. I won't take anymore saline solution, which is the only thing I take for my eye, if you won't make anymore insensitive comments about the health of various people? Is it a deal?


----------



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

PB, re your comment ("You have to two choices in the matter: 
a) continue to tar all liberals with the same brush b) be reasonable"), I shall say "Well put!!" I wonder if the person I voted for in the last election, who was a provincial Liberal here in NL and ran federally, had won? I could no sooner blast him for the graft of the previous administration than I could jump off of my roof and survive unhurt. He is a fine and decent person, who lost to the Conservative, who is also a fine and decent person.

Being reasonable and open minded is the pragmatic solution just now. Paix.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Gratuitous Applesauce was also expected to show up. We had some pretty pertinent questions for him, as well.
> 
> But...oddly enough...all of these left/lib guys seem to be taking the week off from this forum.
> 
> ...


and ...


MacNutt said:


> Many hours later, and there is STILL no sign of the most vocal defendants of the Canadian Liberal Party.
> 
> They seem to be taking a powder right now. And they are ALL choosing to remain totally silent...for the very first time in living memory, here at ehmac.
> 
> ...


and...


MacNutt said:


> Still, there is complete and total silence around here from the usual hard-line Liberal supporters


MacNutt, how nice of you to remember me when I’m gone. I get back to my island home to discover that I haven’t been forgotten. Lovely.

Sad that you don’t seem to have the ability to comprehend anything I’ve said in any of my posts and put me in the “hard-line Liberal supporter” camp. A case of severe cranial-rectal inversion perhaps?

Can you tell me where, in any of my posts, I’ve come out as a Liberal supporter? Do I need to issue a challenge to you, such as the one you are currently failing at with IronMac?

I believe on several occasions I’ve referred to both Chretien and Martin in derogatory fashion. I believe I’ve made use of the lovely term “degenerate power whore” that appeared in post #1 of this thread to refer to many in the Liberal party, as well as other parties. I only happen to dislike Harper more, so I guess that makes me a Liberal supporter using your twisted logic.

MacNutt, maybe you can’t read or can’t be bothered to, but when you’re crafting your usual propoganda can you please refrain from misrepresenting my point of view? Especially when I’m not home at my computer to set you right.

Oh and MacNutt, please note, you are not the only person on this board who has a business to attend to on occasion. Your snide comments about remaining silent out of embarrassment are just cheap trolling crap. Please refrain from implying that you might have any idea at all why I might not immediately reply to your rhetoric within the hour. Because you don’t. Got it?


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I Like the Doc G Approach, if this situation really is the tip of the Iceberg then it shall be revealed. I'm really glad that this was finaly brought to light. 

Pfft, Canada might be more fun split into little nations anyway, we can really complicate things then. Trade barriers, "Mild Skirmishes" between Nova Scotia, PEI and Cape Breton, The Doxie Party can Rule the Island, but Labrador will be taken by Quebec.

Governments are powerful, so to think that there is not corruption at all levels is just blind. All ya can really do is live your life as good as possible, try not to hurt anyone, think before you commit to words or witing, care for those around you and Feel the good, let the negitive pass through you like a Ghost.

Try to set an example for your government. When the Government sees how happy you are it might see that your way of life is much better and decide to play nice and use your tax dollars in the way that you want. 

How do these upper managers in our Government get so greedy? I will never understand! is it survival, does their family need a loaf of bread. I'm unemployed but I would of help Gagliano out if I knew he was starving! 

I think we have a pretty good government, it just has too much power and, it has been said before, we need accountability, I'd love to go through Canada's financial statements, Can you get those online???


----------



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

"The Doxie Party can Rule the Island, but Labrador will be taken by Quebec." "Live Free of Die" and "Death before dishonor". A different approach, I trust.

Still, it is a sad state of affairs when a party is potentially brought down due to the actions of some of its members. I have never believed in "guilt by association".


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Yeah, I never really thought of that until Sunday... When I heard Francois Boivin speak, shows ya what lettin the Angry rule the mind does eh! There are good people in our Government, and I guess we have to trust in that, as we trust in ourselves, to do what is right and just....or sumthing like that!


----------



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

VC, I keep thinking how I would feel if I was a member of the Liberal party as an MP. I would not take any sort of money, and would probably be a "whistle blower" if I heard of such things. I am outraged that our hard earned tax dollars went to a select few persons who advanced their own cause and not Canada's. However, this select few should go to jail, and not the loyal Canadians who serve the Liberal party.....or the NDP, or Conservative party. Not sure if I could call BQ members "loyal Canadians".


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

It's so easy to put labels on things, requires less thought ya know!! and it's much easier for people to blame the wole party rather than specific people (Less names to remember) I think it is really good to hear different liberal perspective on this topic.


----------



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

VC, I have never been able to understand the simplicity of "one way thinking". Yes, it is simplier to have a "black and white" perspective on issues, but what happens when contradictory information and/or facts are taken into account? In cognitive theory, Jean Piaget called this process "assimilation and accommodation". This is the way young children learn. As new experiences/ideas are assimilated, the intellect needs to accommodate this new info. Thus, every four legged animal is not a "kitty", just as not every Liberal is a crook. Hopefully, Macnutt shall attain this level of intellect at some point in his life. We shall see.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Bwahahahahahaha, yup, we can hope....


----------



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

VC, a child of five would understand this. Quick! Send someone to fetch a child of five to explain this to Macnutt.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Sometimes the ego can be so busy trying to intelectualize emotion (which I have been guilty of on this board, yikes) that one does not develop the whole picture of what is actually happening. 

You pay in the end for hasty decisions that are not thought through. I'm glad people have been kind enogh to be patient with me when I speak somewhat freely. That is really Important.

I don't always see other's persectives, but they sure make me laugh! So it's all good!


----------



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

May I add these to "Quotations from VC"? (e.g., "You pay in the end for hasty decisions that are not thought through. I'm glad people have been kind enogh to be patient with me when I speak somewhat freely. That is really Important.")


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey MacNutt, you never did answer my question back from post #216 of this thread. Am I to assume you then do believe that your good buddy Harpo is lying about supporting PR? You'll silence only confirms this.

Here's what was said to refresh your memory, I'll repost what was said. I know you've kept yourself oh-so-busy lately, gleefully gloating about the current Liberal scandal:


MacNutt said:


> The very BEST way to completely disarm an obviously flawed idea is to take it under "serious study". This makes the wild-eyed adherents believe that something is being done...and it gives you some traction later on to explain just exactly why you decided that it was as dead as socialism or esperanto. Or the Great Auk.


So your explanation of Harpo's endorsement of PR is that he's lying? And that PR is just a commie plot and Harpo is only trying to act as if he's doing something about it? But just to be clear, you are happily endorsing this liar to head our government? Interesting.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No, GA...I don't remember implying that Stephen Harper is lying about this. I simply said that he was going to take it under study.

After a suitable time of study, I suspect that he will come to the logical conclusion that many of the rest of us have and abandon the idea.

Many of us have taken the bold ideas of socialism and communism and collectivism under study, as well. And...after a suitable period of study, we have completely abandoned them as unworkable. For obvious reasons.

This isn't "lying". It's just common sense.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Meanwhile......back to the "Truth about the Liberals":

More allegations and sworn testimony today about envelopes stuffed with cash being passed under the table to prominent Liberals. They are also talking about making some immigrants into "instant Canadians" and the selling of judicial appointments. For money and for support to the Liberal Party.

Instant Canadians and instant Judges. Step right up folks and get yer instant judges robes. Or your instant citizenship. Pay the man on the right before you do. Preferably in small untraceable bills and ONLY in cash. 

What an unholy mess.


----------

